Last flight of Concordski?

Well that was all very gentlemanly. Well done. You’ll do all the mods out of a job 🙂

Actually when the KGB archives were opened in the 1990s their espionage efforts against Concorde were there for all to see, yes, they did copy or at least ‘take inspiration’ from a good slice of BAC project work…..like it or not, it’s a fact

As I misunderstood what he was doing, I responded a bit sharply, and I apologize for that.

Apology accepted. I least we have more information now from a knowledgeable source.

Why am I not surprised to find the same old arrogant attitudes coming to the fore. Again. It really puts me off this place.

I´ve also wondered about this “LL” programme. It seemed like a awful lot of effort to re-engine and unmothball one fo these aircraft to make only six flights. It makes me wonder if there were some doubts about the airframe? It must have been sitting around for a long time somewhere. Open storage?

Its also worth pointing out that the Tu-144 underwent a fairly substantial redesign between the early prototypes and the later aircraft with the canards. The engine nacelles were completely new, the undercarriage relocated and the wing profile changed, amongst others. Of course Concorde was also modified during development but not to anything like the same extent.

Interesting thread, I recall a documentary a few years ago (BBC maybe? It will probaby surface on the History channel or some such every week…..) which went over the Mirage theory, I am not sure what a single seat supersonic fighter could observe (from cloud?) that a ground observer could not – but I am not an expert. There was also some detail on the lengths that the Russians went to, so they could at least observe the Concorde programme which included taking samples of tyre remnants left on runways etc.

1. It seemed to me that Newforest, if he already had the info and wanted to spread it to more people, could (and should) have posted at least the basic info in his originating-post, so as to provide a foundation for the discussion. His not having done so seemed to indicate that he didn’t know, and wanted someone else to provide the information.

2. Since the info was so easily available, asking for someone else to look it up appeared to be laziness.

As I misunderstood what he was doing, I responded a bit sharply, and I apologize for that.

For many years the French denied the presence of a Mirage anywhere in the area at the time of the crash.

The French have since admitted that there was a Mirage near the Tu-144, but stated that that “they were not in danger of colliding, but the Tu-144 pilot ‘may have been startled’, which led to his over-reaction”.

Whether the Mirage was attempting to photograph the Tu-144’s canards in flight, or was simply there due to confusion caused by the recent changes in the airshow schedule remains subject to debate.

The object of the thread was bringing this subject to a wider audience for the general benefit of the Forum. Thank you for your help in this mission.

I wouldn’t take it too personally. Some people have forgotten that to keep the forum alive is to post on it. If we google everything then we would never spark interesting debate.
Now, to widen the Concordski thread a little.

I read an article in a leading magazine some years ago that said the crash of Concordski could have been due to a shadowing Mirage Fighter that caused the TU to take avoiding action causing overstress. There was a cover up and the usual conspiracy theory. The shadowing fighter was in cloud and so never seen by the public.
Has anyone heard this before and can offer any credence to it?
It sounded unlikely to me but as it appeared in a leading magazine (can’t remember which one, was a few years ago now) but was so strange it could be true?

As for the inaccurate “Concordski”* bit you seem to believe, the USSR would have needed a time machine in order to have stolen data from the Concord program to design the Tu-144.

Development of both aircraft was initiated at the same time… the late 1950s.

Concorde originated as two separate designs by the Bristol Aircraft Company of the UK (Type 223) and Sud-Aviation of France (Super-Caravelle). By 1962 the UK and France had agreed to merge their programs, and jointly develop a new design based mostly on the BAC-223.

The basic designs for both the BAC 223 and Super-Caravelle were ready for prototype construction by then, but the merging of the programs and subsequent re-design meant that actual construction didn’t start until February 1965.

First flight was 2 March 1969.

Tu-144 was under development as one of several “theoretical” designs from the late 1950s as well, and the design was publicly announced on January 1962. Construction of the prototype was authorized in July 1963, and began soon thereafter.

First flight was on 31 December 1968.

Development and construction of the Tu-144 prototype was actually ahead of Concorde, and the aerodynamic design is considered superior – mainly due to the use of canards to alleviate low-speed handling issues common to all highly-swept delta-winged aircraft – something Concorde did not have, due to its superior flight-control system.

Concorde possessed a superior braking system and engine controls, and the USSR did attempt to steal the designs of these, but the main flaws with the Tu-144 – poor metallurgy of structural components and low manufacturing quality of other aircraft systems – could not have been aided in any way by any amount of “theft of plans of Concorde”.

The actual airframe structures had significant differences as well, most of which were poorer on the Tu-144 and better on Concord. This is contrary to the “conspiracy-theory” claims of the USSR having the entire Concorde blueprints by 1965 and incorporating the Concorde design into the Tu-144.

There is no way the Tu-144 is a copy of Concorde, or even incorporates significant parts of that design, as it would have been a better aircraft if it had!

* This name indicates that the aircraft is supposed to be a copy of another, the name of the aircraft copied is used with a “ski” suffix.

I see… using an internet search engine is too difficult for you, so you want us to do it for you.

The object of the thread was bringing this subject to a wider audience for the general benefit of the Forum. Thank you for your help in this mission.

I see… using an internet search engine is too difficult for you, so you want us to do it for you.

I used Google, and used “TU-144 NASA” as the search terms.

This was the first result: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html

The Tu-144LL: A Supersonic Flying Laboratory

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teamed with American and Russian aerospace industries over a five-year period in a joint international research program to develop technologies for a proposed future second-generation supersonic airliner to be developed in the 21st century. The centerpiece of the project was the Tu-144LL, a former first-generation Russian supersonic jetliner that was modified by its developer, Tupolev ANTK, into a flying laboratory for supersonic research.

Using the Tu-144LL to conduct flight experiments allowed researchers to compare full-scale supersonic aircraft flight data with results from models in wind tunnels, computer-aided techniques and other flight tests. The flight experiments provided unique aerodynamic, structures, acoustics and operating environment data on supersonic passenger aircraft.

Six flight and two ground experiments were conducted during the program’s first flight phase, which began in June 1996 and concluded in February 1998 after 19 research flights. A shorter follow-on program involving about seven flights began in September 1998 and concluded in April 1999. All flights were conducted in Russia from Tupolev’s facility at the Zhukovsky Air Development Center near Moscow.

Tu-144LL Modifications

The aircraft flown in NASA’s research program was a “D” model and was the last Tu-144 built. Bearing tail number 77114, it was constructed in 1981 and had logged a total flight time of only 82 hours and 40 minutes, most of that for research and test purposes, before being selected for the NASA-sponsored program. It was never used in commercial service.

The aircraft underwent many upgrades and modifications in its conversion to the “LL” Flying Laboratory, including the installation of more powerful NK-321 augmented-turbofan engines that were originally produced for the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.

A new Damien digital data collection system replaced an earlier analog system to collect airworthiness data and data from the experiments. Thermocouples, pressure sensors, microphones and skin friction gauges were placed on the Tu-144LL to measure the aerodynamic boundary layer—the layer where the air interacts with the surfaces of a moving aircraft. It also carried a significant number of other research instruments. An emergency crew escape system was also installed.
Flight and Ground Experiments

Out of 50 experiments originally proposed, project officials selected eight, including six flight and two ground engine experiments, for the first phase of flight research. The flight experiments included studies on the aircraft’s exterior surface, internal structure and engine temperatures, boundary layer airflow, the wing’s ground effect characteristics, interior and exterior noise, handling qualities in various flight profiles, and in-flight structural flexibility. The two ground experiments, completed before the flight experiments began, studied the effect of air inlet structures on the airflow entering the engine and the effect on engine performance when supersonic shock waves rapidly change position in the engine air inlet.

The second phase of research flights entailed further study of the six flight experiments conducted during the first series. Additional instrumentation was installed by Tupolev technicians to assist in acquisition and analysis of data. A new experiment aimed at measurement of in-flight deflections of the wing and fuselage was conducted, and American-supplied transducers and sensors were installed to measure nose boom pressures, angle-of-attack and sideslip angles with greater accuracy. In addition, two NASA research pilots—Robert Rivers of NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., and Gordon Fullerton of NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.—assessed the Tu-144LL’s handling qualities at subsonic and supersonic speeds during the first three flights in September 1998. The follow-on series concluded after four data-collection flights in the spring of 1999.
Aircraft Specifications

The modified Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory used for the NASA flight research program has essentially the same dimensions as the Tu-144D model, although the new engines installed for the program give it improved performance. The aircraft has a wingspan of 94 feet, 6 inches, an overall length of 215 feet, 6 inches, and a height of 42 feet 2 inches. Its nose droops up to 12 degrees for better pilot visibility on takeoff and landing, and retractable canards are extended to give the aircraft better pitch control at low airspeeds. Maximum takeoff weight of the Tu-144LL is about 410,000 pounds, including a full load of 224,000 pounds of fuel.

The newer Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofan engines, rated at more than 55,000 pounds thrust in full afterburner, give the aircraft a maximum cruising speed above Mach 2.3 (about 1,550 mph). These engines also give the Tu-144LL a greatly improved range of about 3,500 nautical miles (4,040 statute miles/6,500 km).

Before being upgraded to the “LL” configuration, the Tu-144D was powered by four Koliesov RD-36-51 turbojets which gave it a maximum cruising speed of Mach 2.15 (2.15 times the speed of sound or approximately 1,450 mph) at 59,000 feet altitude. It had a maximum range of less than 2,500 miles and an absolute ceiling of 62,000 feet. The Tu-144D was designed to carry up to 140 passengers, although earlier models used in actual passenger service were configured for only 100 seats.

The Tu-144LL is constructed mostly of a light aluminum alloy. Titanium and stainless steel were used for the leading edges, elevons, rudder and under-surface of the rear fuselage.
Technology Commercialization

Data collected from the flight and ground experiments during the NASA-funded Tu-144LL flight research program are being used to develop the technology base for a proposed future second-generation American-built supersonic jetliner. Although development of an advanced SST is currently on hold, commercial aviation experts estimate a market for up to 500 such aircraft could develop by the third decade of the 21st century.

Among the technological goals set for the aircraft is that it must be environmentally acceptable in the areas of noise generation and pollution control, i.e., the engine exhaust must not contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. At the same time, it must be economically viable, that is, be able to carry larger payloads for longer distances and at cheaper costs than first-generation SSTs. Among the targets are a 300 passenger capacity (three times that of first-generation SSTs), a range of 5,000 nautical miles (twice that of first-generation SSTs), and an efficiency which would allow fares to be set at no more than 20 percent above subsonic jetliner fares on the same routes.
Project Management

The Tu-144LL supersonic research program was conducted as part of NASA’s High Speed Research (HSR) program, managed by NASA Langley Research Center. The Tu-144LL project established direct working relationships between American and Russian aircraft manufacturers and enhanced the relationship between U.S. and Russian aeronautical agencies.

The project was enabled by an agreement signed in June 1994 by U.S. Vice President Al Gore Jr. and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. The Langley Research Center subsequently contracted with the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group which in turn contracted with the Russian aerospace firm for use of the modified Tu-144D jetliner to conduct the flight experiments. In addition to Boeing, the American industry team for the Tu-144LL project included engine manufacturers Pratt and Whitney and General Electric. NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center provided instrumentation and data processing support as well as management of the actual flight test project. IBP, Ltd., London, England, assisted with contract management.