Tu-144 and Concorde are an example of convergent evolution, which means that the designs end up looking the same because the aircraft were designed for the exact same purposes and specifications, this can also be seen in nature, for example Dolphins today have a very similar appearance to prehistoric marine reptiles called Ichthyosaurs. Please let's stop accusing people of copying, there is no evidence that the tu-144 was copyed anyway.
it seems that everything in the world has its little troupe of fanbois that has to battle it out on youtube. ffs, cant people just watch a video and resist the urge to troll?
Copy this, copy that.. No, its not a copy.. Its logical that Concorde and Tu-144 look a like.. Its about form for function.. In other words.. you dont hear anyone scream "BMW COPIED AUDI DUE TO THE ROUND WHEELS!".. no, cuz how the f***k would it move about then? In the same fact, how would the Tu-144 and the Concorde fly at mach 2 if they didnt look like this? Dont forget, Tu-144 flew 6 months BEFORE Concorde.. Stop the "copy-conspiracy" and enjoy these machines..
Yes Concorde took 113 lives but it was not because of the design of the plane. It was a strip of metal that fell off a Continental airlines that doomed the plane. Not to mention that no flight could or will ever match the elegance of Concorde.
@JehovahSaveUs Aircraft should be designed for possibility of fire. During this disaster, engineer for a 1.5 minute didn't know, what was going on. Tu-144D survived a much more serious accident, caused not by design, but by explosion (!) of shitty engines. Fire was extinguished in 20-30 seconds, after exposure canards it recovered stability and (with difficulty) landed. Design was perfect, but realization fatal. Elegance is relative value. Sorry about English.
@PedroGuedes747I mean Anglo/French technology from the Concorde programme. I'm not wrong, it's just that the Russians put the info received into production a bit quicker because they didn't have so much bureaucracy to negotiate!
@ARMATURISTA Sorry, but the Tu-144, while looking pretty damn good, was a piece of sh!t. With all the issues it had, I'm surprised they used it for as long as they did. With all the failures, flight performance, as well as its inefficiencies, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. The Tu-144 may have come out first, been a little bigger and faster. She was still shaky, loud as hell in the cockpit, had MULTIPLE failures every flight, and was so bad, the russians' only flew at half capacity.
I don't understand why all you people believe that because it came out first it's superior. If it was better it would have become the primary Supersonic jet, leaving the Concorde to linger in it's shadow. But that didn't happen. So the Concorde is more successful.
@CoDWiiPS3Gameplay Nope - Tu is still on service as a Laboratory (and actually everything you want if you pay). The reason for Tu-144 not to fly was "politburo"s decision in the end of '70s ;)))
@jblsound13 Indeed - Tu 144 was (and it's still) much faster, bigger, effective, and tough than Concorde. Unfortunately - to be born in the socialism was his only negative... only - but enough not to fly for long with "ordinary" pax (but with VIP Communistic politics wasn't so problematic to fly till 1988)
@ARMATURISTA You're pretty stupid for thinking the TU-144 was successful. Faster (using lightweight materials not used in the production aircraft), bigger? (never filled with people at full capacity), effective? to crash? go on, mention the Concorde crash (wasn't concorde's fault, proven in the final report, was actually Continental Airlines). And tougher? haha, the TU-144 crashed performing a manouvre Concorde could do. If the TU-144 was left in service many more would've died... You're stupid
@Taz1451 Easy girl - can't impress me that way. How old are you? Try to read and learn - and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Yes - Tu was bigger, used to fly with full capacity, was faster, and yep - has much less victims than Concorde (and as a matter of act - it's still in service). As I said - just read more, and you'll figure out ;) Meanwhile - the opinion of NASA about Tu-144 is interesting to read as well... It's obvious - you missing a lot of knowledge "clever" girl ;)))
Tu-144 first flight 1968, Concorde first flight 1969; Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 june 69, Concorde 1 oct 69. Also Tu-144 took away the 9 lives, Concorde - 113. About copying: B737 & A320, B767 & A330, B727 & Tu-154 looks very much look, who then was engaged in copying?
@zarechnuy youre an idiot. the TU-144 only entered passenger service for a matter of months before it was withdrawn because of its rushed, shitty, unsafe design. the russians also bought the designs of concord to help develop their own version because none of their scientists could design an aircraft with such high specs, so thats why they looks so similar. the tu-144 had more crashes and incident and 113 lives were lost to concorde because the french cant clean their own damn runways.
@zarechnuy that does not matter. just stop cooking up false ideas that the tu-144 was better. it was nothing but a shadow of concorde. a rushed copy that failed in every way. and i stand corrected, the blueprints weren't even bought. we never wouldve parted with them like that. bits of design from blueprints to tyre scraping were all sent were all smuggled into the soviet union by spies in a desperate attempt to catch up and mimic concorde because they didnt have the technology to even compete!
@MrWoodoop where you are, my rough opponent, found in my post "false ideas that the tu-144 was better"? I just simply gave facts from open sources. They are not each other better for me, because they were unprofitable, supersonic proved too expensive for passengers and companies. Loss-making commercial operation was stopped in one country before, in another later
@zarechnuy check your sources again and you will find that spies stole blueprints and any parts they could find of concorde to develop an SST of their own in a short amount of time. because they did not have the technology and concorde did. concorde was in service for 30 years and had 16 orders. the tu-144? it only stayed in service for less than a year because it was unsafe. i just hope you dont think that concorde copied the tu-144.
@filmftw3 nasa abandoned the SST project in 1999 because it was a shit plane. they coudlnt get their hands on Concorde was too busy being successful, doing what it was designed to do. so the americans settled for less. that plane left a dark trail wherever it went. the air show in 1973? crash. passenger jet? 1 month of technical and market failure and crash and it was out of service. what was left for them to do? in the cold war? SELL TO THE AMERICANS?! now that IS desperately low.
@MrWoodoop age indeed - does not matter here, but knowledge ;))) ...no one is rushing your dreams - facts are facts, Concorde is copy and was a technical mistake. Tu 144 is the original and POLITICAL mistake - can you see differences here? ...meanwhile - Tu is still available on service and to fly, that is something you can't say for Concorde (ask NASA)
@ARMATURISTA yes knowledge does matter. youre the ignorant one here. dont butter me up with a smile to hide your naivety. the tu-144 had far more technical issues and crashes than concordes; concordes only crash wasnt even its fault. the concorde was superior to the tu-144 in every way except for speed. but the tu-144 had to use afterburners and was had very inefficient engines. tu144 went in service for less than a year. concorde? 30 YEARS. we are not selling it because of the tech.
@MrWoodoop Sorry for rushing your fanaticism - but facts are FACTS! Tu-144 as a project started first. Tu-144 as a plane became first.Tu-144 is the first supersonic passenger jet. Tu-144 is STILL the FASTEST passenger jet.Tu-144 is STILL the BIGGEST supersonic passenger jet.Tu-144 doesn't fly with pax a lot because of the POLITICAL issue.Tu-144 crash WASN'T because of the technical or construction fail (check the investigation results).Tu-144 is STILL on service and READY TO FLY. Easy & Simple
@ARMATURISTA The Russians spied on Corncorde for years. They had a spy working for Sud-Oest in France. He fed early info to the Russians. They rushed the Tu-144 into the air just to be first, but it had serious flaws:
1) Only flew supersonic on afterburning, hence range a measly 1800 mls. (Concorde: 4500 mls)
2) Unsophisticated wing section led to the addition of canards to compensate.
@MrWoodoop the french didnt have anything to do with the crash. an american boeing landed/takedoff just in front of the concorde witch made a bolt fall on the runway and then the bolt hit one of the concordes fuel tanks. but it dosnt matter russian planes are the best but both are out of servise so it dosnt matter. XD
@Starr8492DS I know that. And im sorry but I dont see the rest of the world buying russian civil aircraft. military? yes. russian military aircraft are awesome but civil? not really. the tu-144? definately not. read my other comments im not going to repeat myself. in short, the tu-144 was a terrible aircraft in comparison to concorde.
@MrWoodoop yeah right - can you believe? :))) ...and no matter that - facts are facts and Tupolev 144 is THE ORIGINAL, Concorde is just BAD Copy :) ....More crashes and more victims for the Concorde - true. Less speed, capacity, efficiency and SERVICE for Concorde - true again :).Probably you know that Tu144 started to fly again as a NASA laboratory - and was chosen instead of Concorde because of his proven and obvious advantages... read more "smarty" - are you natural blond?
@ARMATURISTA. If you do your research you will find hints and rumours that the spies stole blueprints and designs from concorde to allow them to develop it so fast which is why it came out first. concorde was in development way before the tu144. and how dare you say more crashes and victims with concorde!! as if it was concorde's fault?! you disgust me. the tu-144's crashes and safety issues put many more lives at risk and on two occasions it disintegrated and took its pilots with it.
@ARMATURISTA it was in service for less than a year because after that it was withdrawn for being too unsafe. If you do some research youll find that as the months of its service wore on, they decreased the frequency of flights in an effort to minimize the eventuality of a crash. its pathetic. apart from the crash in france (which has been proven not to be concordes fault) concorde had a clean sheet for 30 years. it outlasted its life but they kept flying it because it was such a good aircraft
@TankNutJohn89 Not at all... Learn more about guys - facts can't be beaten or changed with any kind of fanaticism :).... Tu-144 was copy of an idea indeed - and kind of Tu's "original" was actually Sukhoi T-4... and the because of the Sukhoi development center Concorde and Tupolev's 144 are flying facts. Concorde is a COPY - that's it. Much more unreliable, slower, expensive, smaller, less effective and non-economic than Tu144. And at the end - MUCH MORE DEADLY as well.
@zarechnu I love russian planes but what you are saying is not right How can you compare the number of fatalities in the Tu-144 and the Concorde??? The fist one merely flew, the second one was in service for long years!! Are you kidding me? The B737 and the A320 + The B767 and the A330 don't look alike except that they have the same number of engines. What's this? Post soviet propaganda??
@zarechnuy It came out before the concord because it was easier to build. They started copying after the concord was under development, and finished first because the plane is mad rickety. The concord crashed because they let a russian rivet on a piece of the exterior. When the piece ripped off it punctured a fuel tank which caused the crash. the ONLY original russian airframe is an-225... o wait no the c5. nevermind
Finishing my lecture - must conclude that "the copy" actually is Concorde... and on engineering, aerodynamic and constructing plane - Concorde wasn't just a copy, but the BAD COPY of Tu 144 ;)
@ARMATURISTA Not really though. The Tu-144 was taken out of service after just 3 years for being notoriously unreliable and constantly being grounded whereas the Concorde had a very long and successful service life. Neither aircraft was a copy of the other but in terms of technological advancements, the Concorde was clearly better
The FACTS are privilege of TU144 Concorde was just lucky to be "born" outside of the socialism for real - in any other cases that plane is abandon to loose the "battle". Reasons are obvious as I said in my previous post - Price, Speed, Altitude, Capacity, Fuel Efficiency, Noise and not at the end - PRICE and Maintenance. Tupolev's aircraft was not only technically better, but in any kind of competitions. The ONE and only negative to him was a "Politburo of KPSS" (communistic party of USSR)
TU144 & Concorde are kind of "twins" 'cause of the cooperation between British-French and Soviet engineers. It's a FACT that Concorde development was on "topic to fail" (which was THE reason for that cooperation). It's a FACT as well - the highest take off weight, efficiency, passenger capacity, cruising and max speed. Differences between those two constructions are obvious and shows us much better engineers decisions for the original - aerodynamically better wing design, engines placing etc...
I'm not a concorde fan - i'm a fact fan. The TU design did not start until the concept was published in Jan 1962 and development work did not start until July 1963. Concorde development and design started in 1956 under the design name the Bristol type 223 at the Bristol Airplane Company. In November 1962 the treaty was signed to form the Concorde consortuim using the type 223 as the basis.
So you can see the concorde design clearly pre-dates the Tu-144 by several years.
@MrMegacurie Saying it does not make it so! Sorry - the numbers are in - the TU144 is a copy - and it's not like it's the first or last time - the TU4 was a copy, and it not just planes, they copied everything from computer chips to cameras - shit they even copied the damn shuttle.
@krackersdave absolutely NOT true. Concorde doesn't have a "design" before SU T-4 and later Tu 144showed their projects ;) ...actually the original ot the concept is Suchoi T4 "sotka" - but obviously you don have enough of knowledge even to argue with yourself ;)))
Perhaps the Russians would have more success if they copied a successful Western design... The Concorde was NOT successful commercially. The Yanks saw to that.
@krackersdave 2 names - Sergei Pavlov and Sergei Fabiew. The espoinage is well documented and recorded - it's not fantasy that the Tu-144 was a copy of the concorde - it's a fact. The prototype of the 144 did fly 2 months before the concorde's first flight - but this means nothing. It's clear that the soviets had detailed designs of concorde right from the start - this two months is simply a reflection of lower production and safety standards.
@krackersdave obviously - you are a kind of Concorde fan, but as much as the most of "just fans" - you know nothing about the real history of those two supersonic jets. In History "plan" actually Concorde was a kind of Tupolevs "copy" 'cause they started Russian program earlier than the British-French cooperation. It's FACT - Tupolev bureau and Concorde engineers used to work TOGETHER on the development plan, and MiG21 was a kind of testing "mule" for most of the components. READ MORE about ;)
I've got to admit, those front loaded carnards sure gave the 144 a distinctive look but my understanding is that they served a distinct purpose although it would seem that the main delta wing would experience periods of turbulence from the carnards, given changes in the angle of attack? Comments?
Anti commie? Anti Yankee? West Vs east….East Vs west… Blah Blah Blah….Which is best – Concorde or Tu 144? Ours is!...No its not…Yes it is…No its not…you coped us…no we didn’t….it was you who copped us you commie tosser…no we never you capitalist pig…Concorde was the copy…..bull…Tu 144 was... blah blah blah… Does it bloody matter?? Both are sadly gone now. Someday people will simply learn to admire both these beauties in their own right and quit all political nonsense
@bommmmmmmm they all were failures....does it really matter in the end. The concorde was the only one that went into production, which makes that the biggest failure.
@PiedmontYS11 Great, informative, unbiased comment there. Because you of course worked on a supersonic aircraft design and your planes are making regular mach 2 return trips between your arse and where your mind should be. We are all very grateful for your bit of internet wisdom.
@ForestXwizarD Why get so upset over a comment on Youtube? Since you have videos and information on your profile that is cryllic I'd say you're probably the one with bias towards this airplane. Here's a tidbit of info on just about how good the airplane was: "During 102 flights and 181 hours of freight and passenger flight time, the Tu-144S suffered more than 226 failures, 80 of them in flight." Enough said. It was loud, in the cockpit, loud in the cabin, and uncomfortable.
