I love to come and chat about planes on this site, but it can't always be 100%arguements. I'm a American Army officer, but even I can appreciate that the Soviet Union/Russia made some really innovative and beautiful Aircraft. Alot of them remind me of watching the "thunderbirds" as a child in England. Really cool stuff.
@DJ727ROBLOX ha ha get ur facts right. you can do look at wikipedia. Those programs where parallel in time, to say more..... russians made first flight one year before French.
Also you can read up TU-144 crash at Paris Air Show main competitor of Concorde crashing at French Air Show ....... Anyway, I don't like all those conspires theories, but it does look suspicious
All interesting researches of post ww2 USA are German researches. Almost all german scientists had to go to US after war to make US planes rockets and other military things.
everybody copies everybody else. Go to the Luft 46 web page, nothing in the air is new. For a real laugh Check out the Lock-Mart F-35 JSF then watch the video of the Yak-141. I'm 100% American, but can see when other countries did it better or earlier.
@Papi1960R The US did utilize the Yak141 powerplant configuration in the JSF, but they didn't copy it in the sense of stealing or anything otherwise underhanded; the Russians were by then friendly enough to sell it.
@19810101PR I find that hard to believe since the Concorde was well through development well before this plane was built. Concorde was first flown in the late '60s and went into regular service by the mid '70s. This plane never made it much further than an R&D project. It shared more with the U.S XB70 "Valkyrie" project from many years before. Do a little research when You're interested in something.
Ok...This was NOT a bomber. Is was designed to be passenger jet (although it was insisted that it would be a bomber) - this was a passenger jet that rivaled Concorde.
AircraftCompare DOTcom provides exact details of around every aircraft in the world from the past present to the FUTURE FLYING CARS, with photos specs price and everything else. Compare side by side the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380 or the MIG with the F16 etc, get access to category wise airplane and helicopter rankings, meet the prominent figures from the aerospace industry through the community..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
on 4 occasions the Russian government was caught bribing judges. Tanya Harding did not bribe judges and her crime was not against another nation. Also the Americans could not use their best athlestes as they were deemed to be "professionals" so we had to send out college athletes and not our pros. It was a big deal for Russia to get medals. I remembe watching the olympics the last 46 years and clearly in some cases the Americans were the best but were voted lower scores because of politics
OK, honorable of you to acknowledge the difference. Will the olympics ever be clean, who knows. The need for medals by private citizens will always be there and that is great. But when nations get political and demand medals of their athletes that is over the top and that is the sad part and that was my point. The U.S. athletes for the most part are clean like most others. Ruskies and Chicoms the nation comes first.
I didn't watch a single event in the Olympics 2008 and I have given up completely on the tour de France. I believe it to be naive the view that US athletes are somehow cleaner on drugs than other nations. A big scandal is looming in the cycling world and it ain't a Ruskie then there is the Marion Jones scandal and the major league baseball scandals.
The list is endless. Do other nations actively encourage drug taking to win medals? I would think this is true. How can it be stopped? It can't
@MrTrajan69 Remember when the Mighty Soviets beat your pussy Dream Team in the last second of the match, and the yankos sniveled and whined like a bunch of kids? Hahaha, what a good laugh that was!
@ AlexTch: Shall we keep it civilized and keep our comments on topic, not becoming personal? On topic; let me be very clear: Im a military historian, I watch discovery, but I do know what is bullshit/propaganda. I can accuse you of being biased, in favour of Russia. Im certainly not anti-Russia. And thats enough about that.
If you have anything useful on topis, share it, plz. Im always in for a good discussion.
The most silent sub in the world is the German type 212 for your info and it's not nuclear powered. As you say there are anti russian sites on the net, there are also anti US sites. You should also know that the Helmet on the Mig 29 was useless since all the air forces want BVR combat, and at that time, the anti AWACS missiles weren't available, so the WEST did not need such a helmet lol ! For info French navy uses M51 missiles. S-300 family and S-400 (even futur S-500) are useless against it.
@HellBurnobroyeur And who to you about it has told? BBC? CNN? Дискавери? Do not worry at Russia is much for you new that Americans will unpleasantly surprise you or will capitally upset
No, I'm not that smart. I can't afford wasting my time in both channels, but I prefer taking the info directly from our industries. That's the difference between a fan boy and a pro.
And you should know that Seawolf class is the most silent nuclear powered subs in the world. It's not the Akula II. Just for info, at it's silent speed (speed in which it is almost stealth for accoustic radars) 20knots, it's even quieter than a Los Angeles Improved on the deck. And don't think that I watch discovery channel, I'm french and I have no business on watching US dust channels. But I do know most of the info you're telling me are on pro russians websites.
I never said Bulava had a gap but CURRENT Russian ICBM have a real gap with Trident II. And by the way, you should now that most of the ICBM are almost impossible to defeat efficiently. All the anti missiles almost sucks in this field. It's possible up to the IRBM, but ICBM fly faster and have several coutermeasures (even if they are less useful against IR seekers) and are MARV or MIRV kinds. You should read serious magazines instead of wasting your time on the net on forums or websites.
And by the way, Russians ICBM are maybe better, but the SLBM sucks. Look at the Boulava SS-NX-30 failed lauch lol ! Even the russians says that there is a real gap with the Trident II D5. By the way, Cope India 2004 looks more as a F-22 advertisement than a real effective training. Just waiting to see what a Rafale or a Typhoon or a F-22 would do with the lattest Su-35 BM and Pak-Fa...
Russians never said that Bulava has gap against Trident II D5. Bulava is much better. In fact, Bulava is naval variant of ICBM Topol-M. It's the most advanced missile in the world. Russians usually built best naval CBM. For example. RSM-54, and RSM-52 are still on duty, but they work of liquid fuel. Bulava will be more advanced and impossible to intercept. Complex weapon requires complex work. Last drill was half-successful, problem happened just on 3d stage. First 2 stages worked perfectly.
Su-27 and Mig 29 were better in designs, but they needed more attention from their pilots and the basic versions had real lacks of electronics and avionics on western aircrafts. Even the earlier Su-30 MKI are equiped with Thales avionics. Moreover several wise people (as US Generals that saw them during US-Indian trainings) say that the Su-30 MKI doesn't have a good ratio hours of flight /hours of reparing. And I never saw the real results of the Su-30 vs Typhoon dogfight trainings.
You are wrong, Russian electronics and avionics are not worse than western. I understand you watch propagandistic bulshit on discovery channel, they constatnly bomb your brain by sayings "yeah, better design, but bad electronics". It's bullshit. For example, Mig-29 was first jet fighter in the world, with targeting system on helmet and audio informing sound system.
Russian subs dive deeper (but are far more noisier and have much poorer search capability), but Russian ICBMs are indeed better. Oh, right, how about the ejection seat in the F22? A design that waas BOUGHT from RUSSIA!!! And yes, their tanks are not so good, but the good ol' AK47 simply is the best gun EVER (next to the Colt and the MG42).
Nationalism and patriotism unfortunately DO NOT WIN WARS!!!! Strategists that avoid war, and smart, well-educated soldiers with good weaponry do!!!
You should know that Russia has a few kinds of very silent subs, the most silent subs in the world. Yes, first models made in 60s were noiser, but not now. You also watch too much discovery channel stupid documentaries, mostly anti-russian.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That is because the Japs sold the propeller technology to the communist Ruskies. Russia steals much of its technology from the west or the U.S. China does the same. The Ruskie space shuttle came out 17 yrs after the U.S. and what do you know! It looked just like the NASA Space Shuttle! LOL amazing
Not only it looked like it but it was BETTER... Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? Typical badass American attitude. No this is my design, I will not share!!! Pathetic... If you want to go there, then USA stole the design ot MIG fighters. Remmember that plane that landed in Japan? Oh right, you don't... because it does not benefit your arguement. Spread your ignorance elsewhere...
But while there might have been copying of the Concorde-program, the T4 was so unique, it was designed completely from scratch. Amazing, that there are still so many assholes who think Russia has no design capability-> A2A-missiles outperform Westren designs, the MiG-29 and Su-27 series both are superior in performance than any western 4th gen aircraft, and most important, their guncontrol and missile targeting systems have outperformed Western designs since the early 80ies...
Although Im a big fan of the JAS39, and IMHO the RNLAF should have bought the Gripen, instead of the JSF, what does this have to do with the posts above? In Red Flag, the JAS39 flies against SIMULATED Su27s and MiG29s (although of the latter the real deal is present!), with old-style Ruski tactics. The Indians have already shown the USAF and the USN what else you can do with the Su27, and caught them with their pants down (twice!).
Apart from Polish and former German MiG29s, I do not recall any other of these fighters taking part in RF? And dont forget that the DDR got the "ape"-version (ie. stripped down less-advanced version) of the MiG29, and so the Luftwaffe and Poland (which has taken over the German MiG29s) fly with the same basic aircraft. But this has all very little to do with the subject.
Funny... I can find all kinds of BS, but nobody here mentions the fact that the primary mission of the T4 was destroying incoming supersonic US bombers- it was meant as an INTERCEPTOR, dedeicated especially against the (cancelled) XB-70 Valkyrie. After the cancellation of the T4, its role was changed into a bomber. But the design then had to be changed so dramatically, it was cancelled (The Red Air Force was forced to choose between massive amounts of MiG-23/27, or continuing this program). TBC
and you must look at the Engine naccelles of the Russian one they are bigger then the ones at the Concorde... the wing is more "edgy" and the Canard wing in front of it... i don´t mean the Concorde was copied or in the other direction the concorde.
both Airplanes are designed and the designers have had the same problems and voila, the aircrafts look very similar. the concorde was more elegant than its counterpart
Concorde was MUCH more sophisticated. e.g. electronic engine control (Tu wanted to buy the same from Lucas but were not permitted), use fuel for hydraulic control & air con, supercruise ability.
The nonesense one reads steming from nationalism......
NEITHER! every time someone says one copies stuff from the other IT IS A LIE! information exchange and spies at work help to desperce the ideas from one group to another, from one country to another... american Raptor f 22 most of electronics are made by Russian sientists... balistic missllsss from "USA" are exact copies of its Soviet prototype... list goes on and on! INFO EXCHANGE! 20 - 21 century....
nope. concorde being designed over a long period of time by uk and france. what happened is someone infiltrated it, stole a load of the technical stuff, brought it back to the motherland and copied the design then stuck some big ass jets on the back lol.
concorde first flew later because uk and france were still developing it and making it safe
@EugenetReal The first flight date is irrelevant. Concorde was being designed and built well before the TU-144. The Russians got wind of this and quickly rushed their version out in order to be first at supersonic passenger travel, but it was poorly made and....well, we all know what happened to it. People ALWAYS cite the first flight, and like I say, it's irrelevant. Concorde had a far longer gestation period, and it shows - Concorde was better in every way.
@TheMightyHartley - The Tu-144 flew for years before it crashed. There is no evidence that the crash was due to it being poorly made. Did the Concorde crash from being poorly made? Or American airliners?
@A86 There were no defects in the Concorde. The reason that the plane was taken out of service was due to the engines being an environmental health hazard(very high decibel rating) in the areas where the plane was landing and taking off. There are serious risks to human health from exposure to very loud sound.
@camlpg - I know. That's what I was trying to convey to "TheMightyHartley". I was trying to convey that there was nothing seriously wrong with the Tu-144 just like there was nothing seriously wrong with the Concorde. They were both grounded for partially political reasons. The Concorde due to its sound issues and the Tu-144 because of something new they were trying with instructions that went wrong.
@A86 The Concorde was grounded because it simply didn't make any money and they were starting to show signs of wear. There were no profits with Concorde, only astonomical expenses. They flew as long as they did because they were subsidized by the government. That is why Boeing stayed out of it, they couldn't fly a supersonic without help and there was no way the U.S. was going to do that. Too bad, they were magnificent.
@klesmer - It's sad. :( She was a beautiful bird and she made supersonic travel a reality for people outside of the military. I hope lessons learned from the Concorde helps pave the way for hypersonic travel in the future for civilians. Like possible suborbital commercial spaceplanes in the future. Or at least more immediately I hope it helps out possible economically-profitable supersonic commercial liners in the future.
@A86 I think we will see it in the near future I hope, I'm in my mid sixties so I hope they hurry. If they can money with it, you will see it happen sooner than later.
@klesmer - The Concorde's fate also worries me about commercial space travel. I like SpaceX (and NASA) but I'm worried about the fact that they still rely heavily on government contracts for funding. It worries me that they may end up going the way of the Concorde if they don't attract enough commercial interest. Hopefully that won't be the case.
@HasanJamilable the first flight of this was 3 years AFTER concordes
although the TU-144 had an earlier first flight date, the concorde had a very very long planning and the russians got wind of it and rushed the build, making a poorly made plane
so, you and the people who liked your comment can stop giving false information and stop being so stupid to believe something that someone doesnt have a clue about
@BringEllisTheHoriZon Sure, when the russians are first, it is because they spyed. When the americans or europeans are first, it's because we are clever?
@HasanJamilable It's pretty common knowledge that the Tu-144 was the product of Soviet espionage on the Concorde project... it was simply hastily put into production so that they could say they had it first. Just like it's pretty common knowledge that the T-4 was a copy of the XB-70.
Infact whatever you show here reality is Russia is finished its just like a used bullet. I belong to Indian army we have bought trillions dollars of wepeons from Russia in the past but reality is all Russian technology is zero and however US technology is about to perfect. thats why we have moved on . USA is powerfull and advanced in technology and we get everything we need so no mere Russia USA is atleast 20 years ahead in arms race with Russia...INDIA+USA= New world order.
This beautyfil bird in 50s or 60s was the analog of Valkiria XB-70 and may be better than XB. Su-100 or SOTKA was made of titan too...................
Посмотрите серию фильма Тайны забытых побед, которая относится к данной теме. Там есть комментарии людей, непосредственно принимавших участие в этом проекте.
Тупость начинать дорогостоящий проект, вбухать кучу денег, создать технологии и супер машину и все бросить. Обидно, что автора никто не помнит, зато Туполева (заслуженно) знаю все.
Эта машина уже никому не нужна была, когда ее довели до серии. Если бы ее даже и начали производить серийно, то на вооружении она бы была несколько лет. Аналогичная Валькирия тоже была закрыта не дойдя до серии.
Этот уникальный стратегический бомбардировщик был разработан забытым советским конструктором Н. С. Черняковым. (в кадре стоит спиной). Проект, к сожалению, закрыли по тупости наших чиновников и амбиций Туполева (или зависти. Протолкнул свой проект Tu160).
Туполев тогда протолкнул Ту-26 под маркой Ту-22М. Это во-первых.
Во-вторых: сотка, как и американская валькирия были уже бесперспективны на тот день. Да они были революционны, но они были безумно дороги. Ни США ни СССР не смогли бы себе позволить большой парк этих машин...
One other thing, can anyone explain the seemingly extremely unaerodynamic windshield design of this plane. The concorde and tu-144 had fold-up aerodynamic fronts with superstrong glass but this plane, with a 50% higher top speed, they left with the windshield of a early Lada...
(if you haven't already look at the wikipedia pics)
I could be wrong, but from what I remember, after take off and prior to landing approach the nose swings up (like Concord) but fully covers the windshield so the pilots only way of forward view was by a kind of periscope or cctv camera. I guess it created better aerodynamics and no overheating of windscreen material. I could be wrong though?
@torque234 Considering Soviet intelligence benefited from the B-70 program and applied that to the Tu-144 / T-4 your claim makes no sense. Moreover, both were cancelled. SAM's made the B-70's only efficient role (high altitude) moot. Aircraft like this don't fly efficiently in a low altitude role.
Btw, to the OP, Tupolev, not Sukhoi. I wish people would spend 1 minute Googling before posting vids with errors.
just to let you know russians are the gods of flights, understand what you want but i dont know where you were born. probably america, it doesnt matter that you are stupid, coz we understand.
and yea germany did but uk? usa? they dont have shit of their own?
@DoctorofEducation it's funny how boeing have bigest foreign ingenering office with 1000 enginers in Russia, General Electrik with in research it new typ of engine say's that only CIAM have enough base to create new typ of engin "in the world"(c). And only Italian "Engineering Manager" (your profile) says Russian don have technology level. Couldn forget how you like scoolboy try to understand somthing in history with yak-130.How many foreign gay's we lern ther with real real technologys moron
Whether the Russians truly did copy everything from the west is a matter of opinion. What is NOT opinion is that they keep getting ACCUSED of copying.
2 sad it didn't go 2 far ! Tupolev and his 22's they friggen suck comparing 2 this 1! Есть фильм где история етого самалета из за бюракратического оппарата обламалась =_(
"dude, both designs look a like, its the comcord and teh XB-70 combinded practicly "
you should think about why all these designs are so similar, it´s not a question of copying, it´s simply because physical natural laws preset the technical solutions if you want to carry 100 T at Mach 3 over huge distances.
@BlackbookN1 ccourse Franches know with whom get to connect for 2 years befor concorde programm was started, and americans know much more so evry body ceep cwide, only papper could write "soviet copy" .for real there' s alot of otherwise.
1st better copy's 2nd america even couldn't even make a super sonic passenger plane but Russians did and it worked and they even asked Russians how to make it :P
This is a bomber aircraft, only made about 10 testflights. You are prolly thinking about the TU-144. It got destroyed in air during an airshow, it is being said that the pilot was trying to avoid a french fighter that was taking spy pics. Therefore overstressing the airframe.
isn't this aircraft the Tu-144? becaseu they look exactly alike. and the french never had a spy plane last time i heard. the only great spy plane was the U-2. sadly out of service now
Oh ok. Yeah it sounds a bit like they were trying to find a scape goat. The Tu-144 is a Tupolev designed airliner. The Sukhoi T-4 was a smaller plane (and faster) than the Tu-144. And it was made as a strategic bomber. (That is what i have read atleast). There is one left on a outdoor museum in Russia.
First of all, this isnt the same type. And the 144 broke in mid air. Engine failure wasn`t the primary cause of the 144 crash. That much is obvious if you watch the 144 crash film.
From wiki for what it it worth:
"the development programme suffered a severe blow when the first Tu-144S production aircraft (reg 77102) crashed. While in the air, it undertook a violent downwards manoeuvre. Trying to pull out of the subsequent dive, the plane broke up and crashed."
Then I will agree I was in error of the cause of the crash.
However, I still see no evidence the French plane was "spying" on something several thousands civilians on the ground were video taping and photographing?
I agree, it seems wierd to "spy" on a plane on a public performance. I read something about them filming the canards on the 144, which were very advanced at the time.
the deployment of a french spy plane may sound strange but, again, according to wikipedia its presence was confirmed. however, its involvement in the crash remains unclear.
It looks like tu 144 becouse Tupolev firts of all made T 4 and then out of T 4's technology tu 144 appeared
TheArtemZ 4 months ago
Beautiful plane! Jaaaaaaaajjjjj....... :)
Modellpecs 5 months ago 4
I love to come and chat about planes on this site, but it can't always be 100%arguements. I'm a American Army officer, but even I can appreciate that the Soviet Union/Russia made some really innovative and beautiful Aircraft. Alot of them remind me of watching the "thunderbirds" as a child in England. Really cool stuff.
Papi1960R 5 months ago
Why is everybody discussing Tu-144 vs. Concorde on a video about the Sukhoi T-4?
Shouldn't it be T-4 vs. XB-70?
grimstuka 6 months ago 9
good bless the souwyertunion,udssr
ollenhauer1 6 months ago
They copied off of Concorde's drawings. Concorde was the most recent SST.
DJ727ROBLOX 6 months ago
@DJ727ROBLOX ha ha get ur facts right. you can do look at wikipedia. Those programs where parallel in time, to say more..... russians made first flight one year before French.
Also you can read up TU-144 crash at Paris Air Show main competitor of Concorde crashing at French Air Show ....... Anyway, I don't like all those conspires theories, but it does look suspicious
ArchiNart 6 months ago
B-70-ski. B-70 flew at Mach 3 by mid 1960s, but B-52 will fly until the end of time along with x86, M113 and Boeing 737.
biukucanoe 7 months ago
All interesting researches of post ww2 USA are German researches. Almost all german scientists had to go to US after war to make US planes rockets and other military things.
Drezdenn 7 months ago
everybody copies everybody else. Go to the Luft 46 web page, nothing in the air is new. For a real laugh Check out the Lock-Mart F-35 JSF then watch the video of the Yak-141. I'm 100% American, but can see when other countries did it better or earlier.
Papi1960R 9 months ago
@Papi1960R The US did utilize the Yak141 powerplant configuration in the JSF, but they didn't copy it in the sense of stealing or anything otherwise underhanded; the Russians were by then friendly enough to sell it.
l3o0ze 8 months ago
concorde was a copy of its plane
19810101PR 9 months ago
@19810101PR I find that hard to believe since the Concorde was well through development well before this plane was built. Concorde was first flown in the late '60s and went into regular service by the mid '70s. This plane never made it much further than an R&D project. It shared more with the U.S XB70 "Valkyrie" project from many years before. Do a little research when You're interested in something.
Oldbmwr100rs 8 months ago
@Oldbmwr100rs It looks very, very similar to the Tu144, however, which flew just a few months before the Concorde.
l3o0ze 8 months ago
All these aircraft were a result of spying and espionage - its a well known fact and a bit scary.
itsmepaul57 9 months ago
NEWSFLASH............US Vows Nuclear War against China
youtube.com/watch?v=rHEduTRk2Lg
Thentheresthetruth 10 months ago
MAX SPEED IS 3200 km/h
VasilevSash 10 months ago
Ok...This was NOT a bomber. Is was designed to be passenger jet (although it was insisted that it would be a bomber) - this was a passenger jet that rivaled Concorde.
looxgood 10 months ago
looks like a cross between a Concorde and an XB-70
oldrumer4u 11 months ago
Concorde is Tupolevski
hockeyfreakboy99 1 year ago
look so ww2ish with the black and white
bunny153649 1 year ago
Wrongo, obviously the T-4 was based on the XB-70 planform, not the Concorde.
monkeyman1140 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone want some photos of the T-4 at Monino, drop me a line apintofstellaplease@gmail.com
tupolevtu114 1 year ago
YES! Proven Fact!! Brick Do Fly!!! haha
hydrobot2003 1 year ago
as usual, a new ruSSian winner plane..till now a lot of ejection seats I've saw!..my conclusion:YT is imperialistic site full with russian whores..
GRATZIANI2002 1 year ago
concorde?:)
wono77 1 year ago
@wono77 >I thought so too; looks so much like retired Concorde(French's mischief perhaps, gave away drawings).
Zeno1999 1 year ago
it had fly-by-wire system)))
RapidSh00ter 1 year ago
What a beast that was!
Taimak77 1 year ago
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, PLANE FLIES YOU!!
agent5m 1 year ago
@agent5m You fuckin said it!! NOW FLY YOU BEAST!
USMCjunior117 1 year ago
That big, pretty star made everything look good. :3
THEY SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT!!!
BatzNBonez 1 year ago
IN RUSSIA PLANE FLY YOU
zicoproudictions 1 year ago
Goddamn I love russian made planes
PorkMelon 1 year ago
the last landing of t-4!!he never sow the sky again
barcxanski87 1 year ago
I believe this was Russia's equivalent to the USA's XB-70 Valkyrie, but like the Valkyrie the T-4 did not go into full production.
pulgabros 1 year ago
Looks Like the Tu-144
Paulmichael9 1 year ago 6
it was the prototype for the tu-144!
Gadeto 1 year ago
@Paulmichael9 this is byproduct from TU144.
Ouija121085 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AircraftCompare DOTcom provides exact details of around every aircraft in the world from the past present to the FUTURE FLYING CARS, with photos specs price and everything else. Compare side by side the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380 or the MIG with the F16 etc, get access to category wise airplane and helicopter rankings, meet the prominent figures from the aerospace industry through the community..
aircraftcompare 1 year ago
Big Ugly useless waste of metal
DaHebrewHammer 2 years ago
@DaHebrewHammer Are you talking about Merkava Mk4, nicknamed "target practice" by RPG troops?
SovietWarrior 1 year ago
Does anyone remember when the Ruskies were caught at 4 different olympics trying to bride judges? And how many times were they caught cheating? LOL
MrTrajan69 2 years ago
Yeah man, you're right. Good to see the end of the cold war.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ben Johnson
yachttaboo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Russian GOVERNMENT was caught bribing the judges not corruption with the individual athletes.
MrTrajan69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
on 4 occasions the Russian government was caught bribing judges. Tanya Harding did not bribe judges and her crime was not against another nation. Also the Americans could not use their best athlestes as they were deemed to be "professionals" so we had to send out college athletes and not our pros. It was a big deal for Russia to get medals. I remembe watching the olympics the last 46 years and clearly in some cases the Americans were the best but were voted lower scores because of politics
MrTrajan69 2 years ago
OK I stand corrected.
But that is what the olympics is all about. a big political showcase to boast about who has the better athletes.
There are fantastic athletes in both countries and it's great to watch them perform but now the big issue is drugs.
Who can hide them the best.
Will sport ever be clean and fair?
yachttaboo 2 years ago 12
OK, honorable of you to acknowledge the difference. Will the olympics ever be clean, who knows. The need for medals by private citizens will always be there and that is great. But when nations get political and demand medals of their athletes that is over the top and that is the sad part and that was my point. The U.S. athletes for the most part are clean like most others. Ruskies and Chicoms the nation comes first.
MrTrajan69 2 years ago
I didn't watch a single event in the Olympics 2008 and I have given up completely on the tour de France. I believe it to be naive the view that US athletes are somehow cleaner on drugs than other nations. A big scandal is looming in the cycling world and it ain't a Ruskie then there is the Marion Jones scandal and the major league baseball scandals.
The list is endless. Do other nations actively encourage drug taking to win medals? I would think this is true. How can it be stopped? It can't
yachttaboo 2 years ago 2
@yachttaboo i don't think so, athletes will always look for new drugs, and governing bodies will always look for new ways to detect them.
buismlawina 5 months ago
@yachttaboo Yes, "cold war" times were very intresting time of such a "sport". =)
TheFsb2009 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ben Johnson
Tanya Harding
yachttaboo 2 years ago
@MrTrajan69 Remember when the Mighty Soviets beat your pussy Dream Team in the last second of the match, and the yankos sniveled and whined like a bunch of kids? Hahaha, what a good laugh that was!
SovietWarrior 1 year ago
russian b1 bomber^^
sirah19 2 years ago
@ AlexTch: Shall we keep it civilized and keep our comments on topic, not becoming personal? On topic; let me be very clear: Im a military historian, I watch discovery, but I do know what is bullshit/propaganda. I can accuse you of being biased, in favour of Russia. Im certainly not anti-Russia. And thats enough about that.
If you have anything useful on topis, share it, plz. Im always in for a good discussion.
Keizerdraak 2 years ago
The most silent sub in the world is the German type 212 for your info and it's not nuclear powered. As you say there are anti russian sites on the net, there are also anti US sites. You should also know that the Helmet on the Mig 29 was useless since all the air forces want BVR combat, and at that time, the anti AWACS missiles weren't available, so the WEST did not need such a helmet lol ! For info French navy uses M51 missiles. S-300 family and S-400 (even futur S-500) are useless against it.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
@HellBurnobroyeur THAT'S B/S
instabuilder 2 years ago
@HellBurnobroyeur I hope you understand it.
instabuilder 2 years ago
@HellBurnobroyeur And who to you about it has told? BBC? CNN? Дискавери? Do not worry at Russia is much for you new that Americans will unpleasantly surprise you or will capitally upset
vovanpop 2 years ago
No, I'm not that smart. I can't afford wasting my time in both channels, but I prefer taking the info directly from our industries. That's the difference between a fan boy and a pro.
HellBurnobroyeur 1 year ago
And you should know that Seawolf class is the most silent nuclear powered subs in the world. It's not the Akula II. Just for info, at it's silent speed (speed in which it is almost stealth for accoustic radars) 20knots, it's even quieter than a Los Angeles Improved on the deck. And don't think that I watch discovery channel, I'm french and I have no business on watching US dust channels. But I do know most of the info you're telling me are on pro russians websites.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
I never said Bulava had a gap but CURRENT Russian ICBM have a real gap with Trident II. And by the way, you should now that most of the ICBM are almost impossible to defeat efficiently. All the anti missiles almost sucks in this field. It's possible up to the IRBM, but ICBM fly faster and have several coutermeasures (even if they are less useful against IR seekers) and are MARV or MIRV kinds. You should read serious magazines instead of wasting your time on the net on forums or websites.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
And by the way, Russians ICBM are maybe better, but the SLBM sucks. Look at the Boulava SS-NX-30 failed lauch lol ! Even the russians says that there is a real gap with the Trident II D5. By the way, Cope India 2004 looks more as a F-22 advertisement than a real effective training. Just waiting to see what a Rafale or a Typhoon or a F-22 would do with the lattest Su-35 BM and Pak-Fa...
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
Russians never said that Bulava has gap against Trident II D5. Bulava is much better. In fact, Bulava is naval variant of ICBM Topol-M. It's the most advanced missile in the world. Russians usually built best naval CBM. For example. RSM-54, and RSM-52 are still on duty, but they work of liquid fuel. Bulava will be more advanced and impossible to intercept. Complex weapon requires complex work. Last drill was half-successful, problem happened just on 3d stage. First 2 stages worked perfectly.
AlexanderTch 2 years ago
Su-27 and Mig 29 were better in designs, but they needed more attention from their pilots and the basic versions had real lacks of electronics and avionics on western aircrafts. Even the earlier Su-30 MKI are equiped with Thales avionics. Moreover several wise people (as US Generals that saw them during US-Indian trainings) say that the Su-30 MKI doesn't have a good ratio hours of flight /hours of reparing. And I never saw the real results of the Su-30 vs Typhoon dogfight trainings.
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
You are wrong, Russian electronics and avionics are not worse than western. I understand you watch propagandistic bulshit on discovery channel, they constatnly bomb your brain by sayings "yeah, better design, but bad electronics". It's bullshit. For example, Mig-29 was first jet fighter in the world, with targeting system on helmet and audio informing sound system.
AlexanderTch 2 years ago 2
Even deeper than SeaWolf or Virginia class ? I have serious doubts...
HellBurnobroyeur 2 years ago
Russian subs dive deeper (but are far more noisier and have much poorer search capability), but Russian ICBMs are indeed better. Oh, right, how about the ejection seat in the F22? A design that waas BOUGHT from RUSSIA!!! And yes, their tanks are not so good, but the good ol' AK47 simply is the best gun EVER (next to the Colt and the MG42).
Nationalism and patriotism unfortunately DO NOT WIN WARS!!!! Strategists that avoid war, and smart, well-educated soldiers with good weaponry do!!!
Keizerdraak 2 years ago
You should know that Russia has a few kinds of very silent subs, the most silent subs in the world. Yes, first models made in 60s were noiser, but not now. You also watch too much discovery channel stupid documentaries, mostly anti-russian.
AlexanderTch 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is because the Japs sold the propeller technology to the communist Ruskies. Russia steals much of its technology from the west or the U.S. China does the same. The Ruskie space shuttle came out 17 yrs after the U.S. and what do you know! It looked just like the NASA Space Shuttle! LOL amazing
MrTrajan69 2 years ago
Not only it looked like it but it was BETTER... Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? Typical badass American attitude. No this is my design, I will not share!!! Pathetic... If you want to go there, then USA stole the design ot MIG fighters. Remmember that plane that landed in Japan? Oh right, you don't... because it does not benefit your arguement. Spread your ignorance elsewhere...
BoomeR911104 2 years ago
But while there might have been copying of the Concorde-program, the T4 was so unique, it was designed completely from scratch. Amazing, that there are still so many assholes who think Russia has no design capability-> A2A-missiles outperform Westren designs, the MiG-29 and Su-27 series both are superior in performance than any western 4th gen aircraft, and most important, their guncontrol and missile targeting systems have outperformed Western designs since the early 80ies...
Keizerdraak 2 years ago 2
jas 39 gripen was the only aircraft which was not shot down during red flag and i quess its not from russia.
bloppo11 2 years ago
Although Im a big fan of the JAS39, and IMHO the RNLAF should have bought the Gripen, instead of the JSF, what does this have to do with the posts above? In Red Flag, the JAS39 flies against SIMULATED Su27s and MiG29s (although of the latter the real deal is present!), with old-style Ruski tactics. The Indians have already shown the USAF and the USN what else you can do with the Su27, and caught them with their pants down (twice!).
Keizerdraak 2 years ago
Apart from Polish and former German MiG29s, I do not recall any other of these fighters taking part in RF? And dont forget that the DDR got the "ape"-version (ie. stripped down less-advanced version) of the MiG29, and so the Luftwaffe and Poland (which has taken over the German MiG29s) fly with the same basic aircraft. But this has all very little to do with the subject.
Keizerdraak 2 years ago
Funny... I can find all kinds of BS, but nobody here mentions the fact that the primary mission of the T4 was destroying incoming supersonic US bombers- it was meant as an INTERCEPTOR, dedeicated especially against the (cancelled) XB-70 Valkyrie. After the cancellation of the T4, its role was changed into a bomber. But the design then had to be changed so dramatically, it was cancelled (The Red Air Force was forced to choose between massive amounts of MiG-23/27, or continuing this program). TBC
Keizerdraak 2 years ago
and you must look at the Engine naccelles of the Russian one they are bigger then the ones at the Concorde... the wing is more "edgy" and the Canard wing in front of it... i don´t mean the Concorde was copied or in the other direction the concorde.
both Airplanes are designed and the designers have had the same problems and voila, the aircrafts look very similar. the concorde was more elegant than its counterpart
Skysailor01 2 years ago
Concorde - 25 years in service.
Tu-144 - 100 scheduled flights.
Concorde was MUCH more sophisticated. e.g. electronic engine control (Tu wanted to buy the same from Lucas but were not permitted), use fuel for hydraulic control & air con, supercruise ability.
The nonesense one reads steming from nationalism......
poppy757 2 years ago
well, same could be said about Shuttle and buran, only in reverse (remember the automatic landing that Shuttles didn't have?)
This goes on to show that USSR really did not invest into the civilian production.
9K58 2 years ago
The mission of this plane - destroying us aircraft cariers/
YoungBlacker 2 years ago
rare video
YoungBlacker 2 years ago
It`s not a Tu-144, this is "Sotca" T-4 - mach 3 strategic bomber
StanleyV1 2 years ago
Tu-144 First flight: 31 December 1968
Concorde First flight: March 2, 1969
loki4145 2 years ago 6
I love when stupid peple are confused with presenter real life facts and their imaginative world of lieing to feel own pride is dispersed.
titanic19 2 years ago 2
clearly the Concorde was a copy of its soviet counterpart.
HasanJamilable 2 years ago 53
NEITHER! every time someone says one copies stuff from the other IT IS A LIE! information exchange and spies at work help to desperce the ideas from one group to another, from one country to another... american Raptor f 22 most of electronics are made by Russian sientists... balistic missllsss from "USA" are exact copies of its Soviet prototype... list goes on and on! INFO EXCHANGE! 20 - 21 century....
SergeyVA 2 years ago 5
nope. concorde being designed over a long period of time by uk and france. what happened is someone infiltrated it, stole a load of the technical stuff, brought it back to the motherland and copied the design then stuck some big ass jets on the back lol.
concorde first flew later because uk and france were still developing it and making it safe
leemyster2 2 years ago
@HasanJamilable How could it be, as the Concorde were made before the soviet "Concordski"...
;)
Geilswijk 1 year ago
@Geilswijk
@Geilswijk
That is NOT Tu-144 ("Concordski").
That is Sukhoi T-4 prototipe of supersonic strategic bomber.
And if you try to debate about who was first: Concorde or Tu-144 ("Concordski"),
then try to look at least in wikipedia:
First fly of Tu-144: 31 December 1968;
First fly of Concorde: 2 March 1969.
EugenetReal 1 year ago
@EugenetReal who cares; the concorde was the biggest succes. the russians cant make passenger aircraft
JVC7400 1 year ago
@EugenetReal The first flight date is irrelevant. Concorde was being designed and built well before the TU-144. The Russians got wind of this and quickly rushed their version out in order to be first at supersonic passenger travel, but it was poorly made and....well, we all know what happened to it. People ALWAYS cite the first flight, and like I say, it's irrelevant. Concorde had a far longer gestation period, and it shows - Concorde was better in every way.
TheMightyHartley 10 months ago
@TheMightyHartley bullshit
alexxed145 9 months ago
@TheMightyHartley - The Tu-144 flew for years before it crashed. There is no evidence that the crash was due to it being poorly made. Did the Concorde crash from being poorly made? Or American airliners?
A86 7 months ago
@A86 There were no defects in the Concorde. The reason that the plane was taken out of service was due to the engines being an environmental health hazard(very high decibel rating) in the areas where the plane was landing and taking off. There are serious risks to human health from exposure to very loud sound.
camlpg 7 months ago
@camlpg - I know. That's what I was trying to convey to "TheMightyHartley". I was trying to convey that there was nothing seriously wrong with the Tu-144 just like there was nothing seriously wrong with the Concorde. They were both grounded for partially political reasons. The Concorde due to its sound issues and the Tu-144 because of something new they were trying with instructions that went wrong.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 The Concorde was grounded because it simply didn't make any money and they were starting to show signs of wear. There were no profits with Concorde, only astonomical expenses. They flew as long as they did because they were subsidized by the government. That is why Boeing stayed out of it, they couldn't fly a supersonic without help and there was no way the U.S. was going to do that. Too bad, they were magnificent.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer - It's sad. :( She was a beautiful bird and she made supersonic travel a reality for people outside of the military. I hope lessons learned from the Concorde helps pave the way for hypersonic travel in the future for civilians. Like possible suborbital commercial spaceplanes in the future. Or at least more immediately I hope it helps out possible economically-profitable supersonic commercial liners in the future.
A86 7 months ago
@A86 I think we will see it in the near future I hope, I'm in my mid sixties so I hope they hurry. If they can money with it, you will see it happen sooner than later.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer - The Concorde's fate also worries me about commercial space travel. I like SpaceX (and NASA) but I'm worried about the fact that they still rely heavily on government contracts for funding. It worries me that they may end up going the way of the Concorde if they don't attract enough commercial interest. Hopefully that won't be the case.
A86 7 months ago
@HasanJamilable yes, it was a poor copy though. the tu144 crashed 30 years before concorde managed to. rubbish western engineering
kpuc1973 1 year ago
@HasanJamilable the first flight of this was 3 years AFTER concordes
although the TU-144 had an earlier first flight date, the concorde had a very very long planning and the russians got wind of it and rushed the build, making a poorly made plane
so, you and the people who liked your comment can stop giving false information and stop being so stupid to believe something that someone doesnt have a clue about
BringEllisTheHoriZon 1 year ago
@BringEllisTheHoriZon Sure, when the russians are first, it is because they spyed. When the americans or europeans are first, it's because we are clever?
Stop believing your propaganda.
streetstream 9 months ago
@streetstream america was spying on us in cold war. did you forget?
and besides the first planes you built with fucking jet engines came from the captured german planning after 2nd world war
gazprom00 9 months ago
@gazprom00 Who is 'you build' that you are refuring to?
Just so you know, your (UK's) first jet fighters were also copies of german technology.
streetstream 9 months ago
@streetstream Correct
brendonnz1964 8 months ago
@HasanJamilable
LOL
Ayrshore 10 months ago
@HasanJamilable you are an idiot
ioug1 8 months ago
Comment removed
JohnMaxGriffin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HasanJamilable It's pretty common knowledge that the Tu-144 was the product of Soviet espionage on the Concorde project... it was simply hastily put into production so that they could say they had it first. Just like it's pretty common knowledge that the T-4 was a copy of the XB-70.
JohnMaxGriffin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no matter if Russian, American or German... All MADE IN CHINA ;-)
BadBuddy85 2 years ago 16
@BadBuddy85 if only America, germany and russia joined together imagine the aeronautical things we could accomplish
youngestpilotinGa 1 year ago
@youngestpilotinGa
Damn, we need to make a joint project to make the coolest plane ever.
SingularlyDatarific 1 year ago
@BadBuddy85 not all , that made in Russia (USSR) :P
WMuckaMW 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
such an ugly piece of shit
muggyfungus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Infact whatever you show here reality is Russia is finished its just like a used bullet. I belong to Indian army we have bought trillions dollars of wepeons from Russia in the past but reality is all Russian technology is zero and however US technology is about to perfect. thats why we have moved on . USA is powerfull and advanced in technology and we get everything we need so no mere Russia USA is atleast 20 years ahead in arms race with Russia...INDIA+USA= New world order.
Shivsena111 2 years ago
Heh, they even got lazy halfway though and Put in a periscope.
peepeevagi 2 years ago 2
And like Valkiria SOTKA was very expensive.....so Russian and America werent bild it serial.....SORRY for Grammer
Kennyru23 2 years ago
This beautyfil bird in 50s or 60s was the analog of Valkiria XB-70 and may be better than XB. Su-100 or SOTKA was made of titan too...................
Kennyru23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
is this film from the 50's? or the late 40's hahahahahaha
NCC1701zulu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its a piece of shit
NCC1701zulu 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kennyru23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
who gives a shit what you think????
NCC1701zulu 2 years ago
thats so seriously ugly
eriksic 2 years ago
Посмотрите серию фильма Тайны забытых побед, которая относится к данной теме. Там есть комментарии людей, непосредственно принимавших участие в этом проекте.
khask72 2 years ago
Тупость начинать дорогостоящий проект, вбухать кучу денег, создать технологии и супер машину и все бросить. Обидно, что автора никто не помнит, зато Туполева (заслуженно) знаю все.
khask72 2 years ago
Эта машина уже никому не нужна была, когда ее довели до серии. Если бы ее даже и начали производить серийно, то на вооружении она бы была несколько лет. Аналогичная Валькирия тоже была закрыта не дойдя до серии.
alex9044 2 years ago 2
Да но если по етому проекту продолжили бьi работать,то сегодня у вас бьiл бьi чудесньiй бомбовоз среднеъ дальности.А у вас теперь страренкие 22/М3ки
fener4e 2 years ago
В самолете все было новое и впервые (корпус из титана, скорость = 1 км в сек!! и т.д.) Супер! До сих пор бы гордились.
khask72 2 years ago
Это видео из одной из серий фильма под названием Тайны забытых побед. Достаньте не пожалеете!
khask72 2 years ago
Comment removed
khask72 2 years ago
Этот уникальный стратегический бомбардировщик был разработан забытым советским конструктором Н. С. Черняковым. (в кадре стоит спиной). Проект, к сожалению, закрыли по тупости наших чиновников и амбиций Туполева (или зависти. Протолкнул свой проект Tu160).
khask72 2 years ago
Туполев тогда протолкнул Ту-26 под маркой Ту-22М. Это во-первых.
Во-вторых: сотка, как и американская валькирия были уже бесперспективны на тот день. Да они были революционны, но они были безумно дороги. Ни США ни СССР не смогли бы себе позволить большой парк этих машин...
alexx86hater 2 years ago
Но вот то, что наши сволочи не провели полностью программу испытаний, в отличие от американцев... так за такое расстреливать надо.
alexx86hater 2 years ago
Спасибо за уникальные кадры!
Pravilnost 2 years ago
One other thing, can anyone explain the seemingly extremely unaerodynamic windshield design of this plane. The concorde and tu-144 had fold-up aerodynamic fronts with superstrong glass but this plane, with a 50% higher top speed, they left with the windshield of a early Lada...
(if you haven't already look at the wikipedia pics)
sture8808 2 years ago
I could be wrong, but from what I remember, after take off and prior to landing approach the nose swings up (like Concord) but fully covers the windshield so the pilots only way of forward view was by a kind of periscope or cctv camera. I guess it created better aerodynamics and no overheating of windscreen material. I could be wrong though?
hayleyluke 2 years ago 2
hmmm
sture8808 2 years ago
Yes , periscope
as43 2 years ago
Yeah, the nose swings up to a straight line.
Not much to see at that altitude anyway.
SomeDumbYankee 2 years ago
THIS IS NOT TUPOLEV!!!!
This is one of the greasest plane to ever take to the air.
Super cruise of mach 2.8!! Max Speed of Mach 3.2
sukhoisown 2 years ago
This is TUPOLEV - made on tu 144 base
3dimon3 3 years ago
this was nowhere near as good as the xb-70 valkerie
torque234 3 years ago 7
@torque234 Considering Soviet intelligence benefited from the B-70 program and applied that to the Tu-144 / T-4 your claim makes no sense. Moreover, both were cancelled. SAM's made the B-70's only efficient role (high altitude) moot. Aircraft like this don't fly efficiently in a low altitude role.
Btw, to the OP, Tupolev, not Sukhoi. I wish people would spend 1 minute Googling before posting vids with errors.
biturica 1 year ago
just to let you know russians are the gods of flights, understand what you want but i dont know where you were born. probably america, it doesnt matter that you are stupid, coz we understand.
and yea germany did but uk? usa? they dont have shit of their own?
well i dont care
towermaus 3 years ago
russians have no technology of their own. Most things they have built are heavier built ideas from the UK, USA and Germany
DoctorofEducation 3 years ago
This is of course complete nonsense and an embarrassingly shallow opinion, you "doctor of education" lol
todi75 3 years ago 3
@DoctorofEducation it's funny how boeing have bigest foreign ingenering office with 1000 enginers in Russia, General Electrik with in research it new typ of engine say's that only CIAM have enough base to create new typ of engin "in the world"(c). And only Italian "Engineering Manager" (your profile) says Russian don have technology level. Couldn forget how you like scoolboy try to understand somthing in history with yak-130.How many foreign gay's we lern ther with real real technologys moron
FMorris308 1 year ago
Whether the Russians truly did copy everything from the west is a matter of opinion. What is NOT opinion is that they keep getting ACCUSED of copying.
greenseaships 3 years ago 2
2 sad it didn't go 2 far ! Tupolev and his 22's they friggen suck comparing 2 this 1! Есть фильм где история етого самалета из за бюракратического оппарата обламалась =_(
jerseyflex238 3 years ago
But can they copy the famous AK-47's huh?!
gundam1206 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
copie of concord
hawker445 3 years ago
French say it is a copy of Concord, americans says it is a copy of XB-70.. Guys, why are you so envios?
BlackbookN1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
im sayn that the russians have copied so many aircraft desgins and don't egt me started on how many there are too many to name
hawker445 3 years ago
dude, both designs look a like, its the comcord and teh XB-70 combinded practicly
hawker445 3 years ago
"dude, both designs look a like, its the comcord and teh XB-70 combinded practicly "
you should think about why all these designs are so similar, it´s not a question of copying, it´s simply because physical natural laws preset the technical solutions if you want to carry 100 T at Mach 3 over huge distances.
truthspeaker969 3 years ago
@BlackbookN1 ccourse Franches know with whom get to connect for 2 years befor concorde programm was started, and americans know much more so evry body ceep cwide, only papper could write "soviet copy" .for real there' s alot of otherwise.
FMorris308 1 year ago
Russians copy every fucking thing they have from someone else. Russians aren't smart enough to design their own.
ChevyLS1Power 3 years ago
HAHAHHAHAHA TRUE TRUE
hawker445 3 years ago
1st better copy's 2nd america even couldn't even make a super sonic passenger plane but Russians did and it worked and they even asked Russians how to make it :P
TonyFirelli 3 years ago
then how come the russians didn't use the aircraft for thier purposes??
hawker445 3 years ago
What do u mean?
TonyFirelli 3 years ago
they didn't use this airplane very much.. how come they didn't use it as much and the french and british did??
hawker445 3 years ago
This is a bomber aircraft, only made about 10 testflights. You are prolly thinking about the TU-144. It got destroyed in air during an airshow, it is being said that the pilot was trying to avoid a french fighter that was taking spy pics. Therefore overstressing the airframe.
MastaMag 3 years ago
isn't this aircraft the Tu-144? becaseu they look exactly alike. and the french never had a spy plane last time i heard. the only great spy plane was the U-2. sadly out of service now
hawker445 3 years ago
Oh ok. Yeah it sounds a bit like they were trying to find a scape goat. The Tu-144 is a Tupolev designed airliner. The Sukhoi T-4 was a smaller plane (and faster) than the Tu-144. And it was made as a strategic bomber. (That is what i have read atleast). There is one left on a outdoor museum in Russia.
MastaMag 3 years ago
For something they didn't want to be photographed, why the f__k did they take it to an AIR SHOW.
The plane crashed because of an engine failure.
nucflashevent 2 years ago
First of all, this isnt the same type. And the 144 broke in mid air. Engine failure wasn`t the primary cause of the 144 crash. That much is obvious if you watch the 144 crash film.
From wiki for what it it worth:
"the development programme suffered a severe blow when the first Tu-144S production aircraft (reg 77102) crashed. While in the air, it undertook a violent downwards manoeuvre. Trying to pull out of the subsequent dive, the plane broke up and crashed."
MastaMag 2 years ago
Then I will agree I was in error of the cause of the crash.
However, I still see no evidence the French plane was "spying" on something several thousands civilians on the ground were video taping and photographing?
nucflashevent 2 years ago
I agree, it seems wierd to "spy" on a plane on a public performance. I read something about them filming the canards on the 144, which were very advanced at the time.
MastaMag 2 years ago
the deployment of a french spy plane may sound strange but, again, according to wikipedia its presence was confirmed. however, its involvement in the crash remains unclear.
sture8808 2 years ago
Europe used this airplane?
TonyFirelli 3 years ago
not this one, these kinds of aircraft ere based from teh concord and that europe used them ALOT
hawker445 3 years ago
Concorde came AFTER this aircraft came ouy, Concorde is probably based on thsi aircraft.
9K58 3 years ago
LS1
You are so right about that!
No intellectual properties, just reverse engineering...
DoctorofEducation 3 years ago