Talk:Tupolev Tu-144 Information & Talk:Tupolev Tu-144 Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class)

Aviation portal

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

[edit] Conversation

Anyone here know why the tu-144 failed in "commercial" operation? (In as far you can talk of commercial operation in a communist planned economy that is). I mean 48 flights in total... that isn't a lot? I don't know if aeroflot was supposed to make money on this, but in a country the size of the USSR it isn't difficult to think of obvious advantages. Maybe technical issues?

As far as I know, there were actually two issues with the TU-144. Beside the fact that it is/was considered the better airplane compared with the Concorde, the Russians had major problems with the reliability of the chosen engines and their pride forbid to choose western engines. Though the engines delivered the required thrust the biggest problem (technically as well as commercially) was the fuel consumption. The possible range flying supersonic speeds was so dramatically reduced that any commercial efforts would have failed.

The real issue is but one: the computer engine control syetem. In short, human control is too crude and wasteful, especially when using afterburning (reheat; injecting fuel into the engine axhaust to augment thrust by up to 50%), which both the Tu-144 and Concorde do; automatic control is needed. Since the late 1980s, such controld (FADEC -- fully automatic digital engine control) have entered widespread service. In the 1960s, the Soviets were behind in computing (Stalin had declared cybernetics a dark capitalist art...) and made a basic error in specifying analogue computers for the Tu-144. When they realised their mistake (early 1970s), they repeatedly tried to purchase digital engine control systems from Britain's Lucas, with any and all deals blocked by Nato's Cocom. The last efforts coincided with the end of detente in the early Carter presidency, which is also when the Tu-144 went belly upwards. No range: it's all as simple as that.

Agreed - the Concorde could supercruise, whereas the TU-144 required the use of afterburner to go supersonic and sustain it. That restricted the TU-144's range to 500 miles or so. 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

A second factor, and hugely important in the Soviet context, was that the Tupolev design office had lost its political leverage. Old man Tupolev was a wily and astute sod who had got onto the inside track to Khrushchev's favour, but once K. was out of power, Tu just kept losing and losing and losing. Old man Tu died in late 1972 and, as opposed to the abrasive and results-minded fiend of a father, Tu Jr. was a wimp who squandered what was left. Ilyushin picked up the Tupolev silver, largely. Devoid of friends, the Tu-144 would have died of pneumonia after the slightest cold, and it didn't help matters at all that it 1. crashed in Paris, of all places, for all the world to see; 2. crashed again, killing a test pilot. Spent propaganda got short shrift in Soviet times.

Other than that, the Tu-144 was the better design. It had some 10% better lift/drag ratio than the Concorde, flew an appreciable tad faster, and lifted a usefully larger (by 20-40%) payload. The Americans are no fools, and NASA picked the winner for its work. Just consider that there were at least two Concordes lying idle that could have been had in 1997, and either of them would have flown right away, compared to the major work (including new engines!) the Tu-144 needed.

It's not self-evident that the lift-drag thing indicates any superiority, in fact I would argue the contrary. It's not like the Concorde had the simpler wing. Concorde was deliberately designed to have low landing speeds, and this helped it stop. So they deliberately co-optimised Concorde's wing for that feature. The Tupolev used a parachute; and canard didn't help enough. The parachute certainly didn't help it win any sales.WolfKeeper 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One other notable difference between Concorde and the TU-144 is Tupolev's reliance on a cooling system for the fuselage vs. the Concorde's reliance on the fuel itself as a coolant. I will look up a specific reference I have to that and then write a sentence or two about that. 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

That spying thing is really tiresome. Goebels would have been impressed; it is bound to be accepted as true history within a generation. More's the pity! The French were fond of accusing all and sundry of copying the Caravelle, but frankly, would anyone condemn Douglas for copying the BAC One-Eleven or Caravelle, or Boeing of copying the Trident, or Douglas again of copying the 707? And would any designer worth his salt not be interested in "the blueprints" of his rivals' work? Just to set the record straight, in the 1960s the average set of airliner drawings and documentation (one is useless without the other) came to 2 tonnes or two library rooms, or one library hall. Just the one set of 1960s flight crew manuals comes to two solid briefcases' worth of bumf. Now, that sort of bulk would have been noticed by customs... Microfilm hidden in someone's lipstick case/underpants/walking stick? No good for anything other than 1. a vague idea of where the other side is headed; 2. a spy movie of the naive kind. And don't be so sanguine as to imagine the Brits and Frenchies were all terribly gentlemanly and left the Russkies get on with it in peace!..Livedvalid 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the entire Aeroplane, but my cousin was involved with the British designed front landing gear. During a conversation on the topic, he stated that the company he worked for were extremely annoyed to find out that the French had not taken sufficient precautions with their blueprints. Several unique features of that very difficult design were later found on the Tupolev Tu-144. No evidence of industrial espionage was ever uncovered at the British design office, but who knows? --203.212.136.134 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

<quote>Based on stolen information </quote> ... is there proof for this??? maybe we should re-word the sentence? -- WojPob

The spying stuff makes no sense. Yes, there was espionage, but Tupolev did not need any help designing what is, essentially, a double-delta. His double-delta was a bit cruder in shape than the Concorde, but the use of canards near the nose helped the TU-144 handle much better at low speed. I have references for this which I have to look up. For now, I will add a sentence discussing the double-delta and discounting the effect of espionage. There is no reason not to. Raryel 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Yeah, right. If they didn't need it, why did they do it? people went to prison and everything. The Tupolev may have handled better than Concorde at low speed, but nevertheless and more importantly the landing speed was higher, which helped mean that the Russians had problems with tyres, and they needed a parachute. And a Russian agent was caught with plans for Concorde's braking system in his possession BTW, so I guess the Russians never got that bit, and it shows. It's the grown up equivalent of cribbing off your neighbour at school, at best, and don't forget they were supposedly market competitors (or they would have been if the Tupolev hadn't bought it in Paris.)WolfKeeper 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard it was the other way round - that the British and French stole the design from the Russians. I will delete the reference to this controversy altogether. GrahamN 16:43 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

The accusations of industrial espionage on the part of the Tu-144 designers is out there; a Google search on "Tu-144 Concorde industrial espionage" will turn some of them up. Some of the references are questionable, but the PBS series "Nova" was willing to state the accusations exist. I think it's definitely safe to say there were allegations of industrial espionage. As far as accusations of the French and British stealing from the Soviets, I've never heard that one. Dave Farquhar 19:06 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Er, no, on reflection you are right. I got confused with the space shuttle. I heard a radio programme some time ago about the Soviet version of the shuttle, now mouldering away in a half-collapsed hanger somewhere. There was an allegation that the Soviets thought of it first and the Americans pinched the idea, and possibly also the design. No idea how much truth there was in that. GrahamN 14:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Interesting part of history I had forgotten about. Anyone know if any of the Tu-144's are still around?

Latest info available at http://www.moninoaviation.com/tu144llupdate.html

If you are interested, it seems you can buy it from these guys: http://www.tejavia.com/

-- Egil 17:39 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

There are a number of Tu-144s in museums and sitting outside of airports in Russia. As I recall, the last flyable one--the Tu-144LL that NASA used--was sold in 2002 and is now in a museum in Germany. Dave Farquhar 19:06 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

As for whether the Russians stole the design - well, Soviet airliners do have a habit of looking like western designs. Like the Ilyushin that had 4 engines at the rear, just like the Vickers VC10...oh, my, what a coincidence. Concorde went through dozens of design modifications before the final version took shape, many of them looking like something out of a 1950s space comic, and yet the Tu-144 just happens to look similar to the final design.

It looks like the final design because a double-delta is the most appropriate shape for an airplane like that, and the Russians were as likely to come up with that answer as anyone else. Consider this: TsaGi (the Central Institute for Aero- and Hydrodynamics) had the world's first truly large scale wind tunnel. They helped design a lot of delta-shaped airplanes (MiG-21 for example). The Russian delta designs were cruder than the Western designs, but that doesn't take anything away from the Russians' basic competence.

Also, consider this: In the early 1980s, I purchased from bookstores a couple of books about the F-14 Tomcat which listed the airplane's performance envelope (complete with diagrams), fuel usage at various engine modes for each engine type used, range for each mode of its radar, the power rating for the radar and the bands it used; the scan rate (how many bars per second), the instruments in the cockpit, the max g-rating (7.3), fuel capacity and range in look-down mode. The books also explained how the wing-boxes were assembled and how the titanium was machined. With all this information available at your Barnes and Noble, do the Russians have to steal anything?

16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

"Plagiarize! let no one else's work evade your eyes! Remember why the Good Lord made your eyes, and plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize! But remember always, please, to call it research!" -- Tom Lehrer, "Lobachevsky"

Lee M

Its funny that all these morons are accusing the Russians of stealing everything. If they did something better its because they stole it and improved it, if they did something at all its because they stole it. If they are so damn incompetent, how did they steal these things in the first place? It is also interesting to note that most people ignore the fact that esp in this case the Tu was developed FIRST. Oh no!!123.255.38.129 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

- western designes are so "superiour", that malnutrited american astronauts on ISS only survive from one Russian delivery to another. And yes, they only survive courtesy Russian-designed and built core ISS module - sorry folks, no Western tech available to fill those shoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.154.168 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

> a Tu-144 and a retired Air France Concorde, probably being the only place in the world showing both planes next to each other

Only probably? The whereabouts of all Concordes are known, therefore this IS the only place.

Nice PD NASA photo is at http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/TU-144LL/Small/EC98-44749-25.jpg

As for whether the Russians stole the design - Let's also not forget about the Tu-4.

Yes, the design of Tu-4 was stolen, and Tu-4 and B-29 are not just similar, they're identical. In the case of Concorde and Tu-144 it's not the case, because they have similar, but notably different design. First of all, it's the shape of wing. Next, Tu-144 is notably larger. And last, Concorde has its engines placed far from its body (fuselage), and Tu-144's engines are grouped near it. Well, I saw a documentary film called "The Battle of Supersonics", where was stated that Russian & French engineers even shared their experience in some work about the Supersonics. --unpluggged 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The TU-4 was a close enough copy of the B-29 that the Russians even copied the flaws! But the Russians came a long way between the 1940s and 1960s....

That's because this specific airframe was stolen, since Stalin gave the order to have Allies' B-29, that had made emergency landings in Soviet territory, to be copied. That's a well known fact, it has nothing to do with espionage or later developments.--195.130.92.43 (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I do not appreciate deletion of content without a discussion. I have had that happen twice today without explanation (and it would have been inappropriate even with an explanation). I do not treat other wiki users discourteously, and I expect the same in return.

raryel

I found this: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tupolev-Tu_144

Looks to me like a nice copy of this page without any statement of the content's origin (and all linked pages look the same...). The self-description of nationmaster moreover states they would offer original documents. Uwe

sorry, I looked closer, there is a statement on above mentioned page:

" The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.

Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.

Usage implies agreement with terms."

However, it is placed right at the end of the page, with a quite large white space between itself and the last line of the actual content (approx. 18...20 lines of paragraph text). Uwe, again

[edit] Noise

On British TV many moons ago it was claimed that the Tu-144 was more noisy, to uncomfortable levels, inside the passenger cabin. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why it was use more for frieght?

[edit] Specs

from [1]

 HISTORY:

First Flight 31 December 1968 Service Entry

    26 December 1975 (mail service)

22 February 1977 (passenger service)

CREW: 3 flight crew

PASSENGERS: 98 in two classes 120-140 in one class

ESTIMATED COST:

    unknown

AIRFOIL SECTIONS: Wing Root unknown Wing Tip

    unknown

DIMENSIONS: Length 215.54 ft (65.70 m) Wingspan 94.48 ft (28.80 m) Height 34.42 ft (10.50 m) Wing Area 4,714.75 ft2 (438.0 m2) Canard Area

    unknown

WEIGHTS: Empty 187,395 lb (85,000 kg) Typical Load unknown Max Takeoff 396,830 lb (180,000 kg) Fuel Capacity internal: 154,325 lb (70,000 kg) external: not applicable Max Payload

    unknown

PROPULSION: Powerplant four Kuznetsov NK-144 turbofans Thrust 176,368 lb (784.56 kN)

PERFORMANCE: Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,555 mph (2,500 km/h), Mach 2.35 at sea level: unknown cruise speed: 1,430 mph (2,300 km/h) Initial Climb Rate unknown Service Ceiling 59,055 ft (18,000 m) Range 3,510 nm (6,500 km) g-Limits unknown

KNOWN VARIANTS: Tu-144 Prototype Tu-144S First production model; about 14 built Tu-144D Improved model, possibly with more fuel efficient engines, and used primarily for high-speed research Tu-144LL Refurbished Tu-144D fitted with more powerful engines, updated avionics, and various test equipment and operated jointly by Russia and NASA for high-speed research

KNOWN OPERATORS:

    Aeroflot

NASA

[edit] Tu-144LL flight restrictions

What about this statement in the article?!: For the last research flights, the Testbed 144LL reg 77114 and the last remaining Tu-144D reg 77115 were under restriction not to exceed Mach 1.

Actually this cannot be true. NASA describes in TM209850, 2000 the Mach 2 missions their pilots have flown in September 1998.

MS

[edit] No Tupolev Tu-142LL article?

Where's the Tu-142LL? Does it not have an article? Here's a picture.. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Russia---Air/1320653 --Ragemanchoo (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 77116

Aircraft number 77116 was complete as there are videos of it flying on rutube.ru website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.161.134 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concordski

Is it worth mentioning that the aircraft was often referred to as "Concordski" in the West. --JonRB (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly - done. Apart from anything else, it should come up as a search term for the page.--128.240.229.7 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead as it gives undo prominence to what was just a name use by the Western press. It could be seen as derogatory and certainly would not have been used by the Russians. Although I dont have a problem with it being mentioned in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid creating a new section, and it's useful as a way of identifying the aircraft. IMO, more people would recognize 'Concordski' than 'Tu-144', and certainly more than 'Charger'. Still, I take your point. I'm open to suggestions as to where the mention should go.--128.240.229.3 (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 Paris Air Show Crash

There's an interesting quote about the 1973 Paris Air Show crash in a book I am currently reading. The quote itself is from Memories of Military Test Flying and Life with the Kremlin's Elite by Stepan Anastasovitch Mikoyan, p.354

I would like to say a few words about one of the air disasters of the century - the fatal accident of the Soviet supersonic liner Tu-144 at the Bourges Salon in 1972. (sic - it was 1973) There are two or three aspects of that accident which I will mention here. The main cause of the crash was the pull-up manoeuvre which the pilots attempted to do in imitation of their foreign colleagues. This manoeuvre had never been performed in the Tu-144 before. The pilot himself, Mikhail Kozlov, was not experienced in it either; if he had ever done it at all, it would have been only as a student, for he was a bomber pilot and would not do any aerobatics in his normal job. On finding himself in an unusual position with the horizon hidden behind the nose of his machine, Kozlov must have pushed the wheel too hastily and too far, overshooting in pitch. The Tu-144 was tailless aeroplane and as such would be extremely sensitive to pushing the control column forward. It reacted to Kozlov's aggressive push on the column by rotating sharply from a climb to a vertical dive. And then another factor came into play. As was seen from the video footage, the pilot delayed the pull-out from the dive by a couple of seconds. It has been assumed that the delay was caused by the video camera that was dropped by the cameraman (he was sitting between the two pilots) and landed between the pilot's seat and the control column, It could be so, but I believe there is a more plausible explanation. The negative G load which accompanied the sharp vertical dive would have tossed the pilot up from his seat - it has been said that Kozlov was not properly strapped in - and at this moment he would have unconsciously have pressed on the wheel thus pushing it further forward instead of pulling it. Even with the other pilot's help he would have lost one or two seconds to settle back in and start pulling the control column.

Finally, one last thing. When you are diving downwards, the ground always seems to be closer than it really is, even if you are a fighter pilot who is used to such manoeuvres. To someone like Mikhail Kozlov, who would have seen the ground from such an attitude for the first time, it must have seemed even closer. As soon as he had recovered his seat he might have pulled the column back with too much force and exceeded the design G-load limit of his machine. His wing disintegrated as a result, whereas if he had pulled more gently, just balancing the G-load limit, but not exceeding it, he might have had a chance to recover, even though he was indeed very near the ground.

Quoted in; Severne, J. (2007). Silvered Wings - The Memoirs of Air Vice-Marshall Sir John Severne. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84415-559-0 p143.

[edit] Is Tu-144 largely a copy of Concorde?

I can see the debate's been had here a little bit already, but I can scarcely believe that the article doesn't mention anywhere that large proportions of the designs were allegedly stolen - even though it's obvious to the most untrained observer that these planes are closely related. If anything, it gives the impression that it was the other way around, and that Concorde was the follower rather than the leader.

I'm not interested in debating which was the better plane, or whether Soviet management structures hobbled their very talented designers and engineers; I just want to get the facts straight about whether or not there really was a major level of cribbing going on in either direction. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Josh

Probably a bit in both directions, mostly from Concorde though. But even the American SSTs began to look more and more like scaled-up Concordes, it doesn't look like there's very many ways to skin this cat, and a double delta wing was state of the art at the time. Given that wing shape, they all are going to end up looking very similar.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I asked a bad question; I have my own opinion as to the provenance of the designs, which is irrelevant here. Shouldn't the allegations of theft be at least mentioned in the article here, though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a source, but IIRC, some of the key issues with the Tu-144 came from the fact that it was a poor copy of the Concorde. The Concorde's leading edge shape is carefully designed to utilize leading edge vortex lift at high angles of attack (allowing it to land). When the Soviet's saw the design, they didn't realize that the complex shape was for that reason. They simplified the wing shape to make it easier to manufacture, which had the unexpected consequence of ruining the vortex lift. That is one of the reasons that they added the canards in order to improve low speed performance. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've actually heard different version of this story from Tupolev designers. It was Concorde which went through multiple stages of simplification of airframe shapes because of high cost of production. First versions of Tu-144 were based on a bomber with very simple wing. While in development Tu-144 wing became actually much more complicated consisting of about 10 simple shapes and 100+ corrections and complicated connections between shapes. Concorde instead became less more complicated. Also Russian TSAGI had much more advanced technologies and more powerful wind tunnel, so they could improve and build arguably better quality airframe. Leading canards were a big surprise for French. They did not realize benefits of such solution. If Concorde had them, it would improve aircraft performance at low speed to great extend. Those canards were one of the reasons of airshow crash of Tu-144 in Paris when Mirage was spying on Tu-144, came too close to it and forced pilots to overstear the plane. Answering the question. Tu-144 was not a copy. Both planes used the same configuration. But it was tested and researched long before actual design of 144 and Concorde started. French did their best to misinform public about Russians stealing their design because Tu-144 flew first and could potentially kill commercial sales of Concorde. By the way US version of supersonic had very similar look and configuration was basically the same. Also first public information about it appeared in media before Concorde and Tu. I believe both sides were heavily spying on each other and could "derive" many decisions from each other designs.

98.210.248.73 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speed needs to be factchecked

The cruise speed and maximum speed given in this article need to be factchecked. When compared to the Concorde, the km/h and mph values are higher for the Tu-144, but the equivalent Mach values given are lower than the Concorde.--Witan (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tu-144 Failure Reasons

Hi Oboguev! Thanks for adding so much to the Tu-144 page! It seems most of your material comes from a single source, which is acceptable. However, when citing from a book like that, you need to include page numbers so other editors can verify your additions. Furthermore, you cite some facts here and there, but much of what you write needs to be cited. For example, specific facts such as "In 1976 during repeat-load and static testing in TsAGI, Tu-144S airframe cracked at 70% of expected flight stress with cracks running many meters both directions from the spot of their origin." need to be cited. It is acceptable to cite at the end of each paragraph, as long as all the facts in that paragraph come from the same source (i.e., you can cite "pp. 67-69, Moon, 1989" for all the content in one paragraph, if that's where it came from. If you can add these citations, your addition will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia! (Note: I am posting this on the user's talk page as well). -SidewinderX (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will try to provide page numbers, perhaps later today or tomorrow. As for the problems with the airframe robustness, information comes from the article by acad. Fridlyander published in 2002 in the Messenger of Russian Academy of Sciences, which I did provide an online link to.

Oboguev (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great. If they come from a different source, you need to cite that too! If you'd like to cite an article more than once, and don't want to clutter the page, I suggest naming the source, as described here. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents