For those stating the TU-144 is a better plane, let's just take a look at the fact Concorde flew for over 30 years with only one accident (and that was caused by another plane/bad runway maintenance), yet the TU-144 only made 55 flights due to a crucial structural error. I'd rather fly on Concorde, the only true supersonic passenger jet that's safe. The US failed to build a plane to rival Concorde. Russia stole some of Concorde's early designs just to try and grab bragging rights.
@KAzik10001 First of all, you're more likely to survive with blown tires. Secondly, pilots are trained to handle blown tires. Thirdly, pilots are not trained to fly aircraft with no wings.
@ohms360 Concorde would have fallen apart in the same maneuver also. But 144 would never go down because of a tire. Might kill one or two engines but not the fuel tank. Also if 144 would have bough left engines out, than it could land. Simply because of the engine placement. Also That tire problem happened many times, and they did nothing! Once there was a hole big like a melon! There was also many other problems, like rudder control surface separation... I say, Concorde is was lucky..
Technically more advanced my arse. You don't but canards on a plane like that because they look good. You put them there because of aerodynamic problems. In this case problems caused by the Soviets being unable to properly replicate the Concorde plans they stole.
Apart from the fact that the Tu-144 flew first (and crash first), the rest is dribble. Concorde started development before the Tu-144 and had a far longer and safer flight life. Concorde doesn't need a special runway either.
Tu-144 (Туполев Ту-144) was the world's first supersonic transport aircraft, built in USSR, and first flew in 1968, one year before the Anglo-French Concorde
Cont- Its certainly true to say though that the Soviets even at the height of the cold war requested western technical assistance in 1978 to help save the programme but the Americans forced the Brits and French to decline the request, so to damage Soviet prestige, its also true that in the 1990's NASA used the TU-144 as an experimental test bed for a possible 2nd gen supersonic passenger aircraft, the project ceased in 97. In my opinion Concorde was the better aircraft.
Cont- The TU-144 though was regarded in the West to have certain advantages over Concorde, for instance its now believed that there were no flawed designs stolen by the KGB rather the Soviets tried to tweak the TU-144 during its 2nd day of flight in Paris do "outdo" Concorde which led to catasrophic failures in the design or recently declassified French records showing that the TU-144 was being shadowed by a French military jet trying to photo the Canards of the Soviet jet, cont-
Cont- Thanks to this lack of testing, Concorde took to the skies commercially first, 2 years before its Soviet rival. Its generally acknowledged that Concorde was superior, It was far more reliable, had a greater range and was better looking for a start, it was also far more successful, completing thousands of flights without problem, while the TU-144 flew commercial passengers only 55 times before the fleet was grounded, Cont-
The Concorde programme was initiated 2 years before the Tupolev- TU-144, this is fact, the Soviet aircraft flew first though 2 months before Concorde's first flight but due to setbacks including the Paris crash and the fact the Soviet goverment ordered their aircraft to fly first there were many flaws in the Soviet design, it wasnt that the Soviets stole western technology, they simply didnt test their own designs to the standards we in the west take for granted, cont-
Yes the plans were "borrowed" from the Brit/French, but are most plans not taken from and improved upon? granted they skipped the waiting for them part and took them. Its true that the Russians were fed false information, thus the plane had its flaws, but it is a creation all of its own, it is still a great achievement and something to be proud of
@copferthat WTF are you talking about it was the other way around find british C4 program from the 1990's called concordski. That investigation proved the British stole the designs and sabotaged the early test flights to make it appear the TU-144 was a flawed copy!
Concorde team made several blue prints with flaws. When Russian stole the blue print, such flaws were incorporated into Tu-144. It is a shame. I like Concorde, Su35 and Tu-144. They are majestic airplanes. And to think the design on one of them is flawed. It is a shame.
Why Tu-144 is a little different from Concorde? Tu-144 is based on the messed up blue print of Concorde.
TU-144 never received the respect it deserves. Lots of people saying that it is a copy of Concord, Soviets stole the blueprints of Concord, did not fly well, etc....
Whoever says things like that, did not look after. Not flying well? I have never sean concord makeing low pass turns like TU-144...
Stolen wrong drawings? If it is a copy, why totally different than? If you take a closer look you will see. And if you look inside, structurally absolutely different.
Hi my dear specialists in aerodynamics - Explane for me how as you said "COPY "with first flight 1969 has more effective wing design than "ORIGINAL" with first flight 1970
Concordscy and bla bla - only because Tu-144 is FIRST SUPERSONIC PASSENGER LINER and made by Russians alone !!! make cars - we will make supersonic jets !!!
@MegaStervo4ka - from what I have read, Concorde's wing with its sophisticated camber, twist and droop was a far more effective wing than "Charger's" plain double delta. Tu-144's original engines were afterburning turbofans, optimised for subsonic cruise with supersonic dash capability - Concorde's engines were optimised for cruising at Mach 2 and 50-60000 feet.
The Russian version was much better and more stable because of the position of the engines. It was possible to do flips with it while not possible with the Concorde. Had the French military jets not freaked out the Russian pilot, the Concordski would have made maneuvers not possible by the Concorde and thus embarrassing the French.
It was I believe a sabotage to not just to sell the Concorde, but also as a continuance to the cold war against Russia it was necessary again by the western alies to fake their superiority over Russia . Another example was the fake moon landing by US to prove they're better than the Russians.
@nappyheadedhobitch you're a blithering idiot. The Ruskies are still claiming that their shuttle "Buran" was a completely orignal design. Perhaps the Russians could have used their "superior" technology to make a decent car.
@Treetopflyer172 Or perhaps a decent garage to put the car in. The Buran shuttle was destroyed by the collapse of the garage in which it was stored. And it only flew one unmanned mission (impressive, actually) before it was garaged.
Who cares what it could do in maneuvers, the plane couldnt even maintain supersonic flight without the afterburners. It was a piece of shit vastly inferior to the concorde (which COULD maintain supercruise).
The soviets just stoed every plan and brand new technology as came out!Concordes came out and guess what almost the same plane where produced in russia..
Concordski is the nickname given to this aircraft just because it looks like concorde. People thought the russians stole the design but even the british designers admitted that if you are going to build a supersonic jet airliner, that shape is the simplest and best and it was obvious that the russian plane would resemble the concorde alot. To prove my point, the americans spent more than russia or britian on their super sonic plane and they tried to make it different. It never ever flew
It broke because the French had a mirage II/III taking close up film footage (not still) and the pilot took avoiding action. This resulted in the yaw motion to the aircraft and resulted in breakup of the aircraft,.
This airplane was rated for slightly higher Gs than concord. Neither plane would have survived this pull out of the dive. The problem is neither plane reacts well to negative Gs and as this plane climbed, it was sharply put into a dive (it is said this was done to avoid a french mirrage) The neg. Gs starvd the engines of fuel momentarily causing them to die meaning it stalled. The pilot did not have the altitude to pull out of the dive wihout pulling high Gs. Nothing to do with build quality
@scottN1980 I was 15 at the commercial launch of Concord and the American's were put out that they had been beaten. They banned it from USA landings at first with noise ( a beautiful deep thunder ) as a reason. They relented later!
Actually we Americans were smart enough to know it wasn't economically viable.The only reason the concorde was produced was because whichever country backed out had to repay the other's costs.Proof?No other counties even considered buying that money loser.Every single flight lost money.Such is the price of pride.It was never banned.only supersonic flight over land.Would have love to have flown on to though,just like the Hindenburg,just not the last flight!
@dsgh55978 - Quite a bit of design work was done on the Lockheed L-2000 and the Boeing 2707 - why do that if it wasn't viable? And a fair number of airlines had options on Concorde at one time - PanAm had options on six, while QANTAS had options on four Concordes and three 2707s. The environmental movement and the fuel crisis of 1973 were the nail in the coffin for the 2707 and for any orders for Concorde other than British Airways and Air France.
@scottN1980 That was the XB-70 Valkyrie you're thinking of. That was a supersonic bomber.
Looks similar. That is because for a payload-carrying supersonic aircraft, a delta, sometimes with canards, is a preferable design. It's easy to make (compared to say a variable geometry craft), so cheaper, and isn't of course as good in the air but is overall very effective.
@sheldonholy What people believed was stolen by the russians was the shape of the leading edge of the wing on concorde, which is not straight and is almost identical on the tu144. The canards were added to the tu144 true but without them the 2 are almost identical. I never meant the american sst couldnt fly, I meant it was a pointless waste of money because anything that wasn't the simple solution to making a large supersonic aircraft would be way too expensive
@063209dr No, they didn't. Firstly, the Vulcan is a sub-sonic aeroplane. Concorde is supersonic, so those designs will barely be related. It's just called a delta wing. It's unusual, but very commonly known.
@sheldonholy I'm not referring to the supersonic or sub-sonic aspect, but rather the apparent similarity of the curved plan view of both the Vulcan and Concorde's leading edge. Stretch the Vulcan wing lengthwise and I think it would have a similar curved leading edge as the Concorde - if not a similar shape all round.
@063209dr It's coincidence. I was talking about the super-and-sub-sonic aspects as they will drastically change an aircrafts characteristics. For that reason alone, the design of the Vulcan is not a copy of Concorde at all. In fact the early Vulcan wings had a straight LE - they were a perfect triangle. The shape was probably altered to improve high-altitude load carrying capabilities by increasing the aspect ratio slightly.
I fact I'm pretty sure the Vulcan was designed before Concorde.
@scottN1980 Well, Concorde's LE design may well have been involved in the conceptual design for the TU144, yes.
But in regard to what you said about the American's SST... The designs such as Boeing 2707 and L-2000 were not pointless at all. They never flew, but then about 98% of all (really no exaggeration there) projects started by both the military and private companies never make it past the conceptual design stage, let alone production. But we learn a LOT when we fail.
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
@scottN1980 Because none of the people who look after the grounded Concordes would let NASA use them. Not to mention the Tu-144 is much cheaper to restore to flying condition
@scottN1980 From what I've read (besides yer the only guy that asks questions everybody tries to prove wrong and according to me has not) they said it needs nitrous tanks to go faster and keep going faster and faster before it shreds into confetti (which the title of the drunken pilot clearly proves). So my theory about the only distinct teqnicks on this nappyheadedhobitch is that it takes off with the "bow" pointed down and crashes into the ground with the tip up..... FISH ON!!!!!!!!!!
@djsee4 So since accordingly that potato vodka lush easily could have done that into a puddle and still went 25-41.33333333 meters or feet then I fucking told ya it could easily resurface and go blast any speed barrier it needs to while spearing a swordfish and dropping sushi bums too. So how bout Billy Mitchell himself told me I can call it a fucking flying swordfish sushi dropping nappyheadedhobitch from hell if I feel like it. This is how it should be done!
What a piece of trash compared to Concorde. The konkorski flies like it looks, like shit.
TTDMFfreaknew 2 months ago
For those stating the TU-144 is a better plane, let's just take a look at the fact Concorde flew for over 30 years with only one accident (and that was caused by another plane/bad runway maintenance), yet the TU-144 only made 55 flights due to a crucial structural error. I'd rather fly on Concorde, the only true supersonic passenger jet that's safe. The US failed to build a plane to rival Concorde. Russia stole some of Concorde's early designs just to try and grab bragging rights.
ohms360 3 months ago
@ohms360 well, Concorde nearly crashed 5/6 times due to blown tires and had to emergency land. Plain luck
KAzik10001 2 months ago
@KAzik10001 Trouble is, blown tires are different to your wings falling off.
ohms360 2 months ago
@ohms360 i don't know, would you care if you'd crash and die, whether you died cause of the wings or blown tires? I wouldn't
KAzik10001 2 months ago
@KAzik10001 First of all, you're more likely to survive with blown tires. Secondly, pilots are trained to handle blown tires. Thirdly, pilots are not trained to fly aircraft with no wings.
ohms360 2 months ago
Comment removed
Modellpecs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ohms360 Concorde would have fallen apart in the same maneuver also. But 144 would never go down because of a tire. Might kill one or two engines but not the fuel tank. Also if 144 would have bough left engines out, than it could land. Simply because of the engine placement. Also That tire problem happened many times, and they did nothing! Once there was a hole big like a melon! There was also many other problems, like rudder control surface separation... I say, Concorde is was lucky..
Modellpecs 1 week ago
and this was the beginning of the end of the TU-144
Davis4037 3 months ago
Also, Tu-144 passenger flights: 55
Concorde passenger flights: Far more
TheFrednutts 3 months ago
Perhaps, except most of the designs for the Tupolev-144 were stolen from Anglo-French designs for Concorde...
TheFrednutts 3 months ago
First flight of Tu-144 - 31 December 1968
First flight of Concorde - 2 March 1969
Tu-144 technically more advanced - above the maximum speed, the big safety, is less speed of landing (it is not required special extended runway)
Conclusion - the author @smilingvulcan are the troll
Vyun1969 5 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vyun1969 But all this doesn't change the fact, that they stole the blueprints. ;)
Donaldbert 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vyun1969
Technically more advanced my arse. You don't but canards on a plane like that because they look good. You put them there because of aerodynamic problems. In this case problems caused by the Soviets being unable to properly replicate the Concorde plans they stole.
Apart from the fact that the Tu-144 flew first (and crash first), the rest is dribble. Concorde started development before the Tu-144 and had a far longer and safer flight life. Concorde doesn't need a special runway either.
RasterGraph 2 months ago
Then I will say maybe if these rush skeez were so smart where is the radio antenna from hell exactly where I want it????????????
djsee4 5 months ago
Tu-144 (Туполев Ту-144) was the world's first supersonic transport aircraft, built in USSR, and first flew in 1968, one year before the Anglo-French Concorde
Globuzz777 5 months ago 12
Comment removed
binaway 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Globuzz777 61 days. 31 Dec 1968 & 2 March 1969
binaway 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Globuzz777 But all this doesn't change the fact, that they stole the blueprints. ;)
Donaldbert 2 months ago
Cont- Its certainly true to say though that the Soviets even at the height of the cold war requested western technical assistance in 1978 to help save the programme but the Americans forced the Brits and French to decline the request, so to damage Soviet prestige, its also true that in the 1990's NASA used the TU-144 as an experimental test bed for a possible 2nd gen supersonic passenger aircraft, the project ceased in 97. In my opinion Concorde was the better aircraft.
TheCharlie359 9 months ago
Cont- The TU-144 though was regarded in the West to have certain advantages over Concorde, for instance its now believed that there were no flawed designs stolen by the KGB rather the Soviets tried to tweak the TU-144 during its 2nd day of flight in Paris do "outdo" Concorde which led to catasrophic failures in the design or recently declassified French records showing that the TU-144 was being shadowed by a French military jet trying to photo the Canards of the Soviet jet, cont-
TheCharlie359 9 months ago
Cont- Thanks to this lack of testing, Concorde took to the skies commercially first, 2 years before its Soviet rival. Its generally acknowledged that Concorde was superior, It was far more reliable, had a greater range and was better looking for a start, it was also far more successful, completing thousands of flights without problem, while the TU-144 flew commercial passengers only 55 times before the fleet was grounded, Cont-
TheCharlie359 9 months ago
The Concorde programme was initiated 2 years before the Tupolev- TU-144, this is fact, the Soviet aircraft flew first though 2 months before Concorde's first flight but due to setbacks including the Paris crash and the fact the Soviet goverment ordered their aircraft to fly first there were many flaws in the Soviet design, it wasnt that the Soviets stole western technology, they simply didnt test their own designs to the standards we in the west take for granted, cont-
TheCharlie359 9 months ago
Pahahahahaha another shot of the soviets failing miserably at making a supersonic airliner
coolzmanz53 9 months ago
Yes the plans were "borrowed" from the Brit/French, but are most plans not taken from and improved upon? granted they skipped the waiting for them part and took them. Its true that the Russians were fed false information, thus the plane had its flaws, but it is a creation all of its own, it is still a great achievement and something to be proud of
akaAlexthekid 11 months ago
@copferthat WTF are you talking about it was the other way around find british C4 program from the 1990's called concordski. That investigation proved the British stole the designs and sabotaged the early test flights to make it appear the TU-144 was a flawed copy!
Updehill 1 year ago
Concorde team made several blue prints with flaws. When Russian stole the blue print, such flaws were incorporated into Tu-144. It is a shame. I like Concorde, Su35 and Tu-144. They are majestic airplanes. And to think the design on one of them is flawed. It is a shame.
Why Tu-144 is a little different from Concorde? Tu-144 is based on the messed up blue print of Concorde.
singlefather01 1 year ago
TU-144 never received the respect it deserves. Lots of people saying that it is a copy of Concord, Soviets stole the blueprints of Concord, did not fly well, etc....
Whoever says things like that, did not look after. Not flying well? I have never sean concord makeing low pass turns like TU-144...
Stolen wrong drawings? If it is a copy, why totally different than? If you take a closer look you will see. And if you look inside, structurally absolutely different.
Like Boeing an Airbus types....
Modellpecs 1 year ago
Comment removed
Modellpecs 1 year ago
here on the video miragefighter brought down tu144
Biogem369 1 year ago
It is a copy of concorde! Actually, the bloody soviets stole the blueprints of concorde and modified them.
dogdays6708 1 year ago
ach - die Russen gibts auch immer noch?
TaImaPai 1 year ago
das bittere ende einer Illusion...... Russische Technik hat noch nie eine Zukunft gehabt.....ta-ta-ta
salvatorearcilesi 1 year ago
@salvatorearcilesi
Da muss ich aufs heftigste widersprechen. Tupulews und Antonows sind für die Ewigkeit gebaut.
Bestimmt hat der Pilot nur zuviel Zaubertrank/Wodka getrunken.
auricom24 1 year ago
@auricom24 ja für die ewigkeit.........
salvatorearcilesi 1 year ago
@auricom24 nicht zu viel - sondern wahrscheinlich zu wenig - er war möglicherweise nüchtern
TaImaPai 1 year ago
Hi my dear specialists in aerodynamics - Explane for me how as you said "COPY "with first flight 1969 has more effective wing design than "ORIGINAL" with first flight 1970
Concordscy and bla bla - only because Tu-144 is FIRST SUPERSONIC PASSENGER LINER and made by Russians alone !!! make cars - we will make supersonic jets !!!
MegaStervo4ka 1 year ago
@MegaStervo4ka - from what I have read, Concorde's wing with its sophisticated camber, twist and droop was a far more effective wing than "Charger's" plain double delta. Tu-144's original engines were afterburning turbofans, optimised for subsonic cruise with supersonic dash capability - Concorde's engines were optimised for cruising at Mach 2 and 50-60000 feet.
JBofBrisbane 1 year ago
@MegaStervo4ka
That can't Fly!!!!!!!!!
dsgh55978 1 year ago
Still make good bow
1948bola 1 year ago
The Russian version was much better and more stable because of the position of the engines. It was possible to do flips with it while not possible with the Concorde. Had the French military jets not freaked out the Russian pilot, the Concordski would have made maneuvers not possible by the Concorde and thus embarrassing the French.
nappyheadedhobitch 1 year ago
It was I believe a sabotage to not just to sell the Concorde, but also as a continuance to the cold war against Russia it was necessary again by the western alies to fake their superiority over Russia . Another example was the fake moon landing by US to prove they're better than the Russians.
nappyheadedhobitch 1 year ago
@nappyheadedhobitch you're a blithering idiot. The Ruskies are still claiming that their shuttle "Buran" was a completely orignal design. Perhaps the Russians could have used their "superior" technology to make a decent car.
Treetopflyer172 1 year ago
@Treetopflyer172 Or perhaps a decent garage to put the car in. The Buran shuttle was destroyed by the collapse of the garage in which it was stored. And it only flew one unmanned mission (impressive, actually) before it was garaged.
beeroosterm 1 year ago
@nappyheadedhobitch
Who cares what it could do in maneuvers, the plane couldnt even maintain supersonic flight without the afterburners. It was a piece of shit vastly inferior to the concorde (which COULD maintain supercruise).
ke0ki2k 1 year ago
@nappyheadedhobitch - if the moon landing was faked, don't you think the Russians would have called them on it big time?
JBofBrisbane 1 year ago
@nappyheadedhobitch
Yes,doing flips is an important capability for an airliner!
dsgh55978 1 year ago
The soviets just stoed every plan and brand new technology as came out!Concordes came out and guess what almost the same plane where produced in russia..
sisimoto 2 years ago
If the plans where stolen there might have been a flaw in them that was rectified on the french uk build!!
likesfanny 2 years ago
This is what you get for not coming up with your own damn SSR...
I mean, for god's sake, it's even called Concordski. How fucking pathetic.
EJRocky 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Concordski is the nickname given to this aircraft just because it looks like concorde. People thought the russians stole the design but even the british designers admitted that if you are going to build a supersonic jet airliner, that shape is the simplest and best and it was obvious that the russian plane would resemble the concorde alot. To prove my point, the americans spent more than russia or britian on their super sonic plane and they tried to make it different. It never ever flew
scottN1980 2 years ago 20
@scottN1980 i've read a few books and many of them say that the Tu-144 is a copy of Concorde
sp33dyphil 1 year ago
@sp33dyphil i present u a book that says you are a stupid fuck, leave home address
SSRClub 1 year ago
severvs them right for using the concordes blue prints
cutthehedgehog1 2 years ago
It broke because the French had a mirage II/III taking close up film footage (not still) and the pilot took avoiding action. This resulted in the yaw motion to the aircraft and resulted in breakup of the aircraft,.
Trek001 2 years ago
OR the russians made it out of shredded wheat stuck together with woodglue.
maureenOWW 2 years ago
This airplane was rated for slightly higher Gs than concord. Neither plane would have survived this pull out of the dive. The problem is neither plane reacts well to negative Gs and as this plane climbed, it was sharply put into a dive (it is said this was done to avoid a french mirrage) The neg. Gs starvd the engines of fuel momentarily causing them to die meaning it stalled. The pilot did not have the altitude to pull out of the dive wihout pulling high Gs. Nothing to do with build quality
scottN1980 2 years ago
Also, why did nasa pick the tu144 over concorde for high speed tests.
scottN1980 2 years ago 5
Perhaps he was making a joke...
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago
@scottN1980 I was 15 at the commercial launch of Concord and the American's were put out that they had been beaten. They banned it from USA landings at first with noise ( a beautiful deep thunder ) as a reason. They relented later!
markshep777 1 year ago
@markshep777
Actually we Americans were smart enough to know it wasn't economically viable.The only reason the concorde was produced was because whichever country backed out had to repay the other's costs.Proof?No other counties even considered buying that money loser.Every single flight lost money.Such is the price of pride.It was never banned.only supersonic flight over land.Would have love to have flown on to though,just like the Hindenburg,just not the last flight!
dsgh55978 1 year ago
@dsgh55978 - Quite a bit of design work was done on the Lockheed L-2000 and the Boeing 2707 - why do that if it wasn't viable? And a fair number of airlines had options on Concorde at one time - PanAm had options on six, while QANTAS had options on four Concordes and three 2707s. The environmental movement and the fuel crisis of 1973 were the nail in the coffin for the 2707 and for any orders for Concorde other than British Airways and Air France.
JBofBrisbane 6 months ago
@scottN1980 Because the Concorde was in service and the TU144 was sitting mothballed and could be retrofitted for experiments.
51Cards 1 year ago
@scottN1980 Because it went down a lot faster.
Skoda130 1 year ago
@scottN1980 i thought they made thair own the Valkarie
k2477456 7 months ago
@scottN1980 That was the XB-70 Valkyrie you're thinking of. That was a supersonic bomber.
Looks similar. That is because for a payload-carrying supersonic aircraft, a delta, sometimes with canards, is a preferable design. It's easy to make (compared to say a variable geometry craft), so cheaper, and isn't of course as good in the air but is overall very effective.
That's why they all look similar.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@sheldonholy What people believed was stolen by the russians was the shape of the leading edge of the wing on concorde, which is not straight and is almost identical on the tu144. The canards were added to the tu144 true but without them the 2 are almost identical. I never meant the american sst couldnt fly, I meant it was a pointless waste of money because anything that wasn't the simple solution to making a large supersonic aircraft would be way too expensive
scottN1980 5 months ago
@scottN1980 And for the Concorde wing I think they took the Vulcan wing and streched it out!
The Vulcan wing does appear to be like a squashed-up Concorde wing.
063209dr 5 months ago
Comment removed
sheldonholy 5 months ago
Comment removed
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@063209dr No, they didn't. Firstly, the Vulcan is a sub-sonic aeroplane. Concorde is supersonic, so those designs will barely be related. It's just called a delta wing. It's unusual, but very commonly known.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@sheldonholy I'm not referring to the supersonic or sub-sonic aspect, but rather the apparent similarity of the curved plan view of both the Vulcan and Concorde's leading edge. Stretch the Vulcan wing lengthwise and I think it would have a similar curved leading edge as the Concorde - if not a similar shape all round.
063209dr 5 months ago
@063209dr It's coincidence. I was talking about the super-and-sub-sonic aspects as they will drastically change an aircrafts characteristics. For that reason alone, the design of the Vulcan is not a copy of Concorde at all. In fact the early Vulcan wings had a straight LE - they were a perfect triangle. The shape was probably altered to improve high-altitude load carrying capabilities by increasing the aspect ratio slightly.
I fact I'm pretty sure the Vulcan was designed before Concorde.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@scottN1980 Well, Concorde's LE design may well have been involved in the conceptual design for the TU144, yes.
But in regard to what you said about the American's SST... The designs such as Boeing 2707 and L-2000 were not pointless at all. They never flew, but then about 98% of all (really no exaggeration there) projects started by both the military and private companies never make it past the conceptual design stage, let alone production. But we learn a LOT when we fail.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
Comment removed
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@scottN1980 It's a delta wing. Of course the LE will look similar. I guess it could have been copied in the conceptual design stage, though. But in regard to you saying the American SSTs were failures... They were, in that they never flew. But then about 97% (I do not exaggerate) of all projects never get past the conceptual design stage. But when we make up the new ideas, there are new problems we never before knew existed, so we learn a lot. We only learn from mistakes.
sheldonholy 5 months ago
@scottN1980 Because none of the people who look after the grounded Concordes would let NASA use them. Not to mention the Tu-144 is much cheaper to restore to flying condition
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@scottN1980 From what I've read (besides yer the only guy that asks questions everybody tries to prove wrong and according to me has not) they said it needs nitrous tanks to go faster and keep going faster and faster before it shreds into confetti (which the title of the drunken pilot clearly proves). So my theory about the only distinct teqnicks on this nappyheadedhobitch is that it takes off with the "bow" pointed down and crashes into the ground with the tip up..... FISH ON!!!!!!!!!!
djsee4 5 months ago
@djsee4 So since accordingly that potato vodka lush easily could have done that into a puddle and still went 25-41.33333333 meters or feet then I fucking told ya it could easily resurface and go blast any speed barrier it needs to while spearing a swordfish and dropping sushi bums too. So how bout Billy Mitchell himself told me I can call it a fucking flying swordfish sushi dropping nappyheadedhobitch from hell if I feel like it. This is how it should be done!
djsee4 5 months ago