Added: 3 years ago
From: golfcharlie232
Views: 567,672
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (746)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It looks like a swan! :D

  • is this recent footage of the Russian supersonic aircraft? I thought Tu-144 crashed many years back? Even if it did crash I sincerely hope that the Russians do get one flying again! Yes the UK and the French got their first....but so what! Our Governments grounded our ones and has entombed them forever more! Concordkski - I salute you....lift the trophy once again for Supersonic travel!

  • looks like an old sad dog that drags its ass on the carpet

  • The tu-144 is a fail. Pilots said that it handles like crap. Concorde is the worlds first proper supersonic airliner

  • @matthewboylan1 Actually, who did say that? :D

  • @matthewboylan1 .so what Concorde is in a grave...if the Russians get one up ...I for one will support it! Anyone who has the balls to fly/design such an aircraft deserves a medal in my book...be in British, French, German, Chinese or Russian!

  • The Russian way of reverse engineering..."put canards on it"

  • @cnknguyen "canards " of the 144 are the most advanced of its time! They say 144 went down in France because a Mirages task was to take in flight pictures of it, and the two planes got too close.

  • @Modellpecs cool story, any citations?

  • @cnknguyen The net is full of this story even wiki. ;)

  • daytime landings: 3

  • Tu-144 flew before concorde.. Was made before Concorde and also flew commercially before Concorde and TU-144 is still alive.. maybe not commercially but it flies. NASA uses one I've red somewhere.. And the Concorde? Still, no matter what, isn't it a shame that "oh, bloody russia" made a plane so similar to the Concorde made by the mighty Britts and Le French? Also the russians solved the "long-runway-startng-problem".­.Tu-144 took off A LOT faster.. And I hope no one forgot.. Tu-144 flew faster!

  • The Buran was a copy of the shuttle as well.

  • that thing looks like big bird :D

  • well tu 144 was copied of concorde by spy´s but the reason why tu 144 crashed during the showdown between concorde and tu 144 is because the french never told the pilots of tu 144 that a french fighter was in front of them so they lost the control a crashed.but still the russian used spy´s so the anlgo-french deserv more credit than the russians all thought the russian plane didn´t dropped from the sky by bad engineering.

  • @klamydialover Yes it has been widely reported that the french caused the crash,but if you listen to the interviews of the concorde test pilots they are conviced that had the same happened to them the fact that concorde was an original design and not a copy, that it would have been easily able to pull the kind of G that was needed to avoid the french fighter jet.

  • Called PIO.

  • No reverse thrust?

  • Ouch. Look at the nose cone bounce at 0:07-0:10

  • @knobcheese69 very flexible, that is why rivets are used in planes and not welding

  • ..at least the Soviets BUILT an SST...unlike the 'amerkians.

  • @eaterofclams What? The Armenians never built one? Who are these Amerkians? DERP!!!

  • Soul plane, lol

  • PIO, Pilot Induced Oscillation

  • Steady as she goes now....50 ft....40ft...hang on..dropped my wallet...uh-oh wha- 40 ft....0ft....40 ft...0ft...20ft...0ft...

  • pshh women and there driving

  • bootleg never wins

  • 13 years old and driving...

  • it looks like an angry chicken about to attack lol....

  • Hi, I'm a kangaroo.

  • Tupolev and Concorde were both useless aircrfats, Nasa just paid for one of them

  • @yallowrosa

    ...that conclusion means so much...coming from someone that can't

    even spell "aircraft"...

    and while we are at it..troll..while the Concorde was an AIRCRAFT..

    Tupolev was a design bureau. What you wrote made zero sense.

    It is as if you said: "Boeing and the Lockheed Tri-Star were both useless aircrfats."

    Your intelligence is in question here.

    {well, not really, I'm just being overly diplomatic}

  • What a stupid-looking POS with those canards sticking out the side. And what a lousy landing.

  • from that point of view it looks like an enormous and awkward bird

  • Spying...copying...who's first...BULL!!! Form follows function. That's why all planes follow a similar pattern. Tu144, and Concorde looked the same because they shared features needed for a S.S.T. Still confused by the footage of this beaut coming out of the sky. It looks to me like it was shot down.

  • Considering this was the 1960's, this was some pretty cool shit!

  • The tu-144 bounced like 3 times!

  • Is he gonna put three landings into his logbook now?

  • @ATLRCFlyer that was very funny!

  • what is that

  • The Cold War Era Russians(former Soviets) paid a lot of money to Western Traitors in exchange for Top Secret Original Designs from both American and British Aircrafts.

  • @BBQFanNo1 Well, the Space Shuttle design was originally Russian.

  • The safety history record of Russian aircraft have a lot of serious questions to be asked. Size and loudness means zilch to me for any aircraft with bad safety records and from a country the had secret designs they bought off from trader Americans who sold them to the Russians. A lot of those Ex-American Traitors selling their Soul to the Devil are now hiding living at their Homes in Russia right now.

  • i heard this airplane is now fitted with engines from Tu-160, is this true?

  • One take off..... Three landings.....'nuff said.

  • b o e i n g....?

  • Good grief it's not as if there were thousands of civil supersonic transports for you to pick on. There were just two Concorde and Concordski, and not a Yank to be seen!

  • to bad that it didnt realy crash

  • looks like a robot dog who are nodding her head.. :D but tupolev sucks. >:-( very many crashes and they don't maintain they planes..

  • rip passengers :(

  • Okay, that was official the new definition of a bumpy landing!

  • I don't think that this plane is a symbol of communism. It is more like a symbol of invention, and technical breakthrough. Also established world records. I see a beauty. It is sad that CCCP had no power to finance this project. It could have beat Concorde. Also because of the same reason. The y found out much earlier that a SST can not be a economic enough transport plane. Concorde is retired on the same reason. TU-144 is much closer to me, because it had much more potential. It deserves more.

  • Ohh yea gotta T-bag that ground!!!

  • Russische Concorde. Leider auch nie weiter gebaut

  • najpiękniejszy samolot pasażerski na świecie, i w dodatku najszybszy z pasażerskich

  • best landing

  • PIO, wouldn't you say?

  • you just know its a counterfeit ...hats of to the brave sould who had to fly the piece of junk...so good themade it once and then gave up at we waited a long time to kill the concord.

  • Concorde: The only instance of France defeating Russia.

  • This research flight must've been done before BOEING acquired McDonnell Douglas, and Rockwell became part of Uninted Space Alliance (USA). Still, pretty neat to see a piece of aviation history fly again even if it was used as a test bed.

  • It's a plane not a kangaroo.

  • 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 That would all be fine - if the -144 wasn't such a piece of crap...heh, heh

  • @bommmmmmmm that sums up a lot of videos on youtube very nicly put

  • @bommmmmmmm of course it does. how would you like it if you were working on something for years, you were ready to shot it to the world when only to have been beaten at your own game by people who copied you with something half as good as your design just for the sake of saying we did it first were better than you? it makes me sick. the pioneering glory that concorde deserved was stolen by cheap, underdeveloped cats. so sad.

  • @MrWoodoop OH SHUT THE FUCK UP! The Tu-144 was a totally different aircraft, of course its going to look the same, they go super sonic, its not going to look like a 747 is it! If you had any knowledge you would also notice the serious differences in the designs, just grow up and stop moaning, like bommmmmmmm said above, they are BOTH now gone, stop being so bloody disrespectful!

  • @j4cko56 yes, it is a completely different aircraft. it was rubbish. google it im not lying or bullshitting I have every right to be frustrated with tuplolev and russia. they stole blueprints and design and even any scraps of material they could find in an effort to aquire the absent technology and in their country and develop the aircraft quickly to beat concorde. in typical communist style the engineers were worked around the clock. look at the american designs or other concepts; (cont)...

  • @j4cko56 .... other shapes were feasible. the design was rushed and was plagued with issues. throughout its life, the tu-144 went through a huge amount of modifications because it was such a terrible aircraft. it only entered passenger service for less than a year and then was withdrawn because it wasnt safe. concorde however had 30 years of success with the one runway debris accident that could have happened to any aircraft.

  • @j4cko56 , the tu-144 was so bad that the russians sold one to nasa. to AMERICA! in the cold war! how low could they go? nasa wanted to buy a concorde to develop their own SST but they were still busy being successful and actaully working. and to this day, they will not sell any of the remaining aircraft. that pitiful excuse of an aircraft is nothing but a shadow of concorde. im not the disrespectful one. THE TU-144 IS TO CONCORDE. it should have never been made, but it was; just to be 'first'.

  • @MrWoodoop

    The Tu-144 for NASA was leased from the Russians after the Cold War. The plane was used as a flying laboratory for experiments until NASA no longer needed it. It is still located in the US.

  • @MrWoodoop Yes, the American ones were REALLY SHIT. I'm a Brit and i have respect for ALL aircraft, stop believing everything you bloody read! They are 2 different aircraft, doing the same function, they are going to have similarities, due to the rule "form follows function", just accept it, who gives a shit if they did copy? It didn't affect Concorde did it...no! Go and get some respect for aviation before you start trolling over videos, seriously, it's pathetic. 

  • @bommmmmmmm Amen to that. I'm so sick of people and there hateful bull crap. HIGH FIVE!!!!

  • beautifull tu-144

  • Interesting that I saw Boeing and Rockwell on the side of the plane along with the American flag. Wasn't that the height of the cold war?

  • @uprrslo

    No, the plane shown in this video is a Tu-144LL that was used in a 1990s partnership between Boeing, Nasa, and Tupolev. It was mainly used to test supersonic flight of large aircraft and to judge whether or not producing supersonic passenger aircraft would be cost effective. It proved to be too expensive, so the project was abandoned.

  • I dunno... those first two landings looked OK ;)

  • TU-144. cool plane (and better in some stuff compared with Concorde)

  • When it's landing it looks like a retarded bird.

  • i have seen the concorde and this one, this one is bigger, faster and nicer looking.

    the concorde is more advanced, i was in the techniek museum in Sinsheim Germany.

  • Sound raped my ears -.-

    

  • the Concorde is more beautiful 

  • 0:22 dat ass.

  • Yes, both planes were so awesome they do not fly anymore. Too expensive to maintain and repair. Too expensive to fly and make money. And is what they were supposed to do. Make money.

  • Strange.

    Notice how everyone who spoke the truth (ie: The Tu-144 was inferior to the Concorde) had their comments flagged as spam? No worries, those of us willing to accept the truth do not need our Youtube comments to be boosted by illiterate individuals.

    Carry on.

  • The Concorde was far more advanced than the TU-144. It was also safer and more efficient.

  • @sluggs10289 it what ways?

  • @halfimmigrant

    Wing design, the engine intake design (MUCH more efficient than the Tupolev's), internal climate control, the engine's themselves were much heavier (and gas guzzlers even without reheat), airframe instability/vibration, low speed handling (that is why the forward canards were needed), etc.

    To the Tu-144's credit, I do think it is more aesthetically appealing than the Concorde.

  • @sluggs10289 But the Concorde starts with the letter C. You know what else starts with the letter C? COCKS. So if you like the Concorde you also like COCKS. Which makes you GAY.

  • @SolomonJonesIsBack it seams like you're the only one that likes cocks since you were the first person bring them up and to take the time and brain power to compare concord to cocks

  • @SolomonJonesIsBack

    Shit...you got me.

    Lol.

  • @sluggs10289 yeah but this was rusian

  • @sluggs10289 ololo, doesn't matter that more people died flying Concorde, but TU 144 sucks. Sweet Jesus, kids skipping school these days...

  • @Vitalik1Ru

    If you think the Tu-144 sucks, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I sure as hell don't think the Tu-144 sucks, but we can agree to disagree.

    Also, I'm sure you've read the history of the Concorde's one and only crash. If not, I'd suggest you do so, pronto. It was caused by a piece of debris left by a departing DC-10. Either way, the facts are irrefutable; the Concorde was more advanced than the Tu-144.

  • @sluggs10289 Aha, roses are red violets are blue, in soviet Russia poem writes you. Kid, TU 144 had its first flight before Concorde, first broke the sound barrier (as a passenger jet) and first started flying as a commercial supersonic jet. TU 144 ended its carrier for several reasons: price for the ticket was high, people didn't use it that often, ministers changed and a new one decided not to fund research for the new 144D especially after its unsuccessful flight. Less people died in TU 144

  • @Vitalik1Ru

    None of that has anything to do with the technical aspects of each plane. I had compiled a short list of the Concorde's superior attributes in one of my previous comments, you can find it a few pages back.

    Hell, even Tupolev himself had asked British Aerospace Engineering for the Concorde's engine intake design (as it was years ahead of anything that Tupolev had produced). Of course, BAe (still being under the rule of the government at the height of the cold war) said no.

  • @Vitalik1Ru U think that 1 year difference does matter?

  • @sluggs10289 The TU-144 Has HEADWings unlick your Crappy Concorde. :)

  • @MultiEpic1337 they are called canards

  • @andawsbro Good 4 U

  • @sluggs10289 That's because the TU-144 was produce before the Concorde.

  • amaaazing video, Tu - 144 perfect i would like to fly in one

  • Може би , не сте чули тая китара - защо ме занимавате с глупостта която създавате.

  • @ReDDDgoll

    The TU-144 was actually a copy of Concorde not the other way round.

  • @airmagnet27 Time to time someone comes here and says this.... A bit bored of it... None of them are copy... The difference is so big like a montain. Even an average human can see the difference. But if you take look at the structure, etc.... So the stupidest thing that can be told is that concorde is a copy, or 144 is a copy, etc.... Concorde ic much more like the American Lockheed L-2000! Check it out. But no... Not a copy also....

  • @Modellpecs Wrong.

  • @airmagnet27 What? Reasons, facts, pls...

  • The americans think they're so awesome, so, why their SST never flew, while the Tu-144 made scheduled flights in the 60's?

  • hát ezt majdnem megtörték basszameg :S

  • this plane has a sad dog face :(

  • Nicely Done!

  • TU-4, copy of B-29

  • All you idiots saying the TU-144 was better than the Concorde or vice-versa are all just pissing in the wind. The Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie flew over 4 years BEFORE the much slower 44 & SST, with older technology, and at the edge of space.

    If you lined them up 3 abreast on a runway in London and they took off at the same time, when the Valkyrie landed in New York the Concorde would still be 2100 miles out in the Atlantic & the Tupolev 2310 miles away. The Valkyrie is a MUCH more impressive bird.

  • @kevjay777 How many passengers could the Valkyrie carry hmm?

  • @aspiringdrummer17 As many or more as Condordski seeing how the XB-70 max takeoff weight was 550,000 lbs & 144 was 397,000. Also the 70 had a massive amount of wing area compared to the 144. I like the 144 a great deal. The 70 is just more impressive IMO.

    Russian designs are superb. Those who knock the TU-154 saftey record for example blame the design but it is a fantastic bird. The awful maintenance, HARSH flight conditions & TERRIBLE crew training is overall what caused so many to crash.

  • @kevjay777 Yes but the XB-70 was never intended to carry passengers, it was a long range nuclear bomber, so I really can't understand why you're comparing it with the Concorde or the Tu-144. Imo, the XB-70 has no comparison, it's a completely unique aircraft and quite possibly one of the most amazing machines ever built. I also love Russian aircraft, the Tu-154 is a legendary thing and it's sad to see it being slowly withdrawn from service :(

  • @kevjay777 Yes but the XB-70 was never intended to carry passengers, it was a long range nuclear bomber, so I really can't understand why you're comparing it with the Concorde or the Tu-144. Imo, the XB-70 has no comparison, it's a completely unique aircraft and quite possibly one of the most amazing machines ever built. I also love Russian aircraft, the Tu-154 is a legendary thing and it's sad to see it being slowly withdrawn from service :(

  • @kevjay777 At least the Russians are continuing to design some impressive airliners like the Sukhoi SSJ and the Irkut MS-21. Can't wait to see them flying

  • @aspiringdrummer17 Yeah the 21-400 model really looks like a winner. But the SSJ is just downright sexy. Have you seen this video? /watch?v=_HPaw-LGpOk

    It's short but fun to watch. That baby is flat hauling the mail man! I guess the pilot has the yoke pushed way forward or it seems she'd want to just leap off the runway at that speed.

  • @kevjay777 Haha, great video. It's cruel to keep a plane on the ground when all it wants to do is soar into the clouds XD. I read on a website about a week ago that some SSJ's have been grounded due to faulty air conditioning systems :(. Lets hope they get it sorted quickly

  • Is there plans to put this back in the air? The world lost the pinacle of aviation with the retirement of concorde, would be great for someone to put a supersonic passenger bird back in service.

  • @neillyf I hope so! :) But no plans yet.... :(

  • Ground effect!!!!!!!!!

  • Koncordski was tanked on kerosene and the pilot was tanked on vodka!

    Nice landing dumbass!

  • Never the less, the aircraft was an impressive piece of engineering.

  • @nomebear - yeah right. "Russian engineering". Vacuum tubes with Boris and Natashia supervising the project.

  • concorde are tupolevski

  • I'm not riding on any passenger plane where the pilots wear crash helmets and the plane needs a parachute to stop.

    Just saying.

  • @oracle2world

    I assume on all testing flights the pilots use helmets, the same when concorde has been tested. imho.

  • @zeppelin80 - man up, go down with the ship.

  • Сел как птичка! Landed like a bird with nobility

  • offcourse it was more sexy - it's french=) And it was less reliable just because of it's french;)

  • I don't care what came first, Tu-144 or Concorde, but i'll say this, Concorde was more sexy, & Tu-144, ugly.

  • @MICKOYAN1

    Who cares if concorde was developed 10, 20 or 30 years before the tu-144. It still had design flaws that the tu-144 managed to overcome. If you are trying to say the tu-144 is a copy then you are wrong because the dimensions, weights and basic wing and fuselage design is different. If the tu-144 ever recieved the maintenance concorde recieved, it would probably be in service for another 20 or 30 years.

  • @RainfulPhenix Care to cite what design flaws it overcame, and your sources? Because that differs with what the Russians themselves said about it. "If it ever received the maintenance Concorde..." Fuckin wah! It was a piece of shit they couldn't maintain or get to operate safely. That's why it only flew passengers 55 times before being retired from passenger service by Moscow. Not even the military wanted it you moron.

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    But NASA wanted it...

    Care to give me your sources of information?

    And it is true, when people say if tu144 recieved the correct maintenance..." because the maintenance of the aircraft was terrible, and wasn't inspected correctly. The Concorde was treated like a queen by two rich countries who worked together. Saying "its a piece of shit they couldn't maintain" just shows how one sided you are. And calling me a moron shows how much of an assumption maker you are.

  • @RainfulPhenix NASA wanted it? Again, why don't you cite that source. You never cited any design flaws the 144 overcame either, yet you stated that it did. TU-144 could have received all the maintenance it the world, and it wouldn't have made it a better aircraft. Get over it. Your hating on the successful SST that went on to have an illustrious career just illustrates how moronic you are. I'm not assuming you are a moron. I know it from your statements.

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    And yes NASA did want it. The source? This video. This very Tu-144 was bought by NASA for research. This Plus, the Tu-144 overcame many design flaws that the concorde had. for example better wing efficiency and engine placement is one of many. Judging me from statements you disagree on is very moronic indeed my friend. Do you expect me to fit everything into a 300 letter count?

  • @RainfulPhenix : Just one correction here: NASA did not buy the Tu-144. Russia retains property of the plane, one reason being the engines are military hardware, and the Russians will not let anyone get their hands on them.

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    concorde design flaws - overheating of the nose, poor engine placement reducing wing surface area, requiring more fuel and power to lift <--- not efficient. Also, an ordinary plane will not have such wheels that would burst if it ran over a sharp piece of metal since most planes during concordes era had wheels tested for that. So that is another dangerous design flaw it had. If you bother to do any research, you may realise concorde wasnt any better than the tu-144.

  • @RainfulPhenix I need not go further in this ridiculous statement of yours to see you don't know how to make an argument. You discredit yourself immediately when you said "ordinary plane". You also don't know much about aviation. I am a pilot and I gather you are not. Any aircraft wheel can burst from FOD. They aren't impervious. Concorde had a much higher take off speed than "ordinary planes". If you bothered to do research, it would be clear to you even the Russians knew the 144 was inferior.

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    OH I see. You are a pilot so you MUST know everything about the Concorde and everything about a plane. Or is that an engineers job? You are one sided, so just accept it. You deny everything that was ever good about the tu-144. It is typical of someone who is european, or from the west to be against the Russians in any way. Lay off the fancy words and accept the fact that you have stuffed your subconcious up with a load of sh*t. "you dont know how to make an argument" what?

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    And I dont understand why you said "concorde has a much higher takeoff speed" as if you think im too stupid to grasp that.

  • chuck norris

  • It´s very funny that all these pro-Concorde nerds flooding the net with their comments take their "facts" entirely from the wikipedia article on the Tu-144. Identical words, numbers,and conclusions. Welcome to this ridiculous era of "researchers" that read one or two internet articles on whatever subject, then proceed to debate on the issue as if they were consummate experts. So what we get is a funny combo of fast microwave research and pro-West propaganda contamination.

  • @vonkaunaz I'm a pilot. I knew about TU-144 shortcomings before there ever was an internet. Now how about instead of making childish accusations, you actually back up what you say with a citation? Explain how Tu-144 was retired from passenger service after only 55 flights, or give me the Soviet version which says it still flies today. And explain to me why the Soviet military rejected it as being unworthy, or give me the Soviet version of history which says they loved it as a bomber!

  • "BOING BOING BOING " "YURI" "STOP DOING THAT" Do you have to do that every time the cameras are around?

  • in soviet russia sound barrier breaks you:)

  • That looks so much like a concorde...

  • @makestringfigures123

    right

    concorde are the copy of the tu-44

  • @konrad4212

    LOL Tu-144 has made the first flight for some months earlier. The Concorde - a copy of Tu-144

    Tu-144 Faster, more safely, has lower speed of landing.

    Conkorde are Tupolevsky, trolly :)

  • @PassiveSmoking

    Do you think England and France didn't steal anything from Russia that period? There was the time when everybody was stealing the ideas or whatever, it's still basically the same in our days in all countries. TU144 has got a lot of better issues comparing with concorde. It was and it will be always a lot of argue about these beautifull planes, the same like, what's better BMW or Mercedes, kinda the same stuff.

  • @zeppelin80 Please point out those "better issues" that Koncordski has over Concorde? And cite your sources because you seem to be full of Pravda propaganda bullshit.

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    In our days it is no point to lie,both planes not in service at the moment.You want to see just what you want to

    see. What sources do you believe? I also can say your sources full of pentagon propoganda. OK, just even if you look at wikipedia (I don't know what sources you want believe).

    TU144vsConcorde(Tupolevsky):

    max.speed 2500vs2330km/h;

    max.height 20000vs18300m;

    power 245vs169kN;

    max load 15000vs12000kg;

    landing speed 270vs300km/h;

    take off dist 2930vs3410m.

  • @zeppelin80 Care to cite what webpage you took this source? This is not from wikipedia, and all the west knows TU-144 was inferior. Even the Soviets knew it, but they refuse to admit it. Of course there is the history of the world according to Soviets, and there is the history of the world according to the rest of the world that tells the trust. Don't give me that trust shit, from a country that loved it's people so much - it shot them if they tried to leave!

  • @PhrynosomaTexas

    I used to live in USSR, you never, so you can't judge. In the states every day shooters kill hundreeds of people in colleges, shops or whatever, but it's not the point for now.

    The info taken from wikipedia and testpilot.ru/inter/concord, if you can't find it and compare, it's your problem. I know it's hard for you, the russians beat brits and french, so they were like the russians stolen the design of concorde...it's simple way. You asked me, I gave you the issues.

  • @ReDDDgoII

    Полностью поддерживаю!!!

  • @edawg792 So? Could be true. But to me it seams more like a concept. But! And it is important; Even if they did steal, they did not build a Concorde like plane. TU-144 is totally different. And here comes my fruit "fruit metaphors" that my friend oracle2world likes so much.... :D

  • @701shep So what? Back than everybody stole everything.... Western side was just the same.....