TU-104: A Fatal Design
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ธ.ค. 2023
- Dive into the captivating history of the Tu-104, the Soviet Union's pioneering jet airliner that took to the skies in the 1950s. This documentary-style video explores the intriguing and complex journey of the Tu-104, a marvel of Soviet innovation that revolutionized air travel in the Eastern bloc, yet was shrouded in mystery and controversy.
🛩️ The Dawn of Jet-Powered Aviation: Learn about the global context of the 1950s, a period that marked a seismic shift in commercial aviation with the introduction of jet-powered aircraft. Discover how the British de Havilland Comet inspired Soviet aircraft designer Andrei Tupolev to create the Tu-104, a bold response to Western advancements.
🇷🇺 A Soviet Engineering Feat: Uncover the challenges and triumphs in developing the Tu-104. From its genesis as a modified Tu-16 bomber to becoming the world's sole operational jet airliner after the Comet's grounding, the video delves into the ambitious and rapid construction of this iconic aircraft.
✈️ Technological Marvel and Propaganda Tool: Witness the Tu-104's rise as a symbol of Soviet technological prowess on the global stage, from its awe-inspiring appearances in European cities to its historic transatlantic flight to the United States.
🔍 Mystery in the Skies: The core of the video focuses on the mysterious and alarming incidents involving the Tu-104. Explore the perplexing series of accidents and the intensive investigations that followed, revealing critical design flaws and the challenges pilots faced while operating this unique airliner.
🚧 The Fallout and Legacy: The video doesn't shy away from discussing the consequences of the Tu-104's operational challenges, including its impact on the passengers, the Soviet aviation industry, and its eventual decline. Learn how these experiences influenced future aircraft designs and the modernization of air travel in the Soviet Union.
📜 A Historical Perspective: Offering a balanced view, the video also compares the fate of the Tu-104 with other early jet airliners like the Comet, highlighting the lessons learned and the price paid in the race to dominate the skies.
Join us on this fascinating journey through history as we unravel the story of the Tu-104, a true testament to human ingenuity, ambition, and the complexities of aviation innovation during the Cold War era. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe for more intriguing historical insights!
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] U20 VIỆT NAM VS U20 THÁI LAN | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tdmZlw-XJJI/mqdefault.jpg)
DH-Comet, DC-10, 737-MAX: We're sick birds
TU-104: Hold my vodka!
Zero replies‽ Let me fix that.
Lol russian propaganda plane never works
The DC-10 and 737 have excellent safety records compared to the Comet... even the Tu-104 is safer than the Comet
The DC-10 was a good widebody jet. It got a bad rap due to the cargo door issues which stemmed from a faulty locking system that would allow the handle to be closed even though all the locking pins were not properly secured. Once this was fixed it was a very good jet. Everything was good except that locking mechanism. Unfortunately it took a few accidents and hundreds of lives before the issue was resolved. The jet itself was fundamentally solid. The Maxx was flawed with software issues that brought down 2 jets and caused many reported problems. To many complicated software and sensors issues caused by the faulty mcas system made it unreliable. The comet had teething issues due to being the first. Square windows are a no no. Structural issues arose which were pinpointed to starting on the corners of square windows and in general the materials used it was found were inadequate. By the time these issues were fixed and the comet returned a couple crucial years passed now the 707 and 737-200 had debuted and taken over the market. The new comet was a fine jet but the bad taste was still present in the mouths of the ppl and industry so in the end it simply couldn't compete with the American companies.
@@hellfire8883 Comet 1 was so badly designed that it could not be made safe to ever fly again, it's airworthiness certification was permanently revoked.
Comet 4 has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history except for the Comet 1.
After the fall of Communism 1991, I was in charge of a state partnership program with Hungary. The first 2 times I flew to Budapest was on an Malev Airlines, Tupolev 134 and then a 154. What a high speed take off. It was later, the Hungarians told me they were nicknamed "the earth darts!" Seems they had some operational problems staying airborne!
While this claim for Tu-134 might be somewhat believable as it had its roots in Tu-104, Tu-154 was a completely different aircraft that had much better takeoff and landing specs. Name me a 1970s airliner with MTOW around 230,000lb, and a fully loaded V2 of considerably better than 150 knots. Even Boeing 727 with half the weight of Tu-154 had fully-loaded V2 at 144 knots.
The have never been the fall of Communism because there have never been Communism.
@sergeychmelev5270 It's impossible to prove anything using facts and statistics to the ones who BELIEVE that Soviet aircraft were a piece of crap. They were not perfect as any aircraft but were on oar with their Western counterparts. Anyway as I said the ones who believe that it wasn't the case will not change their mindset.
I wouldn't check the facts, you can find it, but several of the Malev's Tupolev 134 were crashed and made a lot of death cases. As well I flew by 134 and it was a very average aircraft, MD-8x made the take off much better
Trump is bringing back communism, authoritarian dictatorship.
🛑 Stop trump!!! 91 Felony Charges
i had 4 flights in a TU 104b in 1968 smooth comfortable but noisy ,no other complaints
Because you did not fall from the sky
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Comrades! USSR air engineering was flawless and their planes never crashed! I used to think they did but 5 years in a re-education camp learning to plough the frozen Siberian countryside with my bare hands taught me the error of my thinking.
lol
Correct - you poor bastard . Thank goodness you are home again & safe .
You are very lucky to have survived the gulag gang - Holy shet . Congrats - LoL. 😂
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Also American Super Sabre fighter had the same kind of issue. Wingtips stalled, plane was unrecoverable.
This problem has NOTHING to do with a fact that this plane design was based on a bomber design. Tu-16 bomber's wings were also prone to stall at wingtips. This was a common mistake of engineers of that era.
Good ole Sabre dance?
Twist the wingtips downwards?
@@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf yes
The only difference now is that usa learned by their faults and russia didnt. Russia still creates planes and helikopters thats falling down from the sky.
@@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf yes
Take the Train!
Coming into London in 1962 on a PanAm 707, I was treated to seeing two TU-104s at Heathrow. I particularly noted the bombardier position in the glass nose.
It was not a bombardier position but a navigator one.
@@andreypetrov4868 Exactly, it made it easier for the navigator to follow the iron compass… railroad tracks.
@@andreypetrov4868 Suuuure it wasn't a bombardier position. Not like there was inertial navigation or beacons by the time the 104 was designed!
@@immikeurnot Nothing can substitute visual contact.
even transport aircraft in (ex)Soviet era had navigator position well in 1990s. For example that Il which collided with an Aravian plane over India also had a crew of 5 with a detached navigator position below the main cockpit. In fact, too many people made communications difficult and that's exactly what led to a collision.
8:11 R.O.T.F.L. "Weak wheel BREAKS." "No air BREAKS."
No , it's misspelled. Brakes not " breaks".
Yea i noticed the same thing and couldn't believe this video maker used breaks instead of brakes 😂
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
I'm puzzled why Dwayne chose not to mention the Tex Johnston Tu-104 vs Boeing 707 face off at the Vancouver Air Show in 1958?
While the Comet was the first jet liner to fly it only succeeded the Canadian C102 jet liner by 12 days. Howard Hughes was so impressed he wanted to license build them in the US. Avro Canada had a large contract to supply it's new CF100 fighter to the Royal Canadian Airforce so the C102 project was dropped . In 1957 Avro unveiled the worlds most advanced fighter the CF105 Arrow which was cancelled due to politics mainly.
This in effect destroyed Canadas warbird industry and resulted in US fighter aircraft being license built here.
OK
the Comet would have disappeared except the British used the Comet IV in the military. By the time the bugs were worked out, Boeing's 707 was selling like hotcakes and no one wanted the Comet.
@@adotintheshark4848
Amen.. and the 707 stying and underslung engines set the design for jet liners that still persist today. I would imagine that engine servicing on the Comet would be complicated and expensive.
@@DavidMScott-cs8ppIts not the 707 that set the standards for later aircraft designs, but simple physics, economical requirements and human technological ability at any given time. Thats why they basically all look the same.
@@MothaLuva
If simple physics applied then why was the Comet so different. British aircraft design set some great standards in both war and peacetime. But why was the Comet so different ?
11:00 , fuselage stretched BY 1.2m , not to 1.2m. That would be a very short aircraft 😀
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
seven dwarves air?
What is the significance of the photo of the photo of the burnt British Airtours Boeing 737 at 5:54? Not laziness on finding actual Comet footage surely?!
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Actually, the Tu-104 was operated until 1979. The aircraft is not without flaws, but it was a time of trial and error for aviation in all countries.
Yes, comrade
There is no plane in aviation history that had such a poor safety record. Stop acting like this was happening in any other country.
@@FlyByWire1are you an idiot he is saying it’s the beginning of commercial airline travel. How long do you think airlines have been around? Do you know there has been more innovation in the last 100 years than ever before? We’re still at the start of aviation in the grand scheme of things. God wtf you’re just so intelligent aren’t you. Big brain guy
@@FlyByWire1 The DC-10 ? DC-9 ? DC-8 ? boeing 707 ? all these aircrafts and others had worse safety records fyi stop being biased and read actual statistiques and maybe you will end up doing something productive in your life for once
@@cbh.3030 no they didn’t. Why do y’all get online and just lie? They all had accidents but none of those listed airliners had as many fatal accidents as the Tu-104.
I would love to fly a Tu-104 but only in MS Flight Simulator.
If the war in Ukraine continues much longer, the Russian military has plans to pull leftover 104s out of mothballs to use as transports for some of their more "low priority" infantry units.
I doubt there's any mothballed Soviet civilian aircraft left. Everything that could fly has already flown way beyond any limits. In 1990s, 2000s there were still soms Tu-154 around, but probably not anymore. The civilian An-24 are still chugging along, but not for much longer.
I'm always down to watch a video on this plane!
The 104 was an absolutely beautiful looking plane.
I had a flight in 1972 from Kyev to Leningrad. It was nice
Agreed!!
Attractive killer, I can see the logic there. Spiders web beauty.
Oi….. How does one spell brakes correctly?
No, it's ugly like everything the russians build
5:32 That was the 1985 British Airtours Flight 28M disaster (a 737-200), not a Comet.
Yeah, I stopped watching the video at that point.
3:34 mistake. Not tu-144. Tu-104! Tu-144 was much later.
You’ve added a picture of the BA 737 that set on fire, when discussing the comet
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
The thing was basically just a long-range bomber with seats and fancy paint.. It still carried the front bomber glass nose! And if the pilots didn't like flying it, they kept quiet or else they'd fly one-way to Siberia to join the pilots who survived any accidents.
Tupolev gets all the credit but surely dozens of unknown engineers had a major part in these aircraft.
Well done!
NO, not well done! well STOLEN! it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Yes stuff you and your analytics !
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Socialist USSR forced Tupolev to build this in record time for political gain. If Tupolev had taken his time, he would have increased the size of the tailplanes allowing for improved pitch control.
That's sounds right. Communists suffer from magical thinking.
No it's not the cause of the problem.
The plane was just prone to develop stall at wingtips. So was some American planes, like a F-86 fighter.
Nowadays planes have a bit twisted wings, so wing stalls closer to a fuselage, but wingtips are fine. In case of stall modern planes dive, but old planes pitched up.
You do know he was locked up for a while around then just like the space engineers were.
@@player1GR Not just "nowadays," and there are other ways to ensure root-first stalls.
And wingtip stalls don't cause upward pitch, but tendency to snap-roll.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Enjoyed the video. You did misspell a word, or more accurately, used the wrong woord. At 8:15 you showed 'breaks' when the correct word is 'brakes'.
And when you wrote “woord” you meant “word”.
@@MrDino1953 Yes, and I meant every bit of it. Thanks for the reply.
@Colorado_Native bet you're an absolute riot at parties.
@@lo666zz Invite me and find out, When I get to your house in my car do you want me to 'break' or do you want me to 'brake'? I gotsta no. Eye'm shure theirs grate food they're. Its a real pleasure to bee invited to you're house. What thyme? Thank you sew much. Thanks four the reply.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
You'd think they'd have at least retrofitted the TU-104 with air brakes or something to slow it down upon landing.
Landing speed is dictated by the stall speed of the aircraft, which is dictated by the wing design.
Something a lot of people don't understand about aviation is that, generally, you change altitude by changing speed. To climb, you add power and to descend, you reduce it. You don't go up or down by pointing the nose up or down. Faster means more air over the wings means more lift, means you go up and vice-versa.
You land at the absolute minimum speed the aircraft will stay in the air without dropping like a rock. Speed brakes won't lower landing speed. They only help decelerate the aircraft, keep speed manageable with your nose down, or (especially with early jet engines before variable stators) let you keep your engine power in a certain range while holding a certain speed.
I remember in the USSR was a song- joke. Can not reflect the rhythm because of differently sound languages, but sense is - "TU-104 is the best airplane
TU-104 will fall down where it wants to"😂
Yeah, there was a song like that. It was sung to the tune of Chopin's funeral march. "Tu-104 is the fastest aeroplane, Tu-104 is the fastest aeroplane...I'd rather go by train, I'd rather go by train..."
Although, to tell the truth, the Tu-104 was no better or worse than other first-generation airliners - it experienced everything that happened to its counterparts as they matured. The trouble was that it was kept on the lines way too long - logically, the Tu-104 should have been gone by about 1965. But it turned out that they carried and carried passengers until 1979. She was heavy as an iron, with high fuel consumption, with instruments from World War II, with her braking parachute and high step in the cabin, hiding the wing spars- the flight attendants were tired of dragging their trolleys over them.
The song went, roughly: “The TU-104 is the best plane in the world. In only five minutes it will deliver you to your grave.”
Ту-104 лучший самолёт
За 5 минут до гроба довезёт)
you know the song because of how it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Several issues I have noticed with these type of mass produced videos. First is the use of incorrect photos interspaced just to fill space. Second is mispronunciations of key words in these videos by computer generated audio. Third is the use of incorrect information through out the video presented in different ways as to sound correct. In this Video it was not mentioned that Soviet era aviation was solely developed to serve the military and not civilian aviation. It was also not mentioned that Joseph Stalin was deathly afraid of flying. This made meetings between the allies during WWII very difficult. The only way Stalin would get on a plane was if he got VERY drunk.
Don't you know that Joseph Stalin was a revolutionary in his days risking his life every single day. He was arrested by Tsarist special police forces and sent to a remote area in northern Siberia. He managed to survive and escaped from the icy prison. We may like or dislike Stalin but one thing we can say for sure is that he wasn't a coward. The only reason he didn't travel over the air is just because he new that accidental loss of a capable leader of the country surrounded by capitalist predators could lead to degradation and collapse of the country. And he was absolutely right : look at what happened in 1991. One idiot lost control and another one grabbed the power and destroyed the country.
@@andreypetrov4868 so you agree that you nation had either no decent leaders, or mechanisms for putting them in power, or both? Great. I've always known you have no self-respect but this is surprisingly honest.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
@7:46 Wingspam!
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Very interesting
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
I was often working over in the Central Area at Heathrow and there was no worse aircraft than the TU-104 for the most eye watering totally obnoxious smell that came out of them, even across the other side of the apron, the fumes caused you to choke. Best Dave
And Boeings smelt like French perfume ?
@@andreypetrov4868 I can assure you, That a few years working on departures and arrivals, when the 747 used to appear in the morning like a flock of crows, you would soon know the difference. Those ruzzky. planes were burning something obnoxious.
I am not entirely sure why you chose to misrepresent his statement. He didn't talk about how Boeings smelt at all. I suppose one could conclude that he probably believed that Boeings at the time smelled better than the Tu-104 given that there was no worse aircraft according to him. I doubt he would say they smelled like French perfume. Why would you ask that question?@@andreypetrov4868
@@andreypetrov4868Boeings are democratic airliners
Why would that be, was it Soviet jet fuel in general?
Nevertheless a fantastic looking machine.
1) You're talking about the comet, showing pics from British Airtours, a B737 that burned in the 80's.
2) OVERSHOOTING the runway is done in the air. On the ground you OVERRUN the runway.
Or more technically, it's a runway excursion.
@@dx1450 Also very true.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
@@skeetrix5577 Interesting. I will do this.
Ah, what about the IL-62? And not dangerous per se, but notoriously difficult to get out or fight in the case of fire (which was mercifully rare), the Tristar.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Still it didn't met accidents like comet did.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Russian designers seem to favor the negative dihedral.
You mean "anhedral."
That Tupolev guy didn’t waste any time with smiling.
This strong man spent several years in gulag. He owes nothing to you, least of all dumb american smiles.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Really cool video, keep it up!! (Although a bit ChatGPT scripting vibes 😅)
I like your sense of humour Ruskiy... Thanks for appreciating the hard work.... And yeah AI can do wonders these days, but these videos are days of sleepless nights rather
This script is basically a paraphrase of Mustard's video.
@@user-qe6zx6nc4b thats what i thought too. quite suspicious.
@@ultravoiid the way they shift and change words reminds me writting a college dissertation.
@@Dwaynesaviation "hard work" my ASS. it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Past and present tense perform an important function in language, something people who don't care about the information that a language conveys like you just don't get.
British Airtours aircraft shown is a B737
BRAKES**
Perhaps in the case of the Tu-104, he really did mean “breaks”.
@@MrDino1953 I did wonder if he was being facetious.
I presume you meant BRAKES!
Yes
@@Dwaynesaviationit's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Remember 🎶the tu-104 is the greatest in the world, in just 5 minutes it will carry you to your grave🎶
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
The badger airliner.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
In Soviet Russia, jet flies pilot
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
Tupolev got into too big of a hurry. He should have redesigned the wings with less sweep to lower the landing speed.
It's still a much better design than the de Havilland Comet
BRAKES!
Why did no other manufacturer ever use wing blisters for the undercarriage?
Why was the TU104 so heavy, it was nearly twice the weight of the Sud-aviation Caravelle of similar size and era. Did they use steel instead of aluminium alloys?
It was bigger genius.
it's shameful how similar the script from this video is to mustards video. seriously, go watch mustards video "was this the most dangerous aircraft to ever fly?". this video is blatant plagiarism.
5:34 ?
"104" is a cursed number for plane names.
Wheel breaks…or… wheel brakes?
Weak breaks or brakes?
The producer spelt brakes wrong (breaks - which means something breaks not the wheel brakes!) Get the detail right!
TU - 104 probably had to land at a faster speed than the F - 104 O Dear ! No reverse thrust …
Inexeplicably? It's obviously an elevator lock issue of somesort if it throws itself up or down.....what else could it be? Not thrust vectoring.
Agree. I'm confused by these mysterious "updrafts" that only seem to affect the TU104....
It's map of Russia (slightly outdated), not USSR
The Boeing 707 was way better than the comet
What was up with the nose? Is that some kind of observation deck or something?
Excellent strong construction! The engine was much stronger compared to western types, with a large thrust reserve! Multi-purpose use, so economical! Faster speed than western types!
Also a better safety record than the de Havilland Comet
It's time for someone from the countries of the former USSR to release a video in English. About the killer plane Boeing 707, otherwise everyone talks about how dangerous the TU-104 is, without mentioning that all first-generation civil jet aircraft were like this, they don’t mention that 3 times more people died on the Boeing 707 than on the Tu-104, and that Boeing had the same ratio of lost aircraft to those produced as the Tu-104, even slightly higher. But of course it’s only the crooked Soviets who can’t build a normal plane; we Americans are better in everything. However, the Soviets built their supersonic airliner, even before the British and French, no matter what anyone says about espionage, these are different planes, and Boeing wanted to show off so much that it was never able to master its 2707.
Can’t imagine losing a engine in a tu- 104 with out ejection system !
Fascinating but the stock photography is not always appropriate or accurate which is very distracting.
There was a saying. Communists always won with propaganda. While the capitalists just won.
@@BM-rr1ir At least capitalists can spell propAganda...
The russian “Comet”.
With a better safety record than the British Comet
Tu-104 was the second passenger jet ever and obviously had some technical flaws, what is quite normal for revolutionary pieces of machinery.
Nevertheless Tu-104 was a way better aircraft than Comet and was in service almost for 30 years. Not bad for “fatal design” aircraft 😁🤷♂️
So revolutionary that not a single piece of its engineering was used on later airliners!
@@immikeurnot really? This aircraft looks almost like modern jets having the same scheme. And, this aircraft has circled illuminators while Comet had squared ones😁😁😌
@@immikeurnotI thick you mean to say de Haviland Comet... a textbook example of how not to design a jet airliner.
“Weak breaks”
😅😅😅
British really shouldn't comment about early jet airline safety!
😂😂
The de Havilland Comet is the worst jet airliner in history.. 1 out of every 2 Comet 1s built were destroyed in accidents.
What’s amazing is that Russia was advanced enough to send a man into space before the US, but they couldn’t design a safe commercial jet. Even decades later, they are still basically relying on foreign built aircraft.
First of all, and who could?
Second - they’re pushing home brew replacement for regional and mid-range passenger jets into production like crazy now. There’s a rumor those may be even decent.
You're confusing the USSR with Russia......the two could not be more different.
They can’t design or build a reliable car to this day
Soviet Union was the first one in many direction. And I can tell you, that first sattelite had happened just in 12 year after the awfull war and tottaly destroyed economy. There is no comparison to USA situation. Even more, the first ever mass microchip based radioreceiver was given to americans as souvenir by Nicita Khrushchev in 1965...
@@andrewkhmelkowsky9579- The USSR admitted they stole USA engineering and technical specs for all of its electronic components. There is no proof that the USSR produced anything on their own, let alone a simple radio receiver. Any devices inside the USSR at that time were heavily modified from western design, in part because USSR leadership didn’t want Soviet citizens to own a fully capable receiver. Your comment doesn’t add up to truth, but maybe they did produce a few receivers. During the Cold War, western radio receivers were constantly being smuggled across the border because the Soviet equipment was crap.
I'm just going to chalk this one up to "Shit happens", because this was the early jet age, in an era when everything was experimental. During this experimental period, virtually all the early jet aircraft had "fatal" flaws.
I don't think the 707, DC-8 or British jest were nearly this bad.
@@person.w9780 Tu-104 wasn't bad either. It was just too tricky to fly because of it's swept wing. Usually pilot skills were cause of crashes
Not like the de Havilland Comet did... this appallingly bad design was grounded after just 2 years in limited service and its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked.
It's still a sleek and imposing airplane like you said. It could use fly-by-wire controls. This will fix the control mishaps.
It’s crazy this plane was ever certified to fly considering in good conditions it could need to use a parachute to stop just imagine being in an emergency situation with one chance to land going too fast on a short runway
Nope, parachute was a safety addition, it wasn't deployed every time
Not as crazy as the de Havilland Comet 1 being certified... 6 crashes in just 2 years of limited service, it was finally grounded in 1954 and its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked
It's Brakes not Breaks
I don't think Tupolev needed the Comet to have him realise the potential of jet travel... they were already working on it but had no reliable engines hence the 114 that flew in 55' and apparently is overlooked here. You need to cite your sources, today, anyone can do a video and post information as "true" with biased and erroneous personal opinions misleading the younger generations that don't care to read old books.
Tupolev made safer jets than de Havilland did that's for sure.
Sooo, a history of aircraft instead of getting to the point of the Tu-104. Faster and more accurate to look it up on Wiki.
Brakes stop wheels, not breaks.
Several jarring errors, like the BA Airtours 737 shot when talking about the Comet crashes and several typos, break/brake etc, but otherwise very interesting
You already effed up by saying the TU-104 flew great distances. Learn your craft or stop uploadig crap.
Your English needs a serious overhaul.
Ingenious stroke of brilliance? Inadequately powerful?
Forget checklists, just a simple dictionary will do.
Not much information is available. TU-104 was designed on Western "templates" so it is not to blame. Most of the accidents of TU-104 were due to shocking irresponsibility of ground crews, making their own "judgements" on what to do. In many cases they were simply drunk, bearing in mind that in Russia when you stand on both feet you are not considered as drunk. In many cases apparent flaws in design were not dealt with (i.e. brakes) - they didn't bother and there was no money for it. Don't apply your way of thinking into a Soviet system!
The worst jet airliner in history is without any doubt the British de Havilland Comet.
The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner ever built.
Powerful updrafts? Really…That’s absurd. If the pilots had reduced thrust the nose of the jet would immediately fall toward earth and this assent would be stopped. No thrust to overcome gravity and weight and an aircraft can’t climb, period.
I guess the Soviets never saw ergonomics as a safety factor & relied on their operators' professionalism & sheer skill. It had advantages & disadvantage bur sometimes this philosophy would be pushed too far.
But then also blame them when something goes wrong.
I disagree with the author. Despite technical problems and the fact that the aircraft was difficult to sell outside the USSR, it was one of the first passenger jets in the world and an aircraft that was in use during a period of technological change from 1956-1981.
What the hell is the kind of map of the USSR in 1956 ?
Some alternative history fantasy?
1:40 rants about "short range" without specifying any dates, and showing aircraft from different decades: IL-14 and Tu-134. Conveniently forgets about IL-18 that required only a single stop between Moscow and Vladivostok, and Tu-114 that did it without any stops at all.
That is a propaganda for you
Серёга тебе сколько лет?
'Templetes' 'breaks'? Incorrect information and janky graphics?
No thanks.
Russian Aerospace is right there with Chernobyl in the conversation regarding systemic corruption and incompetence ruining the lives of innocent ppl.
Well it wasn't a "Propaganda" victory, it was clearly a victory.
Better than British engineering
Do we still make planes? 😂😂
@@Dwaynesaviation indeed, try to name a British jet aircraft still in production?
de Havilland Comet 😂😂😂😂
No it wasn't.
@@xandervk2371 Absolutely it was better than an British jet airliner at the time..
The Comet Disaster was a unmitigated failure and a very shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.
Good designers and engineers working for a corrupt government. Any new aircraft has its teething problems which is understandable, but to refuse to correct errors is criminal.
Indeed, the exact same thing happened with the British de Havilland Comet... a plane with an even worse safety record than the Tu-104
@WilhelmKarsten : Comet was the first ever passenger jet, and de Haviland put a lot of effort to find the root cause of the crashes ( and found the effect of metal fatigue that nobody knew at that time). They improved the Comet but too late, its reputation was tarnished. But the Soviets simply ignored the problems of Tu jets. Totally different mindset.
@@bkucinschi The Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in aviation history and the real tragedy is that it could have been easily prevented if de Haviland had simply used established industry standards and practices for the design and fabrication of pressurized aircraft with airframes made with riveted aluminum.
De Havilland had very limited knowledge or experience in all-metal aircraft and pressurized cabins, they were still building jets made primarily from wood and fabric.
@@bkucinschiThe first successful airworthy jet airliner is the Boeing 707 series, a revolutionary aircraft so advanced that it completely transformed air travel and the aviation industry... a plane so good that they are expected to remain flying until 2050.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 : Very true. However keep in mind that Boeing learned from Comet's debacle. The pioneers assume all the risks by going into the unknown.
Yet there are people, who believe ruzzkie technology is/was superior :D Their military high-end technology myth has just been shattered to pieces, however
Well the Tu-104 was certainly a better aircraft than the British de Havilland Comet
Hahaha. Comparing to the Comet which had 7 out of 21 built crash is kind of ludicrous.
Indeed, without any doubt the Comet was the worst jet airliner ever built.
Aviones copiados q los ameicanose mala calidad
Russian made crapola. Shalom
still better and safer plane compared to western planes of that time
It was certainly better than the British de Havilland Comet
I flew the Tu-104 several times in my life, it was a wonderful aircraft for its time. This plane was very comfortable, quiet, spacious, with a very nice interior. That's why I didn't like this viciously stupid video.
haha you're delusional and biased, probably one of those Russians who miss the Soviet Union. I flew it too, it was shit. Like most domestic Soviet technological creations.
@@AVA-gk1uzThe Tu-104 actually has a better safety record than the de Havilland Comet
Is there a Soviet designed airplane, of ANY type, which wasn't a western copy, to one degree or another, and actually performed well?
Answer: No. Not. A. One.
Pretty much this 👏👏👏
Yes, there is another example of pretty good soviets design. To be honest that aircraft has been producing since 1947 - An-2 (Antonov-2).
@@andrewkhmelkowsky9579 AN-2 is a wonderful aircraft, I only wish that it was possible to find spare parts that were manufactured in this century.
It was no propaganda.. the Russian built the plane for real … except yea few unfinished details in such short time. But hey look at the fraction they spent on the damn thing .. unlike the British on their comment ??
It was absolutely terrible airplane, CSA was basically forced to fly these jets.
Tu-104 205 were built, 37 crashed or 18.0%.
DH-106 Comet 114 pieces were built, 25 of them crashed, which is 21.9%.
B707 1010 copies were produced, 174 crashed, or 17.2%.
Sud Aviation Caravelle built 282 pieces, 64 crashed, or 22.7%.
DC-8 produced 556 copies, of which 83 crashed, or 14.9%. The safest jet aircraft of the first generation is the Tu-114. Of the 33 built, one or 3.03% crashed.
As you can see, the Tu-104 is not much more dangerous than the Boeing 707. And it is much safer than all European jet aircraft. The DC-8 looks the best against the general background. Tell us why McDonnell-Douglas no longer builds passenger planes. Does the war bring more profit?
*COMET 1 has a 46% percent loss rate, the highest in jet airliner history.*