12 ms·

The Soviet Union’s Flawed Rival to Concorde

107 points by fpoling 9y ago

the-dude 9y ago
From the BBC. And the Concorde was an astounding succes and had no flaws whatsoever. /s
- djaychela 9y ago
  Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Concorde had its faults (and obviously the crash was a terrible incident and the nail in its coffin), but it was a staggering achievement to make a supersonic airliner that worked in a regular, scheduled manner. The engineering challenges that it faced were immense, and I've heard it said (can't find the source) that it was considered by many to be more of an achievement than landing on the moon because it made travelling across the Atlantic at Mach 2 'routine'. Concorde made nearly 50,000 flights. The Tu-144 made 55. The TU-144 had a significant number of failures, including the two crashes (Paris Air show, delivery flight). I really think it's difficult to see the two as being anywhere near the same league.
  - the-dude 9y ago
    > Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Not so much against the TU-144, but to the Russians in general. The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me. I hear drums beating. And wherever the US goes ... I am not arguing the rest of your points : fair enough.
    - adventured 9y ago
      > The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of the article you were lambasting without supporting argumentation. Rather, it comes across as a cheap bailout excuse for your original comment. What would any US effort to paint Russia as an aggressor, have to do with what you said about the BBC + the Concorde vs the Tu-144? Where would anything to do with being an aggressor, play into that?
      - the-dude 9y ago
        I believe such public relation campaigns are much broader and are aimed at emotions more than facts. Please take a look, a look at how silly our enemy is. edit: a bit like a (PG) submarine
        adventured 9y ago
        I certainly understand the PR wars that nations fight, whether the US / Britain / Russia / China / et al. I don't see how that relates to US accusations of Russian aggression and the quality of the Tu-144 that the BBC article is discussing. For example, you haven't refuted anything about what the article actually says regarding the plane's deficiencies. If one were to follow your premise here to its logical conclusion, it would lead to this: you can never negatively critique anything created by the Soviet Union, or you're working for the US in a PR war against modern Russia.
    - rimliu 9y ago
      How do you call a country annexing a part of other country if not agressor?
      - dang 9y ago
        Please keep generic politics off HN. I know the parent post started the move, but completing the descent into off-topic hell is precisely the wrong response. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - avmich 9y ago
    > I really think it's difficult to see the two as being anywhere near the same league. I really don't understand why it's difficult to you. 55 flights aren't a success by chance. What you've said about staggering achievement fully applies to Tu-144. The creators were facing same challenges, and had to solve them in the same time - and got the plane flyable, if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s. We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight, but I don't see how that makes them incomparable.
    - SaltySolomon 9y ago
      Well, I think it depends on what you compare the two airplanes, if you go after technical prowess like speed or range, then they are comparable. But if you compare reliablility, security and practicability than the Concord is just hands down a much better airplane. Because a 4% chance to crash with the plane is just abysmal.
    - autokad 9y ago
      > "We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight" It was clear 40 years ago. those who understood the area knew it had 0 chance at being a competitor. was the tu-144 a success? by many metrics yes. was it at all comparable to the concorde? absolutely not. > "if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s." Nasa has to re-fit the craft, including engines.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- neximo64 9y ago
  I think even the RT could tell you there's been no other way to travel supersonic in the civilian era, even today - Nearly half a century on from the first flight.
  - robin_reala 9y ago
    There are at least a couple of ways to get supersonic as a civilian, albeit not exactly travel and not exactly cheap: - http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-fulcrum-in-russia.html http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-... - http://www.spaceadventures.com/ http://www.spaceadventures.com/
- sctb 9y ago
  Could you please comment only if you can do so civilly and substantively? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thriftwy 9y ago
I think they hoped to get it out of the door to try things on and then replace with gen-2 supersonics which were no doubt to arrive. As you know they never materialized due to lack of reasonable economic demand. I think the sadder story are Soviet high-speed trains. There were one or two, they did some speed records, worked on some experimental routes and never got wide adoption. Only in the last 15 years there's finally some viable high-speed options. Including one of Soviet designs incidentally.
- lmm 9y ago
  Seems like there's a commonality with Britain there. We had a world-leading high-speed train design (the APT), rushed into a press demonstration 6 months before it was ready; the project was cancelled but the technology found its way to Italy and then, more recently, back into trains that are now used on the route for which the design was originally intended.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    >the technology found its way to Italy Is this also related to the problematic and eventually scrapped Dutch high-speed Fyra trains?
    - martinald 9y ago
      No, totally different train afiak. I don't think the Fyra trains will tilt (no need as they run on new lines designed for high speed operation).
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      It went to Fiat Ferroviaria (now part of Alstom), not AnsaldoBreda (now part of Hitachi Rail) who built the Fyra.
    - lmm 9y ago
      They have a common heritage. The APT design was developed into the FS ETR 400 which was a collaboration between Fiat Ferroviaria (who have gone on to produce the Pendolino, the train I was talking about, and are now part of Alstom) and Ansaldo (who, as AnsaldoBreda, produced Fyra; now part of Hitachi).
scrumper 9y ago
The article misses (although hints at the cause of) a very important difference: Concorde's ability to supercruise, that is, cruise supersonically without using afterburners. The Tu-144 needed to use afterburners during the entire supersonic phase of flight, whereas Concorde just needed them to accelerate. Concorde was a notorious fuel guzzler but only during subsonic flight and ground operation; she was actually quite efficient at Mach 2.
- UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
  Indeed. Concorde's largest downfall wasn't technical, it was social. The original expectation was that she would rapidly climb, go supersonic over land, and supercruise all the way to her destination. If this was possible it was reasonably economical. Problem is that sonic-booms over populated areas are a big "no no." So Concorde was forced to wait until she got out over the atlantic to supercruise, which meant more time spent in her inefficient subsonic configuration and longer flight times. In 1976 the US actually banned Concorde due to noise complaints. The ban was lifted in 1977 after changes mentioned above.
  - melling 9y ago
    The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? NASA is working on quieter supersonic flight, which reduces the sonic boom on the ground. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build... Hopefully, we get commercial supersonic flight in some form in the 2020’s. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersonic-bizjet-manufacturer-spike-fly-scaled-demo/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersoni... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/
    - vilhelm_s 9y ago
      Not yet, I think? There was some discussion in July this year: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-07-03/congress-eyes-future-supersonic-travel https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/20... Eventually the bill passed, it has a provision that the FAA should "obtain the input of aerospace industry stakeholders regarding the appropriate regulatory framework and timeline", and report back next year. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997/text#toc-H6A36C132E87C4D5DBECD7205976B9082 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997...
0xfeba 9y ago
That article had quite a few typos, especially for a BBC article: > “There was the space race and the race to put a man on the Moon race happening at the same time. > The Nasa flights spelled the end of the Tu-144’s flying career. Despite the refinements added by Nasan > The Nasa programme bought the Tu-144 back from the dead
- smitherfield 9y ago
  The last one might be a pun.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
NamTaf 9y ago
If you're ever around Stuttgart/Frankfurt area, there's a couple of really amazing Technical Museums that are sister facilities. One is in Sinsheim and one is in Speyer and are known as the Teknik Museum Sinsheim/Speyer. They're full of really awesome exhibits - heaps and heaps of cars, trains, aircraft, military equipment, etc. Due to it being a late plan, I spent a very rushed 4 hours in each of them and that wasn't nearly enough time - at times I was literally jogging between the exhibits trying to absorb it all. They are really amazing places to check out. Anyway, specifically of interest here is Teknik Museum Sinsheim [1], which has both a Concorde and a Tu-144 on one of the hall roofs, next to each other. You get to climb up and walk through them, look up from under them, etc. but it's really cool to just look at all the little differences between them. Here's [2] a cool website I just found that shows a side by side comparison of the two jets. The one that caught my eye immediately, which you can see on that page as well as this [3] wiki image, was that the air intake on the Tu-144 is far longer, necessitating the rear bogies to fold up into the air intake. I can't begin to imagine how they handled that without seriously messing with the air flow (and I can't find any diagrams of the airflow like with the Concorde). Wiki apparently says it was due to design misconceptions on the Soviet side and they were eventually shortened significantly. Also, the engines sit far more inboard on the Tu than the Concorde, presumably so they can get that additional length of intake up the fuselage/wing structure. Alternatively, it wouldn't surprise me if that's also part of its military heritage coming through. The Tu-144 is a pretty fascinating aircraft, even beyond the story behind its development and competition with the Concorde. However, it's really cool to compare the pair and see the differences because it makes you wonder why they differ in those ways - whether it's a case of the Soviets thinking they should replace/modify the Western design with something better, or whether they took multiple concepts including the Western design and sort of mashed them together. It's truly a fascinating aircraft, despite its failures. [1]: https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/ https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/ [2]: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/concorde_vs_tu-144.htm http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/concorde_vs_tu-144.htm [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tupolev_Tu-144_CCCP-77102_LEB_02.06.73_edited-3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tup...
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Thank you, definitely going to visit.
endijs 9y ago
This 6min video does a great job on explaining the differences between Concorde and Tu-144 and why Tu-144 was so bad at many things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWbuKr5-I8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWbuKr5-I8
- phit_ 9y ago
  Odd coincidence how this "news" article popped out of nowhere, after this video just had brought the Tu-144 into the focus again.
loeg 9y ago
Less long form information about the vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Paris_Air_Show_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Paris_Air_Show_...
aaron695 9y ago
I'm confused. The standard reason given it failed was the plans were leaked on purpose to the Soviets that had flaws to try (successfully) to make it crash. I'm happy it's an urban legend, but it was up there with the NN Tank story and the Gas Pipeline story (yet to be disappointed that this too is legend) as a common pre-WWW engineering story. Why no mention? Even to nix the legend or for old times sake.
oblio 9y ago
Maybe someone with domain knowledge is around here: could we make a spacious long range super sonic airplane today, with our modern tech? Think something a bit smaller than the 747, for example. Why isn't it considered viable? The world is 2x richer than the last time the Concorde flew...
- edsouza 9y ago
  Not sure if you know about Boom ? https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Fomite 9y ago
  https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/youre-too-cheap-to-fly-faster-7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/youre-too-cheap-to-fly-fast... The major pressure has been to make aviation cheaper, not faster.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Right. And for those already willing/able to forgo the cheaper for more comfort (but not much speed), there are already well-established options including lay-flat seating for international routes and even private plane rental.
    - Fomite 9y ago
      Honestly, I can't say myself that if I had the money, that I'd choose getting there a few hours earlier instead of feeling like a human being when I arrived.
- ghaff 9y ago
  As one of the siblings notes, there are Boom and a number of other efforts that may or may not ever (sorry) get off the ground. But they're mostly focused on smaller planes--business jet up to about regional jet size in the case of Boom. One question is whether you can get noise to the level where you could go supersonic over land. The bigger question is the economic one. Can you operate profitably at price levels that people would be willing to buy sufficient tickets. You're talking about a plane that is basically designed for only first class flyers to use because subsonic is always going to be cheaper. So how many people will fly at a probable premium over current lay-flat business/first for a faster ride in likely less comfortable seating?
Koshkin 9y ago
> Its first flight comes three months before Concorde takes to the air. So, a copy was rushed into testing before the original was ready. This could explain why there were flaws in the design...
jankotek 9y ago
> The space race undermined the Tu-144 programme by shifting the Soviet focus towards long-range rocketry and high-altitude missiles, and away from supersonic bombers, effectively forcing the Soviets to develop the Tu-144 as a standalone civil aircraft programme. This is the key to understand this plane. Soviet goverment considered bombers to be obsolete by rockets. Designers had to pull many tricks to keep supersonic bomber program running. One way was to develop civil/cargo plane. Other was to call it 'rocket carrier' (long range missile launcher).
BackToSchool 9y ago
It was a direct ripoff of concord only it was a POS that crashed on. It’s air show debut. It never flew commercially more than a half dozen times.
PhantomGremlin 9y ago
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned Boeing's SST effort. It was a much more ambitious aircraft, larger and faster. Prototypes were under construction. There were orders for 122 planes. Development was expensive, and Boeing was relying on considerable contributions from the US government. The project was cancelled in 1971 amid cost and environmental concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
flatfilefan 9y ago
I was surprised to find no mention of Tu-160, which is a supersonic strategic bomber currently in operation. It builds on Tu-144 design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 One of the advantages of flying Mach-2 is to provoke the increased wear of the intercept aircraft at peaceful times, or so they say.

107 points by fpoling 9y ago

the-dude 9y ago

From the BBC. And the Concorde was an astounding succes and had no flaws whatsoever. /s

djaychela 9y ago
Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Concorde had its faults (and obviously the crash was a terrible incident and the nail in its coffin), but it was a staggering achievement to make a supersonic airliner that worked in a regular, scheduled manner. The engineering challenges that it faced were immense, and I've heard it said (can't find the source) that it was considered by many to be more of an achievement than landing on the moon because it made travelling across the Atlantic at Mach 2 'routine'. Concorde made nearly 50,000 flights. The Tu-144 made 55. The TU-144 had a significant number of failures, including the two crashes (Paris Air show, delivery flight). I really think it's difficult to see the two as being anywhere near the same league.
- the-dude 9y ago
  > Are you implying that because it's the BBC and Concorde was an Anglo-french creation that they are biased against the TU-144? Not so much against the TU-144, but to the Russians in general. The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me. I hear drums beating. And wherever the US goes ... I am not arguing the rest of your points : fair enough.
  - adventured 9y ago
    > The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of the article you were lambasting without supporting argumentation. Rather, it comes across as a cheap bailout excuse for your original comment. What would any US effort to paint Russia as an aggressor, have to do with what you said about the BBC + the Concorde vs the Tu-144? Where would anything to do with being an aggressor, play into that?
    - the-dude 9y ago
      I believe such public relation campaigns are much broader and are aimed at emotions more than facts. Please take a look, a look at how silly our enemy is. edit: a bit like a (PG) submarine
      - adventured 9y ago
        I certainly understand the PR wars that nations fight, whether the US / Britain / Russia / China / et al. I don't see how that relates to US accusations of Russian aggression and the quality of the Tu-144 that the BBC article is discussing. For example, you haven't refuted anything about what the article actually says regarding the plane's deficiencies. If one were to follow your premise here to its logical conclusion, it would lead to this: you can never negatively critique anything created by the Soviet Union, or you're working for the US in a PR war against modern Russia.
  - rimliu 9y ago
    How do you call a country annexing a part of other country if not agressor?
    - dang 9y ago
      Please keep generic politics off HN. I know the parent post started the move, but completing the descent into off-topic hell is precisely the wrong response. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- avmich 9y ago
  > I really think it's difficult to see the two as being anywhere near the same league. I really don't understand why it's difficult to you. 55 flights aren't a success by chance. What you've said about staggering achievement fully applies to Tu-144. The creators were facing same challenges, and had to solve them in the same time - and got the plane flyable, if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s. We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight, but I don't see how that makes them incomparable.
  - SaltySolomon 9y ago
    Well, I think it depends on what you compare the two airplanes, if you go after technical prowess like speed or range, then they are comparable. But if you compare reliablility, security and practicability than the Concord is just hands down a much better airplane. Because a 4% chance to crash with the plane is just abysmal.
  - autokad 9y ago
    > "We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight" It was clear 40 years ago. those who understood the area knew it had 0 chance at being a competitor. was the tu-144 a success? by many metrics yes. was it at all comparable to the concorde? absolutely not. > "if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s." Nasa has to re-fit the craft, including engines.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
neximo64 9y ago
I think even the RT could tell you there's been no other way to travel supersonic in the civilian era, even today - Nearly half a century on from the first flight.
- robin_reala 9y ago
  There are at least a couple of ways to get supersonic as a civilian, albeit not exactly travel and not exactly cheap: - http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-fulcrum-in-russia.html http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-... - http://www.spaceadventures.com/ http://www.spaceadventures.com/
sctb 9y ago
Could you please comment only if you can do so civilly and substantively? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thriftwy 9y ago

I think they hoped to get it out of the door to try things on and then replace with gen-2 supersonics which were no doubt to arrive. As you know they never materialized due to lack of reasonable economic demand. I think the sadder story are Soviet high-speed trains. There were one or two, they did some speed records, worked on some experimental routes and never got wide adoption. Only in the last 15 years there's finally some viable high-speed options. Including one of Soviet designs incidentally.

lmm 9y ago
Seems like there's a commonality with Britain there. We had a world-leading high-speed train design (the APT), rushed into a press demonstration 6 months before it was ready; the project was cancelled but the technology found its way to Italy and then, more recently, back into trains that are now used on the route for which the design was originally intended.
- cr1895 9y ago
  >the technology found its way to Italy Is this also related to the problematic and eventually scrapped Dutch high-speed Fyra trains?
  - martinald 9y ago
    No, totally different train afiak. I don't think the Fyra trains will tilt (no need as they run on new lines designed for high speed operation).
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    It went to Fiat Ferroviaria (now part of Alstom), not AnsaldoBreda (now part of Hitachi Rail) who built the Fyra.
  - lmm 9y ago
    They have a common heritage. The APT design was developed into the FS ETR 400 which was a collaboration between Fiat Ferroviaria (who have gone on to produce the Pendolino, the train I was talking about, and are now part of Alstom) and Ansaldo (who, as AnsaldoBreda, produced Fyra; now part of Hitachi).

scrumper 9y ago

The article misses (although hints at the cause of) a very important difference: Concorde's ability to supercruise, that is, cruise supersonically without using afterburners. The Tu-144 needed to use afterburners during the entire supersonic phase of flight, whereas Concorde just needed them to accelerate. Concorde was a notorious fuel guzzler but only during subsonic flight and ground operation; she was actually quite efficient at Mach 2.

UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
Indeed. Concorde's largest downfall wasn't technical, it was social. The original expectation was that she would rapidly climb, go supersonic over land, and supercruise all the way to her destination. If this was possible it was reasonably economical. Problem is that sonic-booms over populated areas are a big "no no." So Concorde was forced to wait until she got out over the atlantic to supercruise, which meant more time spent in her inefficient subsonic configuration and longer flight times. In 1976 the US actually banned Concorde due to noise complaints. The ban was lifted in 1977 after changes mentioned above.
- melling 9y ago
  The ban was lifted for subsonic travel overland, right? NASA is working on quieter supersonic flight, which reduces the sonic boom on the ground. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build... Hopefully, we get commercial supersonic flight in some form in the 2020’s. http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersonic-bizjet-manufacturer-spike-fly-scaled-demo/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28351/supersoni... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/boom-supersonic-jet/
  - vilhelm_s 9y ago
    Not yet, I think? There was some discussion in July this year: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-07-03/congress-eyes-future-supersonic-travel https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/20... Eventually the bill passed, it has a provision that the FAA should "obtain the input of aerospace industry stakeholders regarding the appropriate regulatory framework and timeline", and report back next year. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997/text#toc-H6A36C132E87C4D5DBECD7205976B9082 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2997...

0xfeba 9y ago

That article had quite a few typos, especially for a BBC article: > “There was the space race and the race to put a man on the Moon race happening at the same time. > The Nasa flights spelled the end of the Tu-144’s flying career. Despite the refinements added by Nasan > The Nasa programme bought the Tu-144 back from the dead

smitherfield 9y ago
The last one might be a pun.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

NamTaf 9y ago

If you're ever around Stuttgart/Frankfurt area, there's a couple of really amazing Technical Museums that are sister facilities. One is in Sinsheim and one is in Speyer and are known as the Teknik Museum Sinsheim/Speyer. They're full of really awesome exhibits - heaps and heaps of cars, trains, aircraft, military equipment, etc. Due to it being a late plan, I spent a very rushed 4 hours in each of them and that wasn't nearly enough time - at times I was literally jogging between the exhibits trying to absorb it all. They are really amazing places to check out. Anyway, specifically of interest here is Teknik Museum Sinsheim [1], which has both a Concorde and a Tu-144 on one of the hall roofs, next to each other. You get to climb up and walk through them, look up from under them, etc. but it's really cool to just look at all the little differences between them. Here's [2] a cool website I just found that shows a side by side comparison of the two jets. The one that caught my eye immediately, which you can see on that page as well as this [3] wiki image, was that the air intake on the Tu-144 is far longer, necessitating the rear bogies to fold up into the air intake. I can't begin to imagine how they handled that without seriously messing with the air flow (and I can't find any diagrams of the airflow like with the Concorde). Wiki apparently says it was due to design misconceptions on the Soviet side and they were eventually shortened significantly. Also, the engines sit far more inboard on the Tu than the Concorde, presumably so they can get that additional length of intake up the fuselage/wing structure. Alternatively, it wouldn't surprise me if that's also part of its military heritage coming through. The Tu-144 is a pretty fascinating aircraft, even beyond the story behind its development and competition with the Concorde. However, it's really cool to compare the pair and see the differences because it makes you wonder why they differ in those ways - whether it's a case of the Soviets thinking they should replace/modify the Western design with something better, or whether they took multiple concepts including the Western design and sort of mashed them together. It's truly a fascinating aircraft, despite its failures. [1]: https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/ https://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/ [2]: http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/concorde_vs_tu-144.htm http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/concorde_vs_tu-144.htm [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tupolev_Tu-144_CCCP-77102_LEB_02.06.73_edited-3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tup...

jacquesm 9y ago
Thank you, definitely going to visit.

endijs 9y ago

This 6min video does a great job on explaining the differences between Concorde and Tu-144 and why Tu-144 was so bad at many things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWbuKr5-I8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWbuKr5-I8

phit_ 9y ago
Odd coincidence how this "news" article popped out of nowhere, after this video just had brought the Tu-144 into the focus again.

loeg 9y ago

Less long form information about the vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Paris_Air_Show_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Paris_Air_Show_...

aaron695 9y ago

I'm confused. The standard reason given it failed was the plans were leaked on purpose to the Soviets that had flaws to try (successfully) to make it crash. I'm happy it's an urban legend, but it was up there with the NN Tank story and the Gas Pipeline story (yet to be disappointed that this too is legend) as a common pre-WWW engineering story. Why no mention? Even to nix the legend or for old times sake.

oblio 9y ago

Maybe someone with domain knowledge is around here: could we make a spacious long range super sonic airplane today, with our modern tech? Think something a bit smaller than the 747, for example. Why isn't it considered viable? The world is 2x richer than the last time the Concorde flew...

edsouza 9y ago
Not sure if you know about Boom ? https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 9y ago
https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/youre-too-cheap-to-fly-faster-7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/youre-too-cheap-to-fly-fast... The major pressure has been to make aviation cheaper, not faster.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Right. And for those already willing/able to forgo the cheaper for more comfort (but not much speed), there are already well-established options including lay-flat seating for international routes and even private plane rental.
  - Fomite 9y ago
    Honestly, I can't say myself that if I had the money, that I'd choose getting there a few hours earlier instead of feeling like a human being when I arrived.
ghaff 9y ago
As one of the siblings notes, there are Boom and a number of other efforts that may or may not ever (sorry) get off the ground. But they're mostly focused on smaller planes--business jet up to about regional jet size in the case of Boom. One question is whether you can get noise to the level where you could go supersonic over land. The bigger question is the economic one. Can you operate profitably at price levels that people would be willing to buy sufficient tickets. You're talking about a plane that is basically designed for only first class flyers to use because subsonic is always going to be cheaper. So how many people will fly at a probable premium over current lay-flat business/first for a faster ride in likely less comfortable seating?

Koshkin 9y ago

> Its first flight comes three months before Concorde takes to the air. So, a copy was rushed into testing before the original was ready. This could explain why there were flaws in the design...

jankotek 9y ago

> The space race undermined the Tu-144 programme by shifting the Soviet focus towards long-range rocketry and high-altitude missiles, and away from supersonic bombers, effectively forcing the Soviets to develop the Tu-144 as a standalone civil aircraft programme. This is the key to understand this plane. Soviet goverment considered bombers to be obsolete by rockets. Designers had to pull many tricks to keep supersonic bomber program running. One way was to develop civil/cargo plane. Other was to call it 'rocket carrier' (long range missile launcher).

BackToSchool 9y ago

It was a direct ripoff of concord only it was a POS that crashed on. It’s air show debut. It never flew commercially more than a half dozen times.

PhantomGremlin 9y ago

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned Boeing's SST effort. It was a much more ambitious aircraft, larger and faster. Prototypes were under construction. There were orders for 122 planes. Development was expensive, and Boeing was relying on considerable contributions from the US government. The project was cancelled in 1971 amid cost and environmental concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

flatfilefan 9y ago

I was surprised to find no mention of Tu-160, which is a supersonic strategic bomber currently in operation. It builds on Tu-144 design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160 One of the advantages of flying Mach-2 is to provoke the increased wear of the intercept aircraft at peaceful times, or so they say.