the russians stole the plans for the concord from the french and tried to release this^ copy before the concord could be shown to the world because it was ahead of its time... but the french changed the blueprints slightly and let them "steal" it, the plane broke apart in mid-air... that's what you get for trying to steal...
@seedofsparta they stole the plans but the tu 144 is an inproved version of the concorde. the whole plane is different. for supersonic flight its only natural you chose for a deltashaped set of wings.the tu 144 had smaler wings for lower landingspeed, more seats, more powerful engines so went faster and had a landinggear, consisted out of 18 wheel who could land on unhardend soil.
ironic that in france, it's faith was sealed as there it snaped cause it was avoidig a crash with a french mirage3
@sgtdfeat Tu-144 is such an improved version of Concorde that it never got any commercial carreer dude. And the Mirage theory has never been proven.
Being Belgian I hoped you'd be more about defending an English-French program, you know, Europe & shit, but apparently not? ANyway I don't really care about what you think, History proves you wrong.
@ghbuzt Because you are British, it clouds your visions about things happening with european countrys involved with USSR? Fact is that USSR made a better plane, ok is was based on the Concorde, but it was still an improvement. I think you should read some more books because then you will probably find out that there are allways 2 sides on a storie and that in many cases the first book you read isn't all that true. You have to form your own opinion and not copy it from a book
@sgtdfeat Mate, talking about ignorance is the best way to hide the fact that you can't prove any of the statements you make. First of, a crash doesn't mean much if the plane's good, take Mig-29 or Su-27 family as an example: they crashed several times during air shows but are still purchased internationally. The Mirage bullshit, once again, has never been proven, never. There are other theories but all of them are hypothetical, nothing's been proven.
@ghbuzt finally i must say i made a mistake on your book part. i must have read it too fast as i surely will never denie the bleuprints were stolen. i have simply misread on that one. I was even already typing a part about the mig 29 beeing a verry good fighter when i read that you said someting else. My fault, english isn't my native tongue but i should have read it more carfully. Still i think you can not compare a fighter crash and a new controversial passengerjet crash about the eccects on p
@sgtdfeat Talking about a "well known fact" and "people say" doesn't prove you're right, it actually proves that you have no f'in facts to prove what you write. Second, don't even talk about trollin' as this is what you are doing mate. I'm not British and my vision isn't blurred by any of the propaganda I've been reading for the past decades. Were you even born back then to assume all your statements? Are you an airplane engineer? Have you even read a damn book before accusing others?
@ghbuzt No i wasn't born back then but i don't see what that matters..And yes, i have an engineering degree in aviation but i currently do not work as one. Enough about me, Personally, when you put words in my mouth witch i didn't say to proove your point, i find that trolling.
@sgtdfeat Do you even know who Yefim Gordon is? Your messages only contain insults and hot air: you don't give a single name, not an author, not a book reference, not even a realistic analysis of the airplane market back then and you don't even compare USSR and western technology back then - and lots can be said. You call me a troll, I won't call you names, I just think that you haven't got a clue about what you're writing and that you can't prove a single bit of your numerous statements.
@ghbuzt yes I know who Yefim Gordon is and no, i haven't read that book. Fist of all the sole reason i decided to answer because I felt you were the disrespectful one. You are the one saying you don't care what i think...respectful. My reaction isn't wrong taking in account yours. you keep on saying i can't proove anything. All i know is from reading too, but you can becasue you read a book that i didn't? I personally thought your reaction " i would expect a bit mor support as ur European" wrong
@ghbuzt finally, i must say i'm not against the Concorde as you may verywell think. I am exited to see it in 2012, won't be in real live. I simply am still convinced the tu-144 was a slight improvment in comparison with the Concorde. I think i will leave it here cause i am no longer interessed in putting time in this discuttion.
@seedofsparta the concord would've snaped too if it did the same moneuver as the tu 144 is a better version of the concorde. the french mirage 3 wasen't supposed to be there. "the french let them steal the plans and changed it slightly" is such bullcrap :) that you even believe it... nobody would ever copy 100 the same as someone else so it wouldent even make any difference for the reliability of the plane. you think the russians wouldn't even test if it would fly but just make it?
@sgtdfeat the Mirage BS has never been proven. Fact is (and has been proven, read Yefim Gordon's 'Tupolev Tu-144' book) that USSR stole Concorde blueprints and Tu 144 never got the commercial carreer Concorde had... oops SORRY it never had any. USSR created a shit aircraft like they're used to and crashed it at Le Bourget... like they're used to cf. Mig 29 or Su 30 mki.
@ghbuzt: I must say your ignorance amazes me. The fact that it had no commercial historie is because the fact that it crashed before the eyes of the world and with airtravelcompany wants to purchase a plane like that??? Why did it crash? because it had to dodge a french mirage.THAT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT. there is a certain probabilitie that it was on purpose (people say) but i personally don't believe that so please don't try trollinh me with that because i never said such things
There was no air to air impact, there only has been a link to air avoidance maneuver from a mirage flying overhead that may have stalled the engines, the fact is that the airframe broke up due to an overstress caused by maneuver to pull out of the dive and it broke up in flight. Has never been attributed to air-to-air impact.
I was here , I never forgott
GABEUDEU 2 weeks ago
the russians stole the plans for the concord from the french and tried to release this^ copy before the concord could be shown to the world because it was ahead of its time... but the french changed the blueprints slightly and let them "steal" it, the plane broke apart in mid-air... that's what you get for trying to steal...
seedofsparta 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are stupid, supersonic airplane is design of tupolev not concord.
cabirdoko 3 years ago
@cabirdoko seedofsparta tell it right!
is not design of tupolev, the russians stole the plans foir the concord.
FloydGilmour 1 year ago
You are so right , this is totally true .
fontheking5 2 years ago
My previous comment was a responce to seedofsparta .
fontheking5 2 years ago
@seedofsparta well say
FloydGilmour 1 year ago
@seedofsparta they stole the plans but the tu 144 is an inproved version of the concorde. the whole plane is different. for supersonic flight its only natural you chose for a deltashaped set of wings.the tu 144 had smaler wings for lower landingspeed, more seats, more powerful engines so went faster and had a landinggear, consisted out of 18 wheel who could land on unhardend soil.
ironic that in france, it's faith was sealed as there it snaped cause it was avoidig a crash with a french mirage3
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@sgtdfeat Tu-144 is such an improved version of Concorde that it never got any commercial carreer dude. And the Mirage theory has never been proven.
Being Belgian I hoped you'd be more about defending an English-French program, you know, Europe & shit, but apparently not? ANyway I don't really care about what you think, History proves you wrong.
ghbuzt 1 year ago
@ghbuzt Because you are British, it clouds your visions about things happening with european countrys involved with USSR? Fact is that USSR made a better plane, ok is was based on the Concorde, but it was still an improvement. I think you should read some more books because then you will probably find out that there are allways 2 sides on a storie and that in many cases the first book you read isn't all that true. You have to form your own opinion and not copy it from a book
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@sgtdfeat Mate, talking about ignorance is the best way to hide the fact that you can't prove any of the statements you make. First of, a crash doesn't mean much if the plane's good, take Mig-29 or Su-27 family as an example: they crashed several times during air shows but are still purchased internationally. The Mirage bullshit, once again, has never been proven, never. There are other theories but all of them are hypothetical, nothing's been proven.
ghbuzt 1 year ago
@ghbuzt finally i must say i made a mistake on your book part. i must have read it too fast as i surely will never denie the bleuprints were stolen. i have simply misread on that one. I was even already typing a part about the mig 29 beeing a verry good fighter when i read that you said someting else. My fault, english isn't my native tongue but i should have read it more carfully. Still i think you can not compare a fighter crash and a new controversial passengerjet crash about the eccects on p
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@sgtdfeat Talking about a "well known fact" and "people say" doesn't prove you're right, it actually proves that you have no f'in facts to prove what you write. Second, don't even talk about trollin' as this is what you are doing mate. I'm not British and my vision isn't blurred by any of the propaganda I've been reading for the past decades. Were you even born back then to assume all your statements? Are you an airplane engineer? Have you even read a damn book before accusing others?
ghbuzt 1 year ago
@ghbuzt No i wasn't born back then but i don't see what that matters..And yes, i have an engineering degree in aviation but i currently do not work as one. Enough about me, Personally, when you put words in my mouth witch i didn't say to proove your point, i find that trolling.
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@sgtdfeat Do you even know who Yefim Gordon is? Your messages only contain insults and hot air: you don't give a single name, not an author, not a book reference, not even a realistic analysis of the airplane market back then and you don't even compare USSR and western technology back then - and lots can be said. You call me a troll, I won't call you names, I just think that you haven't got a clue about what you're writing and that you can't prove a single bit of your numerous statements.
ghbuzt 1 year ago
@ghbuzt yes I know who Yefim Gordon is and no, i haven't read that book. Fist of all the sole reason i decided to answer because I felt you were the disrespectful one. You are the one saying you don't care what i think...respectful. My reaction isn't wrong taking in account yours. you keep on saying i can't proove anything. All i know is from reading too, but you can becasue you read a book that i didn't? I personally thought your reaction " i would expect a bit mor support as ur European" wrong
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@ghbuzt finally, i must say i'm not against the Concorde as you may verywell think. I am exited to see it in 2012, won't be in real live. I simply am still convinced the tu-144 was a slight improvment in comparison with the Concorde. I think i will leave it here cause i am no longer interessed in putting time in this discuttion.
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@seedofsparta the concord would've snaped too if it did the same moneuver as the tu 144 is a better version of the concorde. the french mirage 3 wasen't supposed to be there. "the french let them steal the plans and changed it slightly" is such bullcrap :) that you even believe it... nobody would ever copy 100 the same as someone else so it wouldent even make any difference for the reliability of the plane. you think the russians wouldn't even test if it would fly but just make it?
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
@sgtdfeat the Mirage BS has never been proven. Fact is (and has been proven, read Yefim Gordon's 'Tupolev Tu-144' book) that USSR stole Concorde blueprints and Tu 144 never got the commercial carreer Concorde had... oops SORRY it never had any. USSR created a shit aircraft like they're used to and crashed it at Le Bourget... like they're used to cf. Mig 29 or Su 30 mki.
ghbuzt 1 year ago
@ghbuzt: I must say your ignorance amazes me. The fact that it had no commercial historie is because the fact that it crashed before the eyes of the world and with airtravelcompany wants to purchase a plane like that??? Why did it crash? because it had to dodge a french mirage.THAT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT. there is a certain probabilitie that it was on purpose (people say) but i personally don't believe that so please don't try trollinh me with that because i never said such things
sgtdfeat 1 year ago
omg
spidernul 3 years ago
It looks like an impact to me... There are 2 streaks of smoke travelling into different directions.
TheCrazyFinn 3 years ago
There was no air to air impact, there only has been a link to air avoidance maneuver from a mirage flying overhead that may have stalled the engines, the fact is that the airframe broke up due to an overstress caused by maneuver to pull out of the dive and it broke up in flight. Has never been attributed to air-to-air impact.
lookbtweentheyez 3 years ago
it swerved to avoid a mirage it didn't expect to see in its airspace, the sudden movement over stressed the airframe
NZtegmen 4 years ago
i thought it crashed 'cause a pilot error (stalled the aircraft or somethin'), but it looks like it broke down in the middle of the air
Kristopher209 4 years ago
I has crashed due to an other small airplene impact
Vilesku 4 years ago