@ForestXwizarD I never claimed to be an engineer, or an expert. Please share why you think this is such a fantastic airplane, and why you got so angry over my comment, which I still believe to be true.
@PiedmontYS11 The thing is, I don't argue that it's a good aircraft. It was indeed unsuccessful and suffered from a lot of problems. However I can't see saying it's a "turd" for anything else other than the simplified, dismissive rebuke. It was a design that posed many challenges, as nothing of the sort was ever built before in Russia, and pretty much remained a test aircraft throughout its career. There are many problems with it, but it also served to advance engineering knowledge.
The Tu-144 was a terrible concorde. Concorde was so much better and most Tupolevs are not very good. They are no where near as good as Boeing or Airbus and this is just a mock concorde.
Britain and France can't bare to think the Russians beat them, so they make out they stole their technology...simple. Tu-114 deserves full credit; although the Concorde was the better plane.
@TheBoeing737Pilot maybe because you thinking you are the only technologgy in the world and instead of expend time study or see what is new arround the world you just concern in how great pussy the girl have and what position you can give her more pleasure to make her cry that will cause you to have the most super giga big cum explotion in the world so you can say ahhhhhhhhhhhh! what a good healing ..... but i understand thats why we have dick for
@TheBoeing737Pilot perv ? who is not perv? who dont like girls or who girl dont like boys is something natural ? sex is sex my friend is not something that cause to be scare talk about drugs or crime thats bad is depends of the person but if is this bother you so i'm sorry men or girl
@mekoskitecho yes but this is a video about airplanes not porn. and you never know how old the person you are talking to is. kids are like sponges, they soak up everything they hear
@TheBoeing737Pilot yes you rite sorry bro its just here everybody are open minded well thank you and take a look the new airplanes in boing airbus rusian companies or countries warfighters jets so you know whats going on good luck buddy
@flighty1996 NASA should purchase the Concorde and bring the Concorde back to the skies other than some Russian plane that is very old and becoming more dangerous.
@flighty1996 Actually the Soviets stole Concorde blueprints and rushed building the the tu-144 so that it could be in service sooner. The Concorde has a much better designed wing which performs much better at every speed compared to the tu-144. The reason why NASA didn't purchase a Concorde is because it was still in service when they bought a tu-144, they wouldn't purchase a Concorde anyway over a tu-144 because it's way more complicated and expensive.
hence the reason why it is a better aircraft. and as it says in the video Russians like to build their aircraft heavy. its faster (which is basicly the main upside to a concorde). and why cant they use a concorde when it is in service? they use 737's
@flighty1996 Yes they do use 737's because Boeing have built thousands of them so it wouldn't effect the commercial market if NASA have 1 or 2 of them, Compared to Concorde where only 14 were ever in service and BA and AF using all of theirs extensively so if NASA bought one it would disrupt the airlines way of service. The first generation of tu-144 were not faster than Concorde as they had terrible engines, Soviets then fitted bigger turbofan reheated engines so it could match Concorde.
but there is no way that it would effect the commericial market. How would it? Thats stupid just because NASA owns an aircraft, it somehow means that it will effect all other airlines that already use those aircraft? no
The Tu-144 has many things which Concord hasn't))) It's an additional bow feathers which helps with takeoff and landin, other engine's location for more safety, she has another form of wings, Tu-144 has dippin nose and many other distinctions)))) So our plane isn't a copy of Concorde)))
the Tu-144 came before the Concorde, and as seen here, obviously outlasted it, but, sadly, typical slipshod Soviet Engineering produced a noisy, hot, and all around poor final product of what could have been an excellent design.
LOL, do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? This video clip is nearly a decade and a half old, for one thing. The last TU144-D was grounded yearrrrrrs before Concorde was retired.
@ImmortalSynn 4 years? The last known flight of the TU-144 was 14th April 1999
Concord 2003? This argument makes no sence.... British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, for a cost of £1 / 1 Franc each, because no one wanted to by them... Did not worth the money... British Airways had 7 and Air France 5 that is all... It was more like a commercial for British Airways and Air France than a $maker... And also the France and the British state had to prove that it was worth the money...
Where the heck are you getting "four years" from? ...I never said anything like that.
That, and you truly should have half a clue what you're talking about before attempting to post on issues like this. You obviously don't. Firstly, both carriers started with 7. AF scrapped F-BVFD and lost F-BTSC in the crash.
Secondly, only three were purchased at the prices you mentioned (G-BOAE/F & F-BVFF) because the program was written off before their delivery. The rest were market rate.
@Modellpecs British airways made huge amounts of money from the Concorde once they discovered most tickets were sold to companies for their top employees or very rich people who had no idea what they cost. Plus the fact they got their lost 3 Concordes for £1 each. I've never seen the cost statistics for the Air France operations
@binaway Why did they grounded Concord than? If it was a $ maker than it would be still flying for sure. There are twice as old planes still in service...
@Modellpecs After Air France ceased Concorde operation Airbus withdrew it's technical support, without which British airways was unable to continue services. British Airways operated it's Concordes at mach 2 and not mach 2.2 which helped extend their service life. Concordes also never operated at the same service frequency as other airliners which allowed them to remain in service years longer. At one point 60% of British airways profits came from it's London-New York Concorde operations.
@binaway So, it would have bean too expensive to maintain.... Tell me if I'am missing something, but i don't think so... It does not matters, that who wants to service them and who does not... Someone would do it for $ for sure...
Because their designs look alike also.... Or might be Concord is the copy? :) Whoever makes a delta airliner, that is a copy. Like all airliners look alike, they all copy of one plane... But witchone is the fhirst copy of the second copy? Nonsence... Russians wanted to know what others do, just like France, and england, and USA also.... But the point is that they had their own designs also. Tu-144 is not a copy. Tu-144 is Tu-144.
@Modellpecs That's quite simple actually, the Concorde was started being developed much earlier, the design fase was extremely long somewhere in that design stage Russians must have obtained early designs. Which emmidiately explains why the Concorde was a refined bird and rather succesful and the Tu-144 not.
@beeroosterm, NASA really uses russian engines. American rockets Atlas-5 use them, because they are more powerful than american ones. These engines named RD-180. They are russian. See Wikipedia, etc. Even there is a TV-film about it (british or american). I watched it on Discovery Cannel. This film names 'Cosmodrome. The Engines That Came In From The Cold'. Find it and watch it.
NASA is very honored company, and it uses best technologies. The fact is the fact.
@MarimotoZ Я думаю, мы все знаем, в какой стране сосет - и ваша сестра дул мне вчера вечером. (I think we all know which country sucks - and your sister blew me last night.)
Atleast the russians have build a supersonic jet, just like the europeans did. But the americans...
All they can think about is the retarded blended wing design... which is slower...
Fuck that who would like to go slower, only to make less noise, be cleaner and save more fuel.
People dont care! Being on the airplane for 16 hours is already bad enough! We dont want to make 28 out of it. Therefore airbus is researching a hypersonic jet on liqiud hydrogen!
Will you idiots quit arguing? Everyone copies everyone. That's how it technology and advancements work; You use knowledge others have learned and expand on it! How about we all just nuke each other and start over, since even aviation enthusiasts can't discuss a cool plane taking off without a slap fight ensuing?
@expertracker ohh yea, AA-2 atoll, su-24 fencer, Tu-144, Tu-4 Bull <--- search that aircraft, Yak-38, Tu-160, the new russian light weight (russian JSF) desgin drawings is already claimed to be using stolen western designs... all that, maybe more is russian copying...
It's a shame this great plane is out of business,it was way more superior than the concorde at it's time for many reasons,but because it was way more superior,it had more risks.
"more superior"? LOL, not only is that horrible grammar, it's also horribly untrue. Stability issues aside, the single biggest flaw with the TU-144, making it vastly inferior to Concorde, was that it couldn't supercruise. It needed re-heat in order to maintain Mach2 or higher. They couldn't fix this until several iterations, and by then it was far too late for this model.
True. And I have no idea why people say that TU-144 was a poor design. Let me ask witch type of Tu-144? On the last series they fixed almost everything. In Russia there was not many people who could afford flying on this beauties. This was soon realised, and developing was canceled. When someone says this is a copy, and was noisy etc. it comes to my mind that when there was socialism in my country people sayed things like the cigarett camell contains camel shit.... Funy ha? :D same thing...
) I don't know that was earlier, but I know that now. Space Shuttles cease to exist, now all flights will be is made by the Russian ships "Union" and "Progress"
) I don't know that was earlier, but I know that now. Space Shuttles cease to exist, now all flights will be is made by the Russian ships "Union" and "Progress"
I think the Concorde is still the most beautiful jet ever build by mankind. The TU 144 is nearly the same design except for the floppy ears in front. :-) So it is a beauty too. And the sound of both jets is more than impressive ! The Russians are able to build very robust and reliable jets. I would board a russian jet any time ! The new Suchoi Superjet 100 is perhaps the first chance to sell a Russian jet to the west. Let´s see what will happen...
More Wikipedia stuff that confirms my point(s): "With officials being acutely aware of the aircraft's poor reliability and fearful of possible crashes, Soviet decision-makers were purposefully limiting flight frequency to the absolute minimum possible that still allowed them to claim regular service, and also were constraining passenger load to minimize the impact and political fallout of a possible crash". How would you have liked to have known these facts after you flew on that piece of shit?
@vonkaunaz Simple, you're talking about an airliner that is faster than the speed of sound and takes a while to slow down. Plus, it's going fast enough, on impact it could "vaporize". There is no question the Tu-144 would have a similar problem.
Stop moaning about which one is better. They are both as good as each other.
DanDaManStudios1 2 days ago
What ever happend to NASA's tu144
dylan8495 5 days ago
Tu-144 and Concorde are an example of convergent evolution, which means that the designs end up looking the same because the aircraft were designed for the exact same purposes and specifications, this can also be seen in nature, for example Dolphins today have a very similar appearance to prehistoric marine reptiles called Ichthyosaurs. Please let's stop accusing people of copying, there is no evidence that the tu-144 was copyed anyway.
bombarderoazul 5 days ago
it seems that everything in the world has its little troupe of fanbois that has to battle it out on youtube. ffs, cant people just watch a video and resist the urge to troll?
TtimWh 1 week ago
i like the tu 144 but it crashed alot
The73slapshot 1 week ago
Copy this, copy that.. No, its not a copy.. Its logical that Concorde and Tu-144 look a like.. Its about form for function.. In other words.. you dont hear anyone scream "BMW COPIED AUDI DUE TO THE ROUND WHEELS!".. no, cuz how the f***k would it move about then? In the same fact, how would the Tu-144 and the Concorde fly at mach 2 if they didnt look like this? Dont forget, Tu-144 flew 6 months BEFORE Concorde.. Stop the "copy-conspiracy" and enjoy these machines..
MrOunze 2 weeks ago
Yes Concorde took 113 lives but it was not because of the design of the plane. It was a strip of metal that fell off a Continental airlines that doomed the plane. Not to mention that no flight could or will ever match the elegance of Concorde.
JehovahSaveUs 2 weeks ago 4
@JehovahSaveUs Aircraft should be designed for possibility of fire. During this disaster, engineer for a 1.5 minute didn't know, what was going on. Tu-144D survived a much more serious accident, caused not by design, but by explosion (!) of shitty engines. Fire was extinguished in 20-30 seconds, after exposure canards it recovered stability and (with difficulty) landed. Design was perfect, but realization fatal. Elegance is relative value. Sorry about English.
Overvoid 2 weeks ago
Cute anntena
BokuhaLoveMan 1 month ago
Which c^^^ sold them the plans
MrBuglebuggy 1 month ago
Bloody Russians and their awesome engineering! D:
PedroGuedes747 1 month ago 3
@PedroGuedes747 No, it was OUR engineering, the Russians just stole it!!
1946nimrod 1 month ago
@1946nimrod
Define OUR engineering? If you're referring to concord you are wrong because the TU-144 came before Concord.
PedroGuedes747 1 month ago
@PedroGuedes747I mean Anglo/French technology from the Concorde programme. I'm not wrong, it's just that the Russians put the info received into production a bit quicker because they didn't have so much bureaucracy to negotiate!
1946nimrod 1 month ago
@1946nimrod
Ah ok, I understand.
PedroGuedes747 1 month ago
@1946nimrod ah come on brits stole enough technology from the germans too.so dont throw stones when u sit in a glashouse
Sonmir1 1 month ago
@Sonmir1 I wasn't aware that the Germans were developing a supersonic airliner - and that is what this thread is about!
1946nimrod 1 month ago
@Sonmir1 everybody stole from everybody else. there are no saints. ( even on a new orleans football team)
yamahonkawazuki 1 week ago
Tu-144 was in the service in former USSR for many years, that plane use to fly far east and Siberia, only quite big problem was fuel consumption
RiTutorials 1 month ago
Comment removed
llllExTreMellll 1 month ago in playlist Aero
Tu-144 is completely Russian, in the same way the first Soviet atom bomb was....oh wait
integraf40 1 month ago 2
IT HAS DOGGY EARS???!
EnttsStarcraft 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA Sorry, but the Tu-144, while looking pretty damn good, was a piece of sh!t. With all the issues it had, I'm surprised they used it for as long as they did. With all the failures, flight performance, as well as its inefficiencies, it was doomed to fail from the beginning. The Tu-144 may have come out first, been a little bigger and faster. She was still shaky, loud as hell in the cockpit, had MULTIPLE failures every flight, and was so bad, the russians' only flew at half capacity.
redrooster13f 1 month ago
I don't understand why all you people believe that because it came out first it's superior. If it was better it would have become the primary Supersonic jet, leaving the Concorde to linger in it's shadow. But that didn't happen. So the Concorde is more successful.
CoDWiiPS3Gameplay 1 month ago 2
@CoDWiiPS3Gameplay Nope - Tu is still on service as a Laboratory (and actually everything you want if you pay). The reason for Tu-144 not to fly was "politburo"s decision in the end of '70s ;)))
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
this thing doesn't even compare to Concorde
jblsound13 1 month ago 2
@jblsound13 Indeed - Tu 144 was (and it's still) much faster, bigger, effective, and tough than Concorde. Unfortunately - to be born in the socialism was his only negative... only - but enough not to fly for long with "ordinary" pax (but with VIP Communistic politics wasn't so problematic to fly till 1988)
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA You're pretty stupid for thinking the TU-144 was successful. Faster (using lightweight materials not used in the production aircraft), bigger? (never filled with people at full capacity), effective? to crash? go on, mention the Concorde crash (wasn't concorde's fault, proven in the final report, was actually Continental Airlines). And tougher? haha, the TU-144 crashed performing a manouvre Concorde could do. If the TU-144 was left in service many more would've died... You're stupid
Taz1451 1 month ago
@Taz1451 Easy girl - can't impress me that way. How old are you? Try to read and learn - and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Yes - Tu was bigger, used to fly with full capacity, was faster, and yep - has much less victims than Concorde (and as a matter of act - it's still in service). As I said - just read more, and you'll figure out ;) Meanwhile - the opinion of NASA about Tu-144 is interesting to read as well... It's obvious - you missing a lot of knowledge "clever" girl ;)))
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
Tu-144 first flight 1968, Concorde first flight 1969; Tu-144 first broke the sound barrier on 5 june 69, Concorde 1 oct 69. Also Tu-144 took away the 9 lives, Concorde - 113. About copying: B737 & A320, B767 & A330, B727 & Tu-154 looks very much look, who then was engaged in copying?
zarechnuy 2 months ago 29
@zarechnuy youre an idiot. the TU-144 only entered passenger service for a matter of months before it was withdrawn because of its rushed, shitty, unsafe design. the russians also bought the designs of concord to help develop their own version because none of their scientists could design an aircraft with such high specs, so thats why they looks so similar. the tu-144 had more crashes and incident and 113 lives were lost to concorde because the french cant clean their own damn runways.
MrWoodoop 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop how old are you, gentle man?
zarechnuy 2 months ago
@zarechnuy that does not matter. just stop cooking up false ideas that the tu-144 was better. it was nothing but a shadow of concorde. a rushed copy that failed in every way. and i stand corrected, the blueprints weren't even bought. we never wouldve parted with them like that. bits of design from blueprints to tyre scraping were all sent were all smuggled into the soviet union by spies in a desperate attempt to catch up and mimic concorde because they didnt have the technology to even compete!
MrWoodoop 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop where you are, my rough opponent, found in my post "false ideas that the tu-144 was better"? I just simply gave facts from open sources. They are not each other better for me, because they were unprofitable, supersonic proved too expensive for passengers and companies. Loss-making commercial operation was stopped in one country before, in another later
zarechnuy 2 months ago
@zarechnuy check your sources again and you will find that spies stole blueprints and any parts they could find of concorde to develop an SST of their own in a short amount of time. because they did not have the technology and concorde did. concorde was in service for 30 years and had 16 orders. the tu-144? it only stayed in service for less than a year because it was unsafe. i just hope you dont think that concorde copied the tu-144.
MrWoodoop 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop You're an idiot. Sorry. A complete idiot!
justinasb 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop
Why then is NASA and Boeing all up the Tupolev's ass and trying to make new plane based on Tupolev design, and not the Concorde?
filmftw3 2 months ago
@filmftw3 nasa abandoned the SST project in 1999 because it was a shit plane. they coudlnt get their hands on Concorde was too busy being successful, doing what it was designed to do. so the americans settled for less. that plane left a dark trail wherever it went. the air show in 1973? crash. passenger jet? 1 month of technical and market failure and crash and it was out of service. what was left for them to do? in the cold war? SELL TO THE AMERICANS?! now that IS desperately low.
MrWoodoop 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop age indeed - does not matter here, but knowledge ;))) ...no one is rushing your dreams - facts are facts, Concorde is copy and was a technical mistake. Tu 144 is the original and POLITICAL mistake - can you see differences here? ...meanwhile - Tu is still available on service and to fly, that is something you can't say for Concorde (ask NASA)
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA yes knowledge does matter. youre the ignorant one here. dont butter me up with a smile to hide your naivety. the tu-144 had far more technical issues and crashes than concordes; concordes only crash wasnt even its fault. the concorde was superior to the tu-144 in every way except for speed. but the tu-144 had to use afterburners and was had very inefficient engines. tu144 went in service for less than a year. concorde? 30 YEARS. we are not selling it because of the tech.
MrWoodoop 1 month ago
@MrWoodoop Sorry for rushing your fanaticism - but facts are FACTS! Tu-144 as a project started first. Tu-144 as a plane became first.Tu-144 is the first supersonic passenger jet. Tu-144 is STILL the FASTEST passenger jet.Tu-144 is STILL the BIGGEST supersonic passenger jet.Tu-144 doesn't fly with pax a lot because of the POLITICAL issue.Tu-144 crash WASN'T because of the technical or construction fail (check the investigation results).Tu-144 is STILL on service and READY TO FLY. Easy & Simple
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ARMATURISTA The Russians spied on Corncorde for years. They had a spy working for Sud-Oest in France. He fed early info to the Russians. They rushed the Tu-144 into the air just to be first, but it had serious flaws:
1) Only flew supersonic on afterburning, hence range a measly 1800 mls. (Concorde: 4500 mls)
2) Unsophisticated wing section led to the addition of canards to compensate.
3) Too many failures, unservicability issues.
They cheated. They lost. Serves them right.
MrWoodoop 1 month ago
@MrWoodoop the french didnt have anything to do with the crash. an american boeing landed/takedoff just in front of the concorde witch made a bolt fall on the runway and then the bolt hit one of the concordes fuel tanks. but it dosnt matter russian planes are the best but both are out of servise so it dosnt matter. XD
Starr8492DS 2 months ago
@Starr8492DS I know that. And im sorry but I dont see the rest of the world buying russian civil aircraft. military? yes. russian military aircraft are awesome but civil? not really. the tu-144? definately not. read my other comments im not going to repeat myself. in short, the tu-144 was a terrible aircraft in comparison to concorde.
MrWoodoop 2 months ago
@MrWoodoop yeah right - can you believe? :))) ...and no matter that - facts are facts and Tupolev 144 is THE ORIGINAL, Concorde is just BAD Copy :) ....More crashes and more victims for the Concorde - true. Less speed, capacity, efficiency and SERVICE for Concorde - true again :).Probably you know that Tu144 started to fly again as a NASA laboratory - and was chosen instead of Concorde because of his proven and obvious advantages... read more "smarty" - are you natural blond?
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA. If you do your research you will find hints and rumours that the spies stole blueprints and designs from concorde to allow them to develop it so fast which is why it came out first. concorde was in development way before the tu144. and how dare you say more crashes and victims with concorde!! as if it was concorde's fault?! you disgust me. the tu-144's crashes and safety issues put many more lives at risk and on two occasions it disintegrated and took its pilots with it.
MrWoodoop 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA it was in service for less than a year because after that it was withdrawn for being too unsafe. If you do some research youll find that as the months of its service wore on, they decreased the frequency of flights in an effort to minimize the eventuality of a crash. its pathetic. apart from the crash in france (which has been proven not to be concordes fault) concorde had a clean sheet for 30 years. it outlasted its life but they kept flying it because it was such a good aircraft
MrWoodoop 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA am i natural blond? ....are you an idiot?
MrWoodoop 1 month ago
@MrWoodoop They BOUGHT the designs of Concorde!! That's a new one!! Do tell, how much did they pay and to whom.
1946nimrod 1 month ago
@zarechnuy: However, the deveopment of Concorde started at 29th November 1962, the development of Tu-144 started at 26th July 1963.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 Not at all... Learn more about guys - facts can't be beaten or changed with any kind of fanaticism :).... Tu-144 was copy of an idea indeed - and kind of Tu's "original" was actually Sukhoi T-4... and the because of the Sukhoi development center Concorde and Tupolev's 144 are flying facts. Concorde is a COPY - that's it. Much more unreliable, slower, expensive, smaller, less effective and non-economic than Tu144. And at the end - MUCH MORE DEADLY as well.
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
@ARMATURISTA Seriously, get a hold of yourself, the TU-144 was NOTHING.
Taz1451 1 month ago
@Taz1451 you think? ... but it's still flying meanwhile ;) ..and available to serve ;))) ...ask NASA about
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
@zarechnu I love russian planes but what you are saying is not right How can you compare the number of fatalities in the Tu-144 and the Concorde??? The fist one merely flew, the second one was in service for long years!! Are you kidding me? The B737 and the A320 + The B767 and the A330 don't look alike except that they have the same number of engines. What's this? Post soviet propaganda??
canabisonmars 1 month ago
@canabisonmars херню несешь и не знаешь об этом
добра тебе в целом
zhaboid 1 month ago
@zarechnuy It came out before the concord because it was easier to build. They started copying after the concord was under development, and finished first because the plane is mad rickety. The concord crashed because they let a russian rivet on a piece of the exterior. When the piece ripped off it punctured a fuel tank which caused the crash. the ONLY original russian airframe is an-225... o wait no the c5. nevermind
boombap420 2 days ago
when was this film taken?
elsurferbra 3 months ago
Concord/XB-70. ohh you creative Russians... xD
kyussfan6 3 months ago
@kyussfan6 Soviets*
Olebrucanism 2 months ago
Finishing my lecture - must conclude that "the copy" actually is Concorde... and on engineering, aerodynamic and constructing plane - Concorde wasn't just a copy, but the BAD COPY of Tu 144 ;)
ARMATURISTA 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ARMATURISTA Not really though. The Tu-144 was taken out of service after just 3 years for being notoriously unreliable and constantly being grounded whereas the Concorde had a very long and successful service life. Neither aircraft was a copy of the other but in terms of technological advancements, the Concorde was clearly better
aspiringdrummer17 3 months ago
The FACTS are privilege of TU144 Concorde was just lucky to be "born" outside of the socialism for real - in any other cases that plane is abandon to loose the "battle". Reasons are obvious as I said in my previous post - Price, Speed, Altitude, Capacity, Fuel Efficiency, Noise and not at the end - PRICE and Maintenance. Tupolev's aircraft was not only technically better, but in any kind of competitions. The ONE and only negative to him was a "Politburo of KPSS" (communistic party of USSR)
ARMATURISTA 3 months ago
TU144 & Concorde are kind of "twins" 'cause of the cooperation between British-French and Soviet engineers. It's a FACT that Concorde development was on "topic to fail" (which was THE reason for that cooperation). It's a FACT as well - the highest take off weight, efficiency, passenger capacity, cruising and max speed. Differences between those two constructions are obvious and shows us much better engineers decisions for the original - aerodynamically better wing design, engines placing etc...
ARMATURISTA 3 months ago
Meet the Russian Concorde
gam903 3 months ago
I'm not a concorde fan - i'm a fact fan. The TU design did not start until the concept was published in Jan 1962 and development work did not start until July 1963. Concorde development and design started in 1956 under the design name the Bristol type 223 at the Bristol Airplane Company. In November 1962 the treaty was signed to form the Concorde consortuim using the type 223 as the basis.
So you can see the concorde design clearly pre-dates the Tu-144 by several years.
krackersdave 3 months ago
@krackersdave obviously you are a misinformed fact fan. The Tu-144 design pre-dates the concorde by a margin - but it does.
MrMegacurie 3 months ago
@MrMegacurie Saying it does not make it so! Sorry - the numbers are in - the TU144 is a copy - and it's not like it's the first or last time - the TU4 was a copy, and it not just planes, they copied everything from computer chips to cameras - shit they even copied the damn shuttle.
krackersdave 3 months ago
@krackersdave absolutely NOT true. Concorde doesn't have a "design" before SU T-4 and later Tu 144showed their projects ;) ...actually the original ot the concept is Suchoi T4 "sotka" - but obviously you don have enough of knowledge even to argue with yourself ;)))
ARMATURISTA 1 month ago
y do all Russian planes blow alot of yellow smoke
fsx737200 3 months ago
@fsx737200 cuz thy use da fukin vodka as propella
GattoNevrotico 3 months ago
dreame plane !
MCsiskatrah 4 months ago
i love the TU-144
t1000eg 4 months ago
Perhaps the Russians would have more success if they copied a successful Western design... The Concorde was NOT successful commercially. The Yanks saw to that.
krackersdave 4 months ago
@krackersdave You do know that Tu144 came out 6 months BEFORE Concord ... right?
Byron10301 3 months ago 18
@krackersdave 2 names - Sergei Pavlov and Sergei Fabiew. The espoinage is well documented and recorded - it's not fantasy that the Tu-144 was a copy of the concorde - it's a fact. The prototype of the 144 did fly 2 months before the concorde's first flight - but this means nothing. It's clear that the soviets had detailed designs of concorde right from the start - this two months is simply a reflection of lower production and safety standards.
krackersdave 3 months ago
@krackersdave obviously - you are a kind of Concorde fan, but as much as the most of "just fans" - you know nothing about the real history of those two supersonic jets. In History "plan" actually Concorde was a kind of Tupolevs "copy" 'cause they started Russian program earlier than the British-French cooperation. It's FACT - Tupolev bureau and Concorde engineers used to work TOGETHER on the development plan, and MiG21 was a kind of testing "mule" for most of the components. READ MORE about ;)
ARMATURISTA 3 months ago
@ARMATURISTA absolutely right! There is nothing more to say
MrMegacurie 3 months ago
@beepbop200
all the russian is terrible, yeah. Only THE GREAT USA has the most incredible stuff. Yeah! Im cpt.obvious!
sticksjke 4 months ago
aren't they canards?
facialheadslap 4 months ago
I've got to admit, those front loaded carnards sure gave the 144 a distinctive look but my understanding is that they served a distinct purpose although it would seem that the main delta wing would experience periods of turbulence from the carnards, given changes in the angle of attack? Comments?
MrRonnieG 4 months ago
as far as I konw this airplane was launches 2 years before the concorde ...dont?
mauricioalfredo83 4 months ago
Anti commie? Anti Yankee? West Vs east….East Vs west… Blah Blah Blah….Which is best – Concorde or Tu 144? Ours is!...No its not…Yes it is…No its not…you coped us…no we didn’t….it was you who copped us you commie tosser…no we never you capitalist pig…Concorde was the copy…..bull…Tu 144 was... blah blah blah… Does it bloody matter?? Both are sadly gone now. Someday people will simply learn to admire both these beauties in their own right and quit all political nonsense
bommmmmmmm 4 months ago
@bommmmmmmm they all were failures....does it really matter in the end. The concorde was the only one that went into production, which makes that the biggest failure.
keenkennyny 4 months ago
Tu-144 was a turd. Plain and simple.
PiedmontYS11 5 months ago
@PiedmontYS11 Great, informative, unbiased comment there. Because you of course worked on a supersonic aircraft design and your planes are making regular mach 2 return trips between your arse and where your mind should be. We are all very grateful for your bit of internet wisdom.
ForestXwizarD 4 months ago
@ForestXwizarD Why get so upset over a comment on Youtube? Since you have videos and information on your profile that is cryllic I'd say you're probably the one with bias towards this airplane. Here's a tidbit of info on just about how good the airplane was: "During 102 flights and 181 hours of freight and passenger flight time, the Tu-144S suffered more than 226 failures, 80 of them in flight." Enough said. It was loud, in the cockpit, loud in the cabin, and uncomfortable.
PiedmontYS11 4 months ago
@ForestXwizarD I never claimed to be an engineer, or an expert. Please share why you think this is such a fantastic airplane, and why you got so angry over my comment, which I still believe to be true.
PiedmontYS11 4 months ago
@PiedmontYS11 The thing is, I don't argue that it's a good aircraft. It was indeed unsuccessful and suffered from a lot of problems. However I can't see saying it's a "turd" for anything else other than the simplified, dismissive rebuke. It was a design that posed many challenges, as nothing of the sort was ever built before in Russia, and pretty much remained a test aircraft throughout its career. There are many problems with it, but it also served to advance engineering knowledge.
ForestXwizarD 4 months ago
The Tu-144 was a terrible concorde. Concorde was so much better and most Tupolevs are not very good. They are no where near as good as Boeing or Airbus and this is just a mock concorde.
beepbop200 5 months ago
@beepbop200 man, the TU-95 is the basis for many next gen US bombers, STFU, fuckin nigger
harris3693 5 months ago
Comment removed
mndpsp1 6 months ago
Britain and France can't bare to think the Russians beat them, so they make out they stole their technology...simple. Tu-114 deserves full credit; although the Concorde was the better plane.
x0lamborghini0x 6 months ago 2
@x0lamborghini0x
completely agree. But tupolev was faster
By the way its Tu-144 not "114"
flighty1996 4 months ago
why have i never seen this this aircraft before?? lol
TheBoeing737Pilot 6 months ago
@TheBoeing737Pilot maybe because you thinking you are the only technologgy in the world and instead of expend time study or see what is new arround the world you just concern in how great pussy the girl have and what position you can give her more pleasure to make her cry that will cause you to have the most super giga big cum explotion in the world so you can say ahhhhhhhhhhhh! what a good healing ..... but i understand thats why we have dick for
mekoskitecho 6 months ago
@mekoskitecho um are we still talking about airplanes? You must be a perv or something...
TheBoeing737Pilot 6 months ago
@TheBoeing737Pilot perv ? who is not perv? who dont like girls or who girl dont like boys is something natural ? sex is sex my friend is not something that cause to be scare talk about drugs or crime thats bad is depends of the person but if is this bother you so i'm sorry men or girl
mekoskitecho 6 months ago
@mekoskitecho yes but this is a video about airplanes not porn. and you never know how old the person you are talking to is. kids are like sponges, they soak up everything they hear
TheBoeing737Pilot 6 months ago
@TheBoeing737Pilot and im sure they have heard you say a bad word or two
MrGusman200 5 months ago
@TheBoeing737Pilot yes you rite sorry bro its just here everybody are open minded well thank you and take a look the new airplanes in boing airbus rusian companies or countries warfighters jets so you know whats going on good luck buddy
mekoskitecho 5 months ago
Thats the nearest the Americans are going to get to having an SST passenger plane.
rushymoto 6 months ago
Concorde's more quiet, luxurious, and smooth with little vibrations
DJ727ROBLOX 7 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX
tu-144 is faster, and has a smoother landing. and is more agile.
flighty1996 7 months ago
@flighty1996 still sux
DJ727ROBLOX 7 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX if it "sux" then why would NASA use it?
this aircraft has now lived longer than Concorde!
flighty1996 7 months ago
@flighty1996 NASA should purchase the Concorde and bring the Concorde back to the skies other than some Russian plane that is very old and becoming more dangerous.
DJ727ROBLOX 7 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX
theres a reason they chose the Tupolev and that is beacuse its better. old dosent mean bad.
flighty1996 7 months ago
@flighty1996 Actually the Soviets stole Concorde blueprints and rushed building the the tu-144 so that it could be in service sooner. The Concorde has a much better designed wing which performs much better at every speed compared to the tu-144. The reason why NASA didn't purchase a Concorde is because it was still in service when they bought a tu-144, they wouldn't purchase a Concorde anyway over a tu-144 because it's way more complicated and expensive.
DanM012324 6 months ago
@DanM012324
hence the reason why it is a better aircraft. and as it says in the video Russians like to build their aircraft heavy. its faster (which is basicly the main upside to a concorde). and why cant they use a concorde when it is in service? they use 737's
flighty1996 6 months ago
@flighty1996 Yes they do use 737's because Boeing have built thousands of them so it wouldn't effect the commercial market if NASA have 1 or 2 of them, Compared to Concorde where only 14 were ever in service and BA and AF using all of theirs extensively so if NASA bought one it would disrupt the airlines way of service. The first generation of tu-144 were not faster than Concorde as they had terrible engines, Soviets then fitted bigger turbofan reheated engines so it could match Concorde.
DanM012324 6 months ago
@DanM012324
but there is no way that it would effect the commericial market. How would it? Thats stupid just because NASA owns an aircraft, it somehow means that it will effect all other airlines that already use those aircraft? no
flighty1996 6 months ago
@DanM012324 Russians could not steal the blueprints Concord, because they were kept in the strictest confidence. Don't write nonsense!
MrSrgj 6 months ago
@flighty1996 Hmmm. crashes a lot more didn't it?
dpsherry 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a piece of shit. No where near as good as the Concorde
ibanezrgt220 7 months ago
a jet with CAP !
BlackManiac94 8 months ago
Hmmm.. What do you see on this video? The answer? ;)
If Concord had a real commercial value, they would newer give it away like that.... £1... I should have bought it! :D
Modellpecs 9 months ago
@Modellpecs damn, i could of got a whole fleet
boltjet135 9 months ago
@boltjet135 Sure.... :D Would be fun! What would be the name of your airline? :)
Modellpecs 9 months ago
@Modellpecs prosperity airlines and all there would be is concorde and the tu 144 which went through full 3000 hour testing and was built properly
boltjet135 9 months ago
The Concord are the copy of the Tu-144
Vyun1969 10 months ago 2
fuckin russian plane manufacturers copy our shit
laxinitup62 10 months ago
@laxinitup62
Why would anyone copy "shit"..... :D
Modellpecs 10 months ago
@laxinitup62 Your shit was not worth to be copied, u fuckhead
MrCasspir 10 months ago 2
@MrCasspir you dont even kno what country im from, i could be from china. dickpotter.
laxinitup62 10 months ago
@laxinitup62 then fuck u twice slope
MrCasspir 10 months ago
The Tu-144 has many things which Concord hasn't))) It's an additional bow feathers which helps with takeoff and landin, other engine's location for more safety, she has another form of wings, Tu-144 has dippin nose and many other distinctions)))) So our plane isn't a copy of Concorde)))
Panch124 10 months ago
the Tu-144 came before the Concorde, and as seen here, obviously outlasted it, but, sadly, typical slipshod Soviet Engineering produced a noisy, hot, and all around poor final product of what could have been an excellent design.
Soundwave3591 10 months ago
@Soundwave3591
"Obviously outlasted it"??
LOL, do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? This video clip is nearly a decade and a half old, for one thing. The last TU144-D was grounded yearrrrrrs before Concorde was retired.
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn 4 years? The last known flight of the TU-144 was 14th April 1999
Concord 2003? This argument makes no sence.... British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, for a cost of £1 / 1 Franc each, because no one wanted to by them... Did not worth the money... British Airways had 7 and Air France 5 that is all... It was more like a commercial for British Airways and Air France than a $maker... And also the France and the British state had to prove that it was worth the money...
Modellpecs 9 months ago
@Modellpecs
Where the heck are you getting "four years" from? ...I never said anything like that.
That, and you truly should have half a clue what you're talking about before attempting to post on issues like this. You obviously don't. Firstly, both carriers started with 7. AF scrapped F-BVFD and lost F-BTSC in the crash.
Secondly, only three were purchased at the prices you mentioned (G-BOAE/F & F-BVFF) because the program was written off before their delivery. The rest were market rate.
ImmortalSynn 9 months ago
@Modellpecs British airways made huge amounts of money from the Concorde once they discovered most tickets were sold to companies for their top employees or very rich people who had no idea what they cost. Plus the fact they got their lost 3 Concordes for £1 each. I've never seen the cost statistics for the Air France operations
binaway 9 months ago
@binaway Why did they grounded Concord than? If it was a $ maker than it would be still flying for sure. There are twice as old planes still in service...
Modellpecs 9 months ago
@Modellpecs After Air France ceased Concorde operation Airbus withdrew it's technical support, without which British airways was unable to continue services. British Airways operated it's Concordes at mach 2 and not mach 2.2 which helped extend their service life. Concordes also never operated at the same service frequency as other airliners which allowed them to remain in service years longer. At one point 60% of British airways profits came from it's London-New York Concorde operations.
binaway 9 months ago
@binaway So, it would have bean too expensive to maintain.... Tell me if I'am missing something, but i don't think so... It does not matters, that who wants to service them and who does not... Someone would do it for $ for sure...
Modellpecs 9 months ago
What did americans steal than? ;)
Because their designs look alike also.... Or might be Concord is the copy? :) Whoever makes a delta airliner, that is a copy. Like all airliners look alike, they all copy of one plane... But witchone is the fhirst copy of the second copy? Nonsence... Russians wanted to know what others do, just like France, and england, and USA also.... But the point is that they had their own designs also. Tu-144 is not a copy. Tu-144 is Tu-144.
Modellpecs 10 months ago
What an inelegant looking aircraft, a poor copy of the neat lines of concorde
wks1978 11 months ago
@wks1978 Did russians timetravel? If it is a copy, how could it be the fhirst to fly? And how come, that is totally different?
Modellpecs 11 months ago
@Modellpecs That's quite simple actually, the Concorde was started being developed much earlier, the design fase was extremely long somewhere in that design stage Russians must have obtained early designs. Which emmidiately explains why the Concorde was a refined bird and rather succesful and the Tu-144 not.
repsollenny 10 months ago
@beeroosterm, NASA really uses russian engines. American rockets Atlas-5 use them, because they are more powerful than american ones. These engines named RD-180. They are russian. See Wikipedia, etc. Even there is a TV-film about it (british or american). I watched it on Discovery Cannel. This film names 'Cosmodrome. The Engines That Came In From The Cold'. Find it and watch it.
NASA is very honored company, and it uses best technologies. The fact is the fact.
Sorry for my french.
Example626 11 months ago 2
@Example626 Damned if you aren't correct. I did not know of the RD-180 and the EELV/Atlas-5 program. Very interesting....
beeroosterm 11 months ago
@Example626 That being said - the Tu-144 still sucks very hard....
beeroosterm 11 months ago
@beeroosterm Сосёт твоя страна)))
MarimotoZ 11 months ago
@MarimotoZ Я думаю, мы все знаем, в какой стране сосет - и ваша сестра дул мне вчера вечером. (I think we all know which country sucks - and your sister blew me last night.)
beeroosterm 11 months ago
@beeroosterm Amerika eta strana ;)
TonyFirelli 11 months ago
Comment removed
Example626 11 months ago
Atleast the russians have build a supersonic jet, just like the europeans did. But the americans...
All they can think about is the retarded blended wing design... which is slower...
Fuck that who would like to go slower, only to make less noise, be cleaner and save more fuel.
People dont care! Being on the airplane for 16 hours is already bad enough! We dont want to make 28 out of it. Therefore airbus is researching a hypersonic jet on liqiud hydrogen!
sonicfan7 1 year ago
Will you idiots quit arguing? Everyone copies everyone. That's how it technology and advancements work; You use knowledge others have learned and expand on it! How about we all just nuke each other and start over, since even aviation enthusiasts can't discuss a cool plane taking off without a slap fight ensuing?
hectiky 1 year ago
Always americans try to despice russian technology and products. Wikipedia articles are the best proof. Russians are masters although they are drunk.
expertracker 1 year ago
@expertracker ohh yea, AA-2 atoll, su-24 fencer, Tu-144, Tu-4 Bull <--- search that aircraft, Yak-38, Tu-160, the new russian light weight (russian JSF) desgin drawings is already claimed to be using stolen western designs... all that, maybe more is russian copying...
JVC7400 11 months ago
for what does russia use this plane right now ????
soverato3 1 year ago
@soverato3
Museum.
Sold it to NASA,and they couldnt even fly it.
It's a shame this great plane is out of business,it was way more superior than the concorde at it's time for many reasons,but because it was way more superior,it had more risks.
Lvieru96 1 year ago
@Lvieru96
"more superior"? LOL, not only is that horrible grammar, it's also horribly untrue. Stability issues aside, the single biggest flaw with the TU-144, making it vastly inferior to Concorde, was that it couldn't supercruise. It needed re-heat in order to maintain Mach2 or higher. They couldn't fix this until several iterations, and by then it was far too late for this model.
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@soverato3 actually, NASA uses this aircraft. the Russians retired it.
Soundwave3591 10 months ago
True. And I have no idea why people say that TU-144 was a poor design. Let me ask witch type of Tu-144? On the last series they fixed almost everything. In Russia there was not many people who could afford flying on this beauties. This was soon realised, and developing was canceled. When someone says this is a copy, and was noisy etc. it comes to my mind that when there was socialism in my country people sayed things like the cigarett camell contains camel shit.... Funy ha? :D same thing...
Modellpecs 10 months ago
@soverato3
Museum exhibits and lawn ornaments
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
) I don't know that was earlier, but I know that now. Space Shuttles cease to exist, now all flights will be is made by the Russian ships "Union" and "Progress"
gruffy82 1 year ago
) I don't know that was earlier, but I know that now. Space Shuttles cease to exist, now all flights will be is made by the Russian ships "Union" and "Progress"
gruffy82 1 year ago
I have no health insurance and would like to see a doctor someday. That would do shit for me...
beeroosterm 1 year ago
Those funny wings near the cab or cock-pit made the plane to crash! LOL
Zyvex10 1 year ago
does this thing still in the air
MFP1520 1 year ago
I think the Concorde is still the most beautiful jet ever build by mankind. The TU 144 is nearly the same design except for the floppy ears in front. :-) So it is a beauty too. And the sound of both jets is more than impressive ! The Russians are able to build very robust and reliable jets. I would board a russian jet any time ! The new Suchoi Superjet 100 is perhaps the first chance to sell a Russian jet to the west. Let´s see what will happen...
Slaterator 1 year ago
@Slaterator
Russian Jets have been sold in "the West" before... Cubana, for one.
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
$!#&* OPEC sucks. This is what we would all be flying today.
jvarela965 1 year ago
More Wikipedia stuff that confirms my point(s): "With officials being acutely aware of the aircraft's poor reliability and fearful of possible crashes, Soviet decision-makers were purposefully limiting flight frequency to the absolute minimum possible that still allowed them to claim regular service, and also were constraining passenger load to minimize the impact and political fallout of a possible crash". How would you have liked to have known these facts after you flew on that piece of shit?
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@beeroosterm that is what u get when politics Communism or other gets involved. Look at what happen to the Avro Arrow.
jim447 1 year ago
@vonkaunaz Simple, you're talking about an airliner that is faster than the speed of sound and takes a while to slow down. Plus, it's going fast enough, on impact it could "vaporize". There is no question the Tu-144 would have a similar problem.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago