Меню

Tupolev Tu-144 NATO Code: Charger

and your shitty ...

and your shitty douglas pieceofsithhermother

It's the same old ...

It's the same old MiG-Pieceofshittus

It's funny how each ...

It's funny how each time you are given the facts and proved wrong you do not acknowledge the facts but merely move on to another specious argument. I've had enough of you. Keep your fantasies...

If a supersonic ...

If a supersonic aircraft is such trash, let's see you build one; granted, that would require a grasp of advanced calculus and physics beyond your 'comprehension' - given the time you spend attempting Shakespeare. As per the Concorde, many were on very limited/infrequent runs. The Tu-144's retrofit was for NASA's "research" purposes.

The project was ...

The project was cancelled in 1999 - the last flight was in 1997. And the Concorde was simply not available - the Tu-144 was the left over trash - and even then it required a 350 million dollar retrofit. Even when you do your homework, your comprehension is poor. It is no wonder....

As per 'not since ...

As per 'not since 1997' (and actually 1999), it is immaterial - ommitted in my first message as such. The fact remains that NASA, having the choice of either platform, chose the Tu-144.

lol .. no one's ...

lol .. no one's impressed by your attempt to write Shakespeare and, if you want to declare yourself backed by the 'known' (suspiciously vague) literature, by all means: cite some primary (i.e., verifiable/published science) sources. Tupolev having to be there, if not for interest, would be expected regardless; the autocratic nature of Soviet government being mirrored in its firms (designers having authority well beyond that of the solely 'design' responsibilities of their western counterparts).

You are woefully ...

You are woefully under-informed and desperately need to do your homework before you make such declarations. Tupolev HAD to be there to give the go/no-go for flight because it was so terribly unreliable. Your rationalizations for the myriad systems problems are typical for those who refuse to seek out and understand the facts published in the known literature. Typical is your declaration that NASA still leases one for high speed research. One quick check confirms this is not so (not since 1997)

Do your homework, ...

Do your homework, Boris; the NASA -144 made its last flight in 1997. And the reason it was used in the first place was due to the fact that all Concorde aircraft were in service at the time. Reliable service.

And the Wrights ...

And the Wrights were present at each of the Wright Flyer's flights .. so? Maybe designers simply take an interest in their creations. Most of the Tu-144's problems would have, and have-been, easily weeded-out given the Concorde's funding for added development. NASA now leases one for supersonic flight-testing, begging the question, "why didn't they just pull a Concorde out of a museum?"

Then why is NASA ...

Then why is NASA presently leasing a Tu-144 for supersonic flight-testing, as opposed to pulling a Concorde out of a museum?

If you refer to 55 ...

If you refer to 55 flights over a three year period as being "in service", your standards are frighteningly low. Yes, the Russians can and do make some interesting and reliable aircraft, but tell me this: if you had the choice of flying on a Boeing or a Tupolev based aircraft through a storm, which would you choose? It appears the Russians (at leat at that time) were more concerned with appearance than anything else. They knew the -144 was a POS and acted to save face.

The one thing for ...

The one thing for me that always defines the Tu-144 as a disaster was the fact that it was only in service for 3 years before it was withdrawn due to numerous reliabilty problems. I can't think of another passenger aircraft with such a short service life. Don't get me wrong though, Russia has made some impressive and reliable passenger aircraft over the years, the Tu-144 just wasn't one of them.

Jesus Christ, what ...

Jesus Christ, what will it take to open your eyes? I'm wondering if your rationalizing attitude is endemic to Russians. It was terribly unreliable, with massive systems failure the norm on each flight. It was a miracle the thing didn't crash more. If you need the designer of the plane to be present and give his personal approval of each flight, I'd say it was a serious piece of shit. Give up - the Russian government did - why can't you?

@beeroosterm The Tu ...

@beeroosterm The Tu-144 was not entirely reliable, but then again it wasnt unreliable, and certainly wasnt a piece of useless junk. The Tu-144 had its successes. The company, Tupolev, was under huge pressure under the government to build an SST, but that doesent mean it was built with little care. Russians had to cut corners, such as wing design and engine design in which made it, in your eyes "a piece of useless junk"

The Tu-144's design ...

The Tu-144's design was strictly based on Sukhoi's T-4 bombers design. Dont talk bullshit about espionage. The tu-144, apart from having a streamlined fuselauge like the concorde, was completely different.

este era un gran ...

este era un gran avion al igual que el concorde incluso el tu-144 era mas rapido que el concorde pero el concorde tuvo 1 accidente que fue la razon para que el avion saliera de circulacion el tu-144 tuvo 2 accidentes causa suficiente para que nadie quisiera volar en uno de ellos pero de que era un gran avion lo era

I'm not mocking ...

I'm not mocking your nation's "machinery" - I'm downright disparaging of it as useless junk. And I'm not an Englishman, so my praise is for foreign machinery. And the reason(s) for the -144's utter unreliability would take a book to outline. It is YOU who are deficient as to the history of the -144. I suggest you get your ass in gear and research the matter using reliable sources. Start with Dryden...

Analysing my ...

Analysing my comment has nothing to do withconcorde vs tu144 argument talk. The tu-144 was not junk either. You seem to enjoy mocking other nations's machinery and praise yours. concorde was beautiful, so was the tu-144. The tu-144 wasnt overly reliable, okay, but there were reasons, as always.Without the Tu-144 future aviation would of been different, so dont mock it. It wasnt a death trap, or designed with little care. You seem to lack in knowledge on the history or the tu-144.

Your response makes ...

Your response makes no sense, except to state that the -144 was created to "win" the supersonic race. It was indeed cobbled together with such little care that it WAS a death trap - and was quickly and quietly "retired" before it killed anybody else. Concorde was a beautiful and reliable plane, doing its job perfectly until a piece of another plane on a runway took one out. This after tens of thousands of flights and a few hundred thousand hours of flight time. Tu-144 was junk.

At the end of the ...

At the end of the day both planes have their flaws. The Tu-144 was created to win the supersonic race. At the time is was a war on propaganda. The west labelled the Tu-144 as a coffin, in which you believe in. How ironic. Russia didnt really need an SST. There were no businessmen or "rich" who really needed that. Meanwhile in the west, a lot of money was put into research and maintenance because they knew they would be able to retrieve that money as it cost £2000 per flight.

Tell me that fact. ...

Tell me that fact. pls. I already know your feelings. ;) Prices have nothing to do with the aircraft? Are you kidding? (Sorry. You are a kid...) If there is like half of the $ you need to maintain the plane? What than? Try to think pls...

Of course it's "my ...

Of course it's "my opinion", you twerp! Would you like me to give you someone else's? What a fatuous remark. My opinion is based on facts - not wishful thinking. And your "logic" about ticket pricing has nothing to do with the quality of the aircraft. Have another vodka, comrade...

That is your ...

That is your opinion. I say, it was the same for Concorde. Concorde had just as many problems. Concorde was also a failure in the same way. The difference between them is that 144 was meant to serve in the CCCP. If you have lived, in a socialist country, you would clearly see the point. The prices are kept artificially low. The ticket price was a fraction of the price of foreign. Etc etc. In this conditions, you could not keep a SST in service. Not only 144, but Concorde also!