4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWell, 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]