Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox. Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024
@@NotWhatYouThink What is War Thunder? Free sounds good! J/K - I love your videos but I skip your sponsors. I feel bad for the creators getting shade for their sponsors. Simon promotes Keeps, and he’s bald…
есть амфибия Бе 12, последователь Бе 6 Там есть радист, штурман, два пилота И катапультные кресла есть лишь у пилотов Радист может скинуть стеклянный блистер и спрыгнуть Но вот штурман, самый важный член экипажа который и обнаруживал всякое на воде должен был сделать действительео невероятное чтобы выжить
You must have failed reading comprehension in high school english class. It was stated that the prototypes had ejection seats for the pilots, the regular production passenger models did not.
Even though I'm an American, I'll give credit where it's due. The Concorde was a technological achievement on par with the Moon landings. She entered commercial service less than 30 years after the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier. The X-1 couldn't take off or land under its own power. It required a rocket engine and special fuels. A B-29 bomber had to carry it aloft and drop it as if it were a missile. It could only manage a short burst of powered flight and carried little to no payload. Concorde was twice as fast, could cross oceans, ran on jet engines and ordinary aviation kerosene, took off and landed just like other airplanes, and carried 100 passengers, their luggage, the finest food, and a host of flight attendants. She kept all of them in air conditioned comfort, and perfectly safe if not for an extremely unlucky piece of FOD on a Paris runway.
@@tonyhenthorn3966 I am sick of hearing the Concord was canceled due it losing money. It was making a few million from 1980 on. Maybe not worth the hassle, but it was making money. Anyway I never really cared for the Concord, but I didn't know about the discrepancy between the Soviet airline, and Concord when it came to maintenence hours. 25,000 hours to 500... That is such an insane difference, and an impressive one. I wish he went into detail on why, because the Soviets for all their woes usually were not that far behind the West. Or so I thought. That rivals airliner engines today I think. Although I couldn't really get an average when googling. Mostly flight cycles. Liquid Pistons X Engine which is a form of rotary engine cannot even get over 1,000 hours before a rebuild, lol. They need to step up. (JK. Jet engines don't have apex seals.)
@@dianapennepacker6854 it would be interesting if Soviet industry is still around, there's philosophical difference for sure. I mean design decision like why their power drill uses ball bearing instead of sleeve, why chose piston engine for their tank instead of turbine.
An aircraft that is so bad that its own design bureau wanted to cancel it. In Tupolev's opinion, it was taking resources that were needed for more urgent civil aviation projects.
@tjroelsma The British also wanted to cancel Concorde on the same ground… and repeatedly asked the French to let them. But the French became more stubborn as the economic prospects became worse.
@@mohamadnuriman4815 Same with Tu. Both kinda sucked in the end, less reliable, more expensive and all that for slightly more speed then normal airliner is capable of.
I live in Bristol 🇬🇧 home of the Concorde, seen its final 5 minutes of flights as it circled above bristol. Such a beautiful jet, and i even went to visit it a year or so ago with my grandmother before she passed away, and had the joy of walking her through the plane in its hangar, holding her hand as she shared her stories of seeing its test flights. Rest in peace grandma (Dorothy)
Also Boneski (Tu-160 rip-off of B-1 Lancer), or Superfortresski (Tu-4 rip-off of B-29), and a whole host of other aircraft. Very little was truly novel by the soviets. They stole the general designs, then rushed the job to get it done before the west. Then the PRC learned those lessons and did the same thing, even to the Soviets/Russians, where they buy 1 copy, then reverse engineer it, leading to their current PLAAF/PLANAF designs all being cheap rip-offs, and often inferior, to their Russians and Western designs.
@@tonyf.9806and yet, first in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first space walk, first space station. Actually, you people are just shit who know nothing but just blabber nonsense.
I’m midway through the video and I already see a lot of errors in it… 1. They removed the horizontal stabiliser, not the vertical 2. The canards extend during takeoff and landing and not the other way around 3. It is believed that the engineers extended the limits of the FBW just before the paris air show to try and have a better presentation than the concorde, and those changes broke the stability of the Tu-144 which lead to its crash. However the Mirage was indeed present, and we don’t really know if it was a contributing factor.
not to mention that the soviet manufacturing at that time WAS inferior to the western counterparts and their spies stole technology that was deliberately wrong, didn't see through that and actually implemented the stole wrong design lol
It was not. Otherwise Soviet government would have taken the chance to blame the French. Instead they tried to blame a cameraman who was in the cockpit. Like he dropped his camera which blocked control stick. They tried to recreate it in the mock-up of the cockpit, but camera didn't fit into control stick shaft. So they had to enlarge it for the recreation to succeed.
French and passionate about aeronautics, I was a spectator at the Paris Air Show in 1973 when the TU-144 disintegrated in flight. I absolutely did not see another plane (supposedly a Mirage III in the video) approach it. I have a clear memory of seeing the canards start to retract and the Tupolev suddenly tilt into a nosedive and then the cell break towards the wing root before the debris of the plane fell on fire towards the village of Goussainville. In the evening, on television, we will see the images but also the devastated village with 8 dead, dozens of injured and more than a hundred houses destroyed. We will also see the brutality of the police but especially of the Soviet agents who prevented people and journalists from photographing and filming the scene of the disaster. Very quickly, André Turcat, Concorde test pilot, declared on television that the Soviets were going to continue their program because they had a "...heart as big as that!". The future would prove him wrong, the accident was no longer even mentioned and the village was razed before being rebuilt.
So I have an honest question you say there was NO other aircraft present within its flight path (ie recon mirage) Ive always heard this story (maybe its only a story) One thing is for sure is that I never (in the few grainy and dim films ) see any other aircraft within the Tu 144 flight path ) but it appears that they pulled up the aircraft too sharply leading to a stall in both the wings and one of its engines require a restart by putting it into a sharp dive and this overstressed the airframe causing the wings to snap off and the rest of the fuselage breaking up.
@@waverider227 Sorry, "waveride227", but, I'm French (76 y.o.) and I was present at each "Salon du Bourget" since 1965. I'm sure to remember : 1-The accident happened when he has closed his "moustaches". 2-No other flight around the T.O. of TU-144 is possible, because during the mettings "Le Bourget", never another plane can fly during the presentation of an aircraft because will fly in very restricted crowd due to the very close presence of the Paris flats. The french fighter Mirage III was an accusatory legend during few time by french people pro-Soviet. So : How the crew of TU can saw the Mirage III coming from behind them and why nobody seen saw this french fighter from the ground ? ...
3:33 "This meant that the aircraft had no vertical stabilizer" That's completely wrong, the giant finn at the end is the vertical stabilizer. It had no horizontal stabilizers...
. . . and at 10:05 it says that the canards were only RETRACTED during take-off and landing in order to provide extra lift at the front of the plane. Presumably these were actually only DEPLOYED/EXTENDED during take-off and landing, and retracted at all other times. 🙄
I was born next to the factory produced it. Graduated aircraft technical college of this factory. We used to build Ilyushin planes but for short term it was Tupolev 144.
In the early 90s, I worked in Twickenham, close to Heathrow Airport. I'd watch passenger planes stacked above each other, waiting their turn to land, minutes apart. Nothing came close though to seeing Concorde fly overhead. The most beautiful plane of any age. Stunnigly beautiful in silhouette.
Hahaha, yes, but that's an exaggeration The ejection seats for the pilots was only for the test airplanes, not the production airplanes that will carry passengers
The NK-144 engines were actually turbofans and not turbojets like Concorde's ones, and Turbofans are just not suituable for supersonic flight. Nevertheless those engines were way more complex for their time as the development of Turbofan engines had just begun at this time. Therefore, the Tu-144D uses turbojets after the Tu-144S used the turbofans. Speaking about Tu-144's "Flight control augmentation system" called ABSU - automatic onboard control system, it acted pretty like an FBW in fact, just not like an Airbus one. More like a Boeing one, you still need to trim the aircraft when flying manually but there's no physical connection between controls in the cockpit and control surfaces, and all feedback forces are synthetically generated. In the Soviet Union it was called a "Booster control system" and was also used on the Tu-154 for example. ABSU cross-controlled ailerons, elevators (which were the same in the case of the Tu-144, obviously) and rudder, applying all the dampings if needed. So yes, pretty much Boeing-like FBW. And speaking about other avoinics it was far more advanced than on the Concorde. The Tu-144's cockpit looks more modern than Concorde's one. The engineers panel on Tupolev has from 1,5 to 2 times less gauges and switches, in fact the automation was so high that the flight engeneer just had to monitor the panel and toggle one single switch 2 times during the whole flight (yes, a bit oversiplified, but still), even fuel balancing (known as the main headache of those supersonics) was fully automated. And the navigation system was just a marvel for mid 1970s. 30 waypoints in memory (10 in Concorde), 100-meters-precision INS over 5,600 km leg using automatic beacon correction, several alternates which can be flown to by autopilot by one click, automatic holding patterns, 15-inch moving map, etc. You can even pick any point on that map, push 2 buttons and the autopilot will fly you to that point. Maybe only L-1011 Tristar was more advanced at the time. To conclude, it's such a shame that this airplane just hasn't shown its full potential. It was innovative in every acpect, sometimes not fully successful, the engines for example (though they were lately developed into NK-32 - the best high-thrust supersonic turbofans in the world, installed onto Tu-160), and sometimes marvelously good. But nevertheless, every engineer working on this project put a part of his soul into it back than.
It is odd that Tupolev chose turbofans, whereas Boeing and the European consortium went with turbojets. Maybe the turbofans were more readily available because Soviet bombers and strike aircraft used them. They make sense for warbirds that usually fly subsonic, but need to accelerate and climb quickly while carrying heavy weapon loads. Such jets can go supersonic, but only for short dashes as needed in combat. Turbojets are better for sustained high Mach flight in the stratosphere, since the air is so thin it isn't necessary to "bypass" any of it.
@@dash_lp Tu 144 first flight: 1968 Eurofighter Typhoon first flight: 1994 The technology behind supersonic turbofan engines has just rapidly developed. As such, the Tu-160, like I already said in my comment, also uses turbofans. Those where also used on the Tu-144ll which therefore and similar range as Concorde but still flew faster. Also, fighter jets do not fly supersonic all the team, just take a moment and read the comment from @tonyhenthorn3966
@@chrisi06 but if the Soviet’s used turbofans with low bypass it’s not that different from the eurofighter engines and therefore more suitable for supersonic speeds 🤔
As usual the idiots in the comments point out ejection seats but those were only for the test variants would not want to waste good pilots on an unrelable a nothing to do with the comercial versions
the Tu-144 wasn't built for active service, it was a prototype, just like the Boeing 2707 except it actually flew. The Buran flew some missions, too, but of all these airframes, none could be said to be a waste of money. Development is a loss leader for airframes - the 767 cost a lot more to develop, by contrast - so the fabrication of a prototype is more an investment in the industry, the economy, and in know-how. In this case, it avoided the Concorde's dilemma of massive running losses on top of massive development costs.
@@Psycandy If the Tupolev 144 was really so bad, it would not have been rescued from a museum, revised and used again by NASA as a flying laboratory and named TU-144LL, contributing to the development of future supersonic commercial aircraft. Another video from this channel full of unnecessary pejorative adjectives, just a piece of propaganda designed to attack those the US government doesn't like.
@@dek6922 good old serial produced Soyuzes were times cheaper to operate than brand new Buran. And experience with Shuttle did show that reusable spacecraft is very expensive and pain in the ass.
Das Feature ist so nervig... Ich hab Deutsch und Englisch als meine Sprachen eingegeben, warum will TH-cam mich ständig zwingen Titel und sogar Videos auf Deutsch anzusehen.
Backfire Tu 22 M3 used the same reactors, and is still in operations and being modernised ,,over 500 were built..the passager supersonic program helped Tupolev to develop improved bombers TU-22M3 and TU160 far better than previous TU22 Blinder. The Reactors from Klimov NK 144-22 derated coming from the TU 144 to Kouznetzov NK 22,NK23 puis NK25 , the reactors upgrades have been the main struggles for range and speed…the Tu 144 was also upgraded to Koliesev RD36-51 to reach Mach 2.15 on TU144D and finally in the late 1990 to the TU 160 bomber Kouznetzov NK321 turbofans for a top speed of Mach 2.3 on the TU 144 LL, a joint research program with NASA funds !!! But none of all those like the Concorde were commercially viable . A much lighter composite air frame flying higher and faster is required to regain some efficiency with thinner air around…and there also the conventional turbojet propulsion systems are also speed limited at Mach 2-2.4 …A Cryogenic liquid H2 to reach cruising speed and altitude which requires near 1/2 of the energy…is also a weight saving potential then cruising on kerosene as the airframe heats up..there the current Boom program is not ambitious enough,,
I must say that the end bit about the US and Russia working together for research on the Tu144 is how it should be. Working together to grow and learn.
We tried. It doesn't work. Programs when you work together between seem to just cost more with more hassle. I feel bad for the smart Russians. They all left the country. Doesn't seem like we will be seeing a competitor from them in a while if ever. I cannot believe the life span of the engines and frame compared to the Concord. I kinda wish he did a deep dive on why it is such a large discrepancy since the Soviets were not usually that far behind when they put their resources to it. Truly wild.
@@SN57ONE Yeah politicans and buisnesses in each country crying and whining about getting a piece of the program. Then you have things like commmunication issues, and supply issues. "Hey Slovokia is in the program! They can design X part even though they suck at that part, and shipping costs will increase!" Anyway the buisnesses themselves are too blame too. All the small issues pile up. I read the supply chain behind joint programs between countries just simply is usually garbage.
Slight quibble: You said the TU-144 had no vertical stabilizer. That is incorrect. It very much had a vertical stabilizer. What it did not have was a horizontal stabilizer. Being a delta wing the elevators were included in the trailing edge of the wing.
The technologies that were tested on the Tu-144 formed part of the successful Tu-160 program, which quietly flies all 14,000 km in cruising mode, but can also be supersonic.
@@stabilo3170 In the USSR, any advanced west programs were primarily considered from the point of view of military use against the USSR. And any projects usually had a dual purpose, especially those launched in the 50s and 60s. In the 70s, a separate civil aviation industry was already formed, but still civilian aircraft were built as dual-use - with a reinforced fuselage, chassis and proven, but old engines. By the end of the 80s, the industry began to deviate from the norms of the military, but by this time the economic situation of the USSR and political stability had been undermined. And in the 90s, the oligarchs and officials almost destroyed the industry because they could not finance it.
@@stabilo3170 to put it simply, supersonic passenger aircraft were just unfeasible in a communist economy. it was already a sinking ship in the west where only the wealthy was able to afford a flight, in a communist country it was pretty much unsustainable
Maybe the Tu-144 was not state of art plane, but on otherside, the lessons learned on that project wasn´t just waste of money. They learned a lot, and improve it, so much. Maybe not the best airliner, but definitely a milestone for another military projects, which cames like Tu-160 White Swan. So either you win, or you learn... Last thing, they did it, at least. Build it, maybe not perfect, but made it. And then NASA decades later cames to learn something. :)
Oui. Ce film est avant tout americain et par jalousie ils véhiculent cette histoire de Mirage au dessus lors de la démonstration du Bourget. Bref une chaîne peu fiable. Il existe des centaines de reportages sur cette histoire. Vaut mieux les regarder eux !
The manufacturers early on knew the SST concept wouldn't work, but it was demanded of them by the government. So they worked on the concepts while at the same time developing new commercial aircraft that would go on to regular service. This included the 737 and 747, legendary aircraft that served the world well. They dropped the SST programs literally as soon as the government called it off.
@@Oldbmwr100rs Boeing stuffed up with the swing wing design (later dropped as it's too heavy) and an unrealistic top speed (Mach 3 or something). Much of the aircraft had to then be made of titanium, which they didn't have much experience in using. The 2707 project was a failure, sure they had some great designs with the 747, 727, 737 etc.
@@Andronicus2007 It's like I said, they really weren't interested in doing the actual plane, between Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing all kinds of stuff kept changing, I believe Boeing started taking cues from Lockheed and Douglas dropped out early. By the time the Concorde was getting further along, in the US environmental groups were pushing for bans in supersonic travel over the continent. The entire thing was a huge waste of time and money and that was figured out early on. They had bigger ambitions in larger scale passenger travel. Only reason the SST project lasted as long as it did was due o our government demanding it without listening to anyone. They didn't want to be "left behind" by the concorde or soviets, and both of those projects were between disasters and huge wastes of money. The British basically gave up their entire aircraft manufacturing because of this project. Boeing went on to lead the world in production airliners.
With a far greater knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft than the British the Americans quickly concluded that SSTs were not going to be commercially viable and predicted the failure of Concorde. Boeing built the 747 instead and the results were dramatically different Boeing became the largest aerospace company in the world while Britain no longer makes any jet aircraft of its own today. Concorde was an epic failure that led to the destruction of the country's entire jet aircraft industry.
A very well done look at the Soviet approach to supersonic public transport. With a lot of footage I’ve never seen before, along with many new facts I wasn’t aware of, this look at the Tu-144 was an unexpected pleasure to watch. Thanks for the great content! Keep it up!
"general believe that the soviets were technologically inferior, is widely overblown" directly followed by "yes they stole design documents, the technology was less sophisticated, the pilots knew the plane was dangerous" is pretty funny
@@dmitryisakov8769 It might be expensive, but it's streets ahead of any of your aircraft Ivan. Может быть, это и дороговато, но это на порядок выше любого вашего самолета Ивана.
There are both aircrafts few meters apart in one german museum. Cockpit of TU-144 was like a being in ww2 submarine - really messy compare to Concorde. I can't imagine how brave pilots must have been to fly over mach 2 with this machine. Wild engineering. Clarkson: POWEEEEER!
I can understand why some people think this aircraft is a copy of the Concorde. But in reality if you are engineering two different aircraft to achieve the same goals, you are going to get something that looks similar. It is like saying a Ford car is a rip-off of a Toyota car because they both have four wheels and an engine.
11:00 Crash was not due to collision avoidance. That flight was before load testing of airframe, so it couldn't withstand 4g. And the aircraft was in experimental state, so some command lines were connected through a patch panel. And cabin engineer connected it wrong, so in certain moment canards went to extreme position and plane made a turn experiencing 4.5g. 18:30 "Dorabotaniy" ("Доработанный") means "upgraded". "Finished" would be "Законченный" ("Zakoncheniy").
bonjour j'ai vu le TU exploser en plein vol à ce moment il était en piqué , l'avion aurait décroché et tentait de reprendre de la vitesse pour voler les forte contrainte aurait casser la cellule en deux suivie d'une boule de feux dans le ciel . le crash c'est fait sur la petite ville de Dugny tuant plusieurs personnes .
I watched an interview made during the 90s to the son of Andrei Tupolev, he said that KGB forced his father to use the Intel that KGB stole from France. He had almost completed the engineering of the wings but the Party wanted to accelerate the completion of the prototype so they coerced him to get the work done using that data. He was a genius, no doubt, but Soviet engineers were always pressed to the point of risking being accused of treason, like Bartini and Koroliev.
Many years ago BBC ran a mini series of 4 programmes entitled The Story Behind The Headlines or something like that. The story of the Tu144 was one of them. Another was how Israel managed to build their own Mirage's after France refused to sell them more than the test airframes they had provided. What the other 2 were about I can't remember.
Nevermind of course the fact that he was arrested and then "detained" in a Secretive NKVD(pre-KGB) Design Bureau for like 6 years between 1938 and 1944 and you can twist that to push any narrative as these "documentaries" usually do. I mean the KGB hasn't existed since 1993 and people in Western countries still talk about it like it still exists.
Airframe lifespan is “not what you think”. Lifespan may be extended upon inspection, if such inspection doesn’t discover structural damage/fatigue or other conditions, that may deem the aircraft not airworthy. So in a sense, airframe life span in most cases will mean time till life extension inspection.
Hey, just curious, does it sound weird in German, or is it the translation? Basically, if you could only understand German, would you be able to watch the video? Thanks!!
Funny little thing that was. You know the Soviet Union produced this, their first supersonic commercial airliner, before the first factory producing toilet paper opened? I think that kind of sums up the USSR.
@@CountingStars333 I don't have a peer reviewed paper for you but there are plenty of accounts to be found. Honestly I just heard that somewhere and restated it and there's a little bit more ambiguity to it than that with different people claiming it was produced (though perhaps not industrially) years before the 1969 date you see placed around the place (only slightly after the Tupolev Tu-144), but for most people, newspapers on a spike was the norm well into the 70s. Then again the deeper ideological reason for my saying that is to state the obvious fact that the Soviet centrally planned economy and system of government and society in general is a terrible thing which resulted in that kind of outcome.
@@SwapBlogRU I was born in the USSR, and I assure you, that myth actually had a basis in reality. The problem with paper was a big thing for the USSR, not just toilet paper - any paper. They've built a toxic big factory on the shore of Baikal to fix this problem. And even after that the standard for thickness for the soviet toilet paper was 0.0001 micrometer or something close to it. The newspapers did a better job because they were thicker and had an added bonus in that you could literally shat on the party bosses propaganda while no one was watching.
50 flight hours as the entire lifespan of an aircraft engine is wild. Like, not 50 work hours for each hour of flight, just you get 2 days of flight time, buy 4 new engines. Absolute madness.
I don't believe the Tu-144 was a "dumb" idea at the time. It looked like the future of commercial air travel was supersonic. "Detente" with the West meant America and its allies might be open to buying Soviet made products, including planes. The Boeing SST started late, and the US Senate pulled the plug on it, creating a "vacuum" for such aircraft should demand for them have grown. The USSR needed export money from more sources than just certain minerals, natural gas, oil, and weapons, for the vast country was a net food importer. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now know Mach busting jets, be they American, European, or Soviet in origin, didn't make good business sense for the airlines.
Maybe, but the Tu-144 was a rush job and it showed. Cabin noise during flight made conversations impossible, it was plagued by mechanical trouble and the thirsty engines resulted in a fairly short range (although that one was improved before the model was withdrawn). There were only a bit more than 100 commercial flights.
All SSTs are a "dumb" idea... Concorde was the biggest failure in commercial aviation history and destroyed the UK aircraft industry... Boeing and the Americans with far more knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft realized that SSTs were not commercially viable, Boeing built the 747 instead and the rest is history. Today Boeing is the largest aerospace manufacturer in the world while the British? no longer make any jet aircraft!
@@tz8785 All SSTs were a dumb idea... Concorde was also ultimately a failure, and its dead-end concept saw no commercial sales or follow-up designs. The Concorde has been plagued with technical and safety issues from day one and was eventually grounded due to serious safety related design defects that were deliberately covered up for years.
Actually the Concord never made a cent. I don't think supersonic passenger was a failure. It was just too far ahead of it's time for the infrastructure
@@sananselmospacescienceodys7308 Concorde is the biggest financial failure in commercial aviation history, Concorde was a 3.5 billion colossal failure.
The inability to supercruise being the fatal flaw cannot be stressed enough. That caused both the crazy noise and the thirst for fuel. Afterburners are great if you want lots of extra power, but they are unbelievably inefficient. The fact that the Concorde could is frankly crazy for the technology of the time. The list of planes that can do that is very short even today (all others being fighter jets), and Concorde is still the fastest.
Love your pronunciation of 'dorabotaniy', sound like some remote village name in deep forest with population of 13.5 people :) More precise translation will be 'revised' I guess
Dorabotanny means combination of fixed/improved. I wonder that the abbreviation was even possible because it assumes that the previous model wasn't good enough 😅
I'm not even sure that it is right explanation. Traditionally, soviet planes (and even some missiles) got letter D for "dalniy", in american tradition it is equivalent of ER for "extended range". And indeed Tu-144D was exactly that - a version with extended range compared to standard version. Similarly, letter S in Tu-144S means "seriniy" or "serial", meaning it's a production model. In most cases letter S doesn't even used, for example Su-27S can often be named as just Su-27, which is not exactly right, because Su-27 - is name of pre-production series of planes, basically a prototypes.
The Concorde was actually the biggest waste of money in Aviation History. As it wasn't canceled, and yet many flights were only half full and yet a full flight wouldn't cover the cost of the fuel... The Soviets were good at calculating the social costs of having an SST, and that included replacing windows & treating hearing loss. Britain & France didn't compensate those who suffered hearing damage in international waters, but they had to cover the costs of treating their own citizens like the Soviets did but at a much higher cost... The Soviet Union heavily depended on passenger aircraft as well as passenger railways to transport their citizens and party officials. While the party officials were keen on fast flights when they needed to visit far parts of the Soviet Union, flying on the Tu-144 convinced them that conventional jet aircraft were a better choice. Note that on many of their aircraft if the seat in front of you was empty you could use that seat to give yourself a bed, and those party officials often managed to sit behind those empty seats... And while it might be hard for westerners to understand Soviet Economics, keep in mind that Aeroflot had the best passenger miles per gallon efficiency despite having less efficient aircraft simply by making sure that their aircraft were full most of the time, and by flying at the most efficient speed for their aircraft...
concorde had only the air intakes controlled automatically, and even that was not a first, many supersonic fighters of the time having this feature, long before Concorde. also, tou make a big confusion between Time Bryween Overhauls and the design lifetime *for both airframes and engines(.
Das Ding ist bis 1978 noch von Scheremetjewo nach Sibirien Linie geflogen. Danach wurden noch zwei Exemplare bis Ende der 80iger flugbereit gehalten, kamen aber nur noch für das Raumfahrtprogramm der SU sporadisch zum Einsatz. Gutes Video.
The concorde was a much bigger waste of money because it was a lot more expensive and the end result was the same, an impractical aircraft that had no reason to exist other than propaganda
I heard a story that after the crash, the Politburo demanded reports from the Paris KGB and GRU residencies. The GRU had loads of people at the show with cine cameras, and the KGB guys weren't interested. Andropov, then KGB head asked the GRU boss for one film from the show so he had something for the Politburo. The GRU guy said. 'Chairman Andropov, I'll not give you one film, I'll copy them all and send them to you for 10 am tomorrow, after we've shown the Politburo them at 9.30.' Andropov slammed down the phone.
Knowing what we know now, Concord itself was a commercial failure also, perhaps a bigger one than just not being very good. The thing burst into flames...
It flew for 27 years and had very few issues along the way. The crash was caused by debris on the runway that wasn't cleared up that ruptured its fuel tank. Might want to get your facts straight.
I got a loaf of bread from a bakery outside of Paris for my birthday once. It was flown over on the Concorde and cost $200 in 1998. Took 3 days to get to Edmonton.
My two favourite aircraft all in one video. I visited both crash sites near CDG. TU144 in Goussainville and Concorde in Gonesse, about 4km away from each other 😢
When seeing the 144 and the Concorde side-by-side, you sort of are in an uncanny valley: they definitely are similar, but you can tell something is different between the two planes. Just by a superficial glance, the latter give the idea of being more sophisticated and better-thought, while the former has ingenuity on its side, but you can perceive it's sort of a knockoff.
The test bed had ejection seats but the prototype and 14 production models didn't. Paris airshow proved that. Been on both Concorde and TU144, albeit in static at Sinsheim. No ejection seats.
Until Japan entered the ground arena The Superpowers couldn't match France in making an affordable & reliable economy car either, (the US still can't & the UK made some good efforts) long live the no frills Citroen CV2. simplicity reliability economical transportation & fun!
I was 12 years old when the Paris crash happened. It was a major CRINGE event , on newsreels at the movies and we were even shown newsreels at school , we only got TV some years later. I think that this debacle helped to make people resist Concorde which turned out to be the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
Supersonic Passenger Travel in general has to be subsidized or it is not practical from a cost point of view for most people. The faster an aircraft travels the more fuel it burns(generally burning less at cruising altitude and cruise speed). A Supersonic Jet flying at supersonic speeds burns several metric tons of jet fuel per hour(for the Concorde I believe it was around 20 metric tons of fuel per hour). At the same time a Turboprop Aircraft flying at a much slower 300-400 km/h(185-250 mph) burns 10 times less of the same jet fuel for the same number of passengers. Both get you to the same location, but the Supersonic Jet will cost more just based on fuel. So as a result - a Trans-Atlantic flight in a Regular Jet can cost $1,000 while the same flight costs $10,000 in a Supersonic Jet. The Supersonic Jet sacrifices efficiency for speed. A Regular Jet can carry more passengers without needing so much fuel or fly longer distances. It also costs more for maintenance since the airframe, engines, and other moving parts wear out easier and more often because of the higher stresses on the aircraft at Supersonic speeds. This is one of the reasons why the speed and design of Passenger Jets has not changed since the 1960's. Airlines can't afford higher costs, passengers can't afford higher prices. The Soviet Union initially tried subsidizing the Tu-144 flights for passengers in the 1970's but it was soon proven impractical and it was abandoned, as was commercial use of the aircraft by 1980. France and the UK tried this experiment for much longer, but they too followed soon after the year 2000.
Flew before Concorde, crashed before it too… more times. The Anglo-French team designing Concorde leaked incorrect blueprints to Soviet spies so they got a huge leg up on the project but also ended up with a white elephant that was as impractical as it was dangerous.
I don't understand what you're talking about? It was bigger, with more powerful engines, it flew before the Concord, it's a waste of money (a plane full of faults). The F-35 was the most expensive, and my tax dollars were wasted. An engine with low power and little reliability.
The Soviet industrialization that began with the 1st Five-Year Plan was carried out with capital and technology from the capitalist West. Companies from the US, Germany, and bankers from Wall Street and the City of London poured millions of dollars and sterling into the Soviet economy. Ford tractor factory, which was later modified to produce the T-34 Tank, the construction of Magnitogorsk, the largest steel mill in the world and everything else, were carried out by Western capitalism. In 1966, FIAT installed a factory in the city of Togliatti to produce the Zhiguli, later called Lada, which was a version of the FIAT 124. The Soviet Space Program was completely Nazi German and was based on the V2 bombs used in the Second World War. The MIG-9 jet, the 1st Soviet jet, was based on a German Messerschmitt jet. There is nothing in technological terms that was created by any communist nation. According to David Remnick, in his book, "Lenin's Tomb", the extinct USSR was a poor and backward country with nuclear weapons. Brazil's HDI, already in the mid-1970s, in the South and Southeast, was higher than that of any communist country. The USSR was already bankrupt in the mid-1960s. What gave breath to the Soviet regime from the 1970s onwards, filling its economy with petrodollars, were the two oil shocks: in 1973, due to the Yom Kippur war. , and in 1979, with the fall of the Shah of Iran. The USSR was one of the largest oil producers in the world. A lesson for the unwary: those who generate wealth are private entrepreneurs and, in 1922, Von Misses predicted the collapse. of the Soviet economy due to the absence of a free market. Conclusion: The extinct USSR never created technology in any aspect of human activity.
1. Gorky Automobile Factory(GAZ) never built any T-34's. That was the Stalingrad Tractor Factory and Kharkov Locomotive Factories originally which had nothing to do with Ford. And Western countries in the 1930's had no money(capital), they were all dealing with the Great Depression after the failure of their Stock Markets. It was Soviet gold and grain that kept companies like Ford alive. Soviet Union bought and paid for Technology imports back then even though it had a negative effect on the population since grain was exported to pay for it as Drought affected much of North America and the USSR at the time causing food shortages. 2. Brazil doesn't have Winter Weather 8 months of the year and by itself is one of the largest countries in the World with tons of resources and people, not exactly Lichtenstein.
The Russian Concorde really lost out because it was denied the blackjack engine and that it did the sonic boom but knowing that it was later used for post it's just sad I really enjoy your videos thank you
That’s not unusual , the vast majority of aircraft of that era and prior were assembled with hand wrenches, especially when there’s no room for other tools. We torqued large bolts that had large assemblies together - the fuselage to wings, tail section to fuselage, landing gear components, the prop, the usual engine assemblies (ie, cylinders, heads, connecting rods, etc). But most of the AN3 and AN4 bolts were just done simply by feel. Certain small (3/16, 1/4”) high strength, structural bolts and fasteners would be torqued to spec, (which could be different depending on the type of bolt and type of joint), but those were exceptions. Tighter than snug, not so tight that any more will deform a bolt - over tightening is better than tight enough, but “you’re not holding down the world,” to quote Charlie Whitney, one of my A&P instructors. However, a qualifier - I’ve worked exclusively on WWII and postwar military propeller planes. Maybe you’re absolutely correct, and ANY- and EVERYthing related to turbines must be accurately torqued. Plus, they could be just snugly tightening ALL of the bolts of an assembly, before the final tightening. Kinda like when you have something with a few bolt holes, you insert a single bolt and tighten it, and now the other two bolt holes don’t line up.
so true. For having seen and been inside both in a museum, the Tu144 was much larger and spacious. Rumors say it crashed because of a mirage III getting a little too close, would make sense for the french to observe their competitor, even better to crash them.
Yes, the airplane that was rushed in development to beat the upcoming announcement of the Concorde in the west… totally not propaganda! Sacrifice safety and quality for political image, so they can say they did it first! Totally not propaganda!
@lightning366 @@eleypvr7294 lmao, did either of you bots even watch the video? the aircraft was a piece of junk. only flew 55 flights with passengers on it and had *hundreds* of malfunctions. cope harder.
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox.
Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024
people who already play war thunder "INTERESTING"
@@tomizou5558yea lol
the real biggest waste of money in aviation history is buying war thunder premium planes.
@@LordBobeus-to9yzso true
@@NotWhatYouThink What is War Thunder?
Free sounds good!
J/K - I love your videos but I skip your sponsors.
I feel bad for the creators getting shade for their sponsors.
Simon promotes Keeps, and he’s bald…
Ejection seats for pilots in a passenger aircraft. Something goes wrong and the pilots are like, “Best of luck suckers! We’re out of here!”
The russian way
Poka, suka! We're out of here!
есть амфибия Бе 12, последователь Бе 6
Там есть радист, штурман, два пилота
И катапультные кресла есть лишь у пилотов
Радист может скинуть стеклянный блистер и спрыгнуть
Но вот штурман, самый важный член экипажа который и обнаруживал всякое на воде должен был сделать действительео невероятное чтобы выжить
You must have failed reading comprehension in high school english class. It was stated that the prototypes had ejection seats for the pilots, the regular production passenger models did not.
They were only there for the test pilots in the prototype though. I can imagine test pilots did appreciate that feature.
Even though I'm an American, I'll give credit where it's due. The Concorde was a technological achievement on par with the Moon landings. She entered commercial service less than 30 years after the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier. The X-1 couldn't take off or land under its own power. It required a rocket engine and special fuels. A B-29 bomber had to carry it aloft and drop it as if it were a missile. It could only manage a short burst of powered flight and carried little to no payload. Concorde was twice as fast, could cross oceans, ran on jet engines and ordinary aviation kerosene, took off and landed just like other airplanes, and carried 100 passengers, their luggage, the finest food, and a host of flight attendants. She kept all of them in air conditioned comfort, and perfectly safe if not for an extremely unlucky piece of FOD on a Paris runway.
@@tonyhenthorn3966 I am sick of hearing the Concord was canceled due it losing money. It was making a few million from 1980 on.
Maybe not worth the hassle, but it was making money.
Anyway I never really cared for the Concord, but I didn't know about the discrepancy between the Soviet airline, and Concord when it came to maintenence hours.
25,000 hours to 500... That is such an insane difference, and an impressive one. I wish he went into detail on why, because the Soviets for all their woes usually were not that far behind the West. Or so I thought.
That rivals airliner engines today I think. Although I couldn't really get an average when googling. Mostly flight cycles.
Liquid Pistons X Engine which is a form of rotary engine cannot even get over 1,000 hours before a rebuild, lol. They need to step up. (JK. Jet engines don't have apex seals.)
Was a real pleasure to read your comment about the Concorde, cheers from Toulouse!👍
@@dianapennepacker6854 it would be interesting if Soviet industry is still around, there's philosophical difference for sure. I mean design decision like why their power drill uses ball bearing instead of sleeve, why chose piston engine for their tank instead of turbine.
It's a pity that the United States got mired in politics and problems with the environmentalists and crazy people.
The Boeing design was beautiful.
"The Concorde was a technological achievement on par with the Moon landings. "😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
An aircraft that is so bad that its own design bureau wanted to cancel it. In Tupolev's opinion, it was taking resources that were needed for more urgent civil aviation projects.
To be fair to the Russians: the American versions also sucked dishwater.
@tjroelsma
The British also wanted to cancel Concorde on the same ground… and repeatedly asked the French to let them. But the French became more stubborn as the economic prospects became worse.
@@calvinnickel9995 well France kinda don't want project that has been spent so much money and just to be cancelled and left rot
@@mohamadnuriman4815 Same with Tu. Both kinda sucked in the end, less reliable, more expensive and all that for slightly more speed then normal airliner is capable of.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 yeah shame maybe it was too soon for the time
I live in Bristol 🇬🇧 home of the Concorde, seen its final 5 minutes of flights as it circled above bristol. Such a beautiful jet, and i even went to visit it a year or so ago with my grandmother before she passed away, and had the joy of walking her through the plane in its hangar, holding her hand as she shared her stories of seeing its test flights. Rest in peace grandma (Dorothy)
Ahhh yes, Concordsky. Only second to Spaceshuttlesky.
Only that's spacefaring, not aviation.
Concordski
Buran (Soviet space shuttle) was actually good even in action, tho project was canceled before first real flight
Also Boneski (Tu-160 rip-off of B-1 Lancer), or Superfortresski (Tu-4 rip-off of B-29), and a whole host of other aircraft. Very little was truly novel by the soviets. They stole the general designs, then rushed the job to get it done before the west. Then the PRC learned those lessons and did the same thing, even to the Soviets/Russians, where they buy 1 copy, then reverse engineer it, leading to their current PLAAF/PLANAF designs all being cheap rip-offs, and often inferior, to their Russians and Western designs.
@@tonyf.9806and yet, first in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first space walk, first space station. Actually, you people are just shit who know nothing but just blabber nonsense.
I’m midway through the video and I already see a lot of errors in it…
1. They removed the horizontal stabiliser, not the vertical
2. The canards extend during takeoff and landing and not the other way around
3. It is believed that the engineers extended the limits of the FBW just before the paris air show to try and have a better presentation than the concorde, and those changes broke the stability of the Tu-144 which lead to its crash. However the Mirage was indeed present, and we don’t really know if it was a contributing factor.
not to mention that the soviet manufacturing at that time WAS inferior to the western counterparts and their spies stole technology that was deliberately wrong, didn't see through that and actually implemented the stole wrong design lol
It was not. Otherwise Soviet government would have taken the chance to blame the French. Instead they tried to blame a cameraman who was in the cockpit. Like he dropped his camera which blocked control stick. They tried to recreate it in the mock-up of the cockpit, but camera didn't fit into control stick shaft. So they had to enlarge it for the recreation to succeed.
French and passionate about aeronautics, I was a spectator at the Paris Air Show in 1973 when the TU-144 disintegrated in flight. I absolutely did not see another plane (supposedly a Mirage III in the video) approach it. I have a clear memory of seeing the canards start to retract and the Tupolev suddenly tilt into a nosedive and then the cell break towards the wing root before the debris of the plane fell on fire towards the village of Goussainville. In the evening, on television, we will see the images but also the devastated village with 8 dead, dozens of injured and more than a hundred houses destroyed. We will also see the brutality of the police but especially of the Soviet agents who prevented people and journalists from photographing and filming the scene of the disaster. Very quickly, André Turcat, Concorde test pilot, declared on television that the Soviets were going to continue their program because they had a "...heart as big as that!". The future would prove him wrong, the accident was no longer even mentioned and the village was razed before being rebuilt.
So I have an honest question you say there was NO other aircraft present within its flight path (ie recon mirage) Ive always heard this story (maybe its only a story) One thing is for sure is that I never (in the few grainy and dim films ) see any other aircraft within the Tu 144 flight path ) but it appears that they pulled up the aircraft too sharply leading to a stall in both the wings and one of its engines require a restart by putting it into a sharp dive and this overstressed the airframe causing the wings to snap off and the rest of the fuselage breaking up.
@@waverider227
Sorry, "waveride227", but, I'm French (76 y.o.) and I was present at each "Salon du Bourget" since 1965. I'm sure to remember : 1-The accident happened when he has closed his "moustaches".
2-No other flight around the T.O. of TU-144 is possible, because during the mettings "Le Bourget", never another plane can fly during the presentation of an aircraft because will fly in very restricted crowd due to the very close presence of the Paris flats. The french fighter Mirage III was an accusatory legend during few time by french people pro-Soviet. So : How the crew of TU can saw the Mirage III coming from behind them and why nobody seen saw this french fighter from the ground ? ...
@@ric247 thank you for cleaning up this story many thanks
@@waverider227 You’re welcome waverider. It was a pleasure.
What was the Soviet police even doing in France? 😮
3:33 "This meant that the aircraft had no vertical stabilizer" That's completely wrong, the giant finn at the end is the vertical stabilizer. It had no horizontal stabilizers...
Be kind, it’s half to 1/3 wrong
I was looking for this comment 😊
. . . and at 10:05 it says that the canards were only RETRACTED during take-off and landing in order to provide extra lift at the front of the plane. Presumably these were actually only DEPLOYED/EXTENDED during take-off and landing, and retracted at all other times. 🙄
I was born next to the factory produced it. Graduated aircraft technical college of this factory. We used to build Ilyushin planes but for short term it was Tupolev 144.
In the early 90s, I worked in Twickenham, close to Heathrow Airport. I'd watch passenger planes stacked above each other, waiting their turn to land, minutes apart. Nothing came close though to seeing Concorde fly overhead. The most beautiful plane of any age. Stunnigly beautiful in silhouette.
A passenger jet with ejection seats for the pilots is pure Soviet thinking.
Hahaha, yes, but that's an exaggeration
The ejection seats for the pilots was only for the test airplanes, not the production airplanes that will carry passengers
Even today. Everything is about 'Me.' *** everyone else.
It was just the prototype, in order to save the testers if something went wrong, it was said clearly, this is a comprehension issue.
@@carta8399
Da, Da, Da!
I was joking. However, giving the appalling safety record of Russian airliners, I’m surprised that you are leaping to their defense.
You can visit both airplanes TU-144 and Concorde in Technik Museum Sinsheim, Germany, near Heidelberg.
The NK-144 engines were actually turbofans and not turbojets like Concorde's ones, and Turbofans are just not suituable for supersonic flight. Nevertheless those engines were way more complex for their time as the development of Turbofan engines had just begun at this time. Therefore, the Tu-144D uses turbojets after the Tu-144S used the turbofans.
Speaking about Tu-144's "Flight control augmentation system" called ABSU - automatic onboard control system, it acted pretty like an FBW in fact, just not like an Airbus one. More like a Boeing one, you still need to trim the aircraft when flying manually but there's no physical connection between controls in the cockpit and control surfaces, and all feedback forces are synthetically generated. In the Soviet Union it was called a "Booster control system" and was also used on the Tu-154 for example. ABSU cross-controlled ailerons, elevators (which were the same in the case of the Tu-144, obviously) and rudder, applying all the dampings if needed. So yes, pretty much Boeing-like FBW.
And speaking about other avoinics it was far more advanced than on the Concorde. The Tu-144's cockpit looks more modern than Concorde's one. The engineers panel on Tupolev has from 1,5 to 2 times less gauges and switches, in fact the automation was so high that the flight engeneer just had to monitor the panel and toggle one single switch 2 times during the whole flight (yes, a bit oversiplified, but still), even fuel balancing (known as the main headache of those supersonics) was fully automated. And the navigation system was just a marvel for mid 1970s. 30 waypoints in memory (10 in Concorde), 100-meters-precision INS over 5,600 km leg using automatic beacon correction, several alternates which can be flown to by autopilot by one click, automatic holding patterns, 15-inch moving map, etc. You can even pick any point on that map, push 2 buttons and the autopilot will fly you to that point. Maybe only L-1011 Tristar was more advanced at the time.
To conclude, it's such a shame that this airplane just hasn't shown its full potential. It was innovative in every acpect, sometimes not fully successful, the engines for example (though they were lately developed into NK-32 - the best high-thrust supersonic turbofans in the world, installed onto Tu-160), and sometimes marvelously good. But nevertheless, every engineer working on this project put a part of his soul into it back than.
It is odd that Tupolev chose turbofans, whereas Boeing and the European consortium went with turbojets. Maybe the turbofans were more readily available because Soviet bombers and strike aircraft used them. They make sense for warbirds that usually fly subsonic, but need to accelerate and climb quickly while carrying heavy weapon loads. Such jets can go supersonic, but only for short dashes as needed in combat. Turbojets are better for sustained high Mach flight in the stratosphere, since the air is so thin it isn't necessary to "bypass" any of it.
@@tonyhenthorn3966 No, many soviet bombers like the Tu-22 which had their first flight before the Tu-144 had turbojets.
Ehm - then why does the Eurofighter also use Turbofan engines and is even capable of supercruise with those? (Google EJ200)
@@dash_lp Tu 144 first flight: 1968
Eurofighter Typhoon first flight: 1994
The technology behind supersonic turbofan engines has just rapidly developed. As such, the Tu-160, like I already said in my comment, also uses turbofans. Those where also used on the Tu-144ll which therefore and similar range as Concorde but still flew faster. Also, fighter jets do not fly supersonic all the team, just take a moment and read the comment from @tonyhenthorn3966
@@chrisi06 but if the Soviet’s used turbofans with low bypass it’s not that different from the eurofighter engines and therefore more suitable for supersonic speeds 🤔
As usual the idiots in the comments point out ejection seats but those were only for the test variants would not want to waste good pilots on an unrelable a nothing to do with the comercial versions
Да кому это интересно?!
@@karlwalthera mi me importa....
Torryl Putin-lover detectado 🤬🤬😊😊😊
you're right. 50 hour lifetime for each of 4 engines, that's the real joke here =D
The Soviet Union cared for their pilots. You are certainly right.
the Tu-144 wasn't built for active service, it was a prototype, just like the Boeing 2707 except it actually flew. The Buran flew some missions, too, but of all these airframes, none could be said to be a waste of money. Development is a loss leader for airframes - the 767 cost a lot more to develop, by contrast - so the fabrication of a prototype is more an investment in the industry, the economy, and in know-how. In this case, it avoided the Concorde's dilemma of massive running losses on top of massive development costs.
Also its experience was useful down the line with Tu160.
@@Psycandy If the Tupolev 144 was really so bad, it would not have been rescued from a museum, revised and used again by NASA as a flying laboratory and named TU-144LL, contributing to the development of future supersonic commercial aircraft. Another video from this channel full of unnecessary pejorative adjectives, just a piece of propaganda designed to attack those the US government doesn't like.
Buran (better than Shuttle) flew only once.
@@marguskiis7711 Not the Buran's fault, just a lack of budget from an almost bankrupt USSR.
@@dek6922 good old serial produced Soyuzes were times cheaper to operate than brand new Buran. And experience with Shuttle did show that reusable spacecraft is very expensive and pain in the ass.
"The Tu144 had ejection seats for the pilots", - leaving the passengers to figure things out for themselves. 🤣🤣
What? I can’t hear you the engines are so loud!! I said PASS THE VODKA WE’RE GOING DOWN!!!!
@@huskydaddy-y5y 🤣
during test flights (that's what they were for, then)
there weren't passengers until later, alexei.
Why sad to you this shit? Or when you reed it? I think your brain need ejection seats bro 😂
Zahnrädchen --> Audiotrack--> da könnt ihr die originale englische Tonspur wieder einschalten :)
Das Feature ist so nervig... Ich hab Deutsch und Englisch als meine Sprachen eingegeben, warum will TH-cam mich ständig zwingen Titel und sogar Videos auf Deutsch anzusehen.
Aber dann verpasst man solche sprachlichen Highlights wie die „schwanzlosen Flugzeuge”. 😢😂
@@thomasrichard7054 😂
3:50
Habe mich schon gewundert, warum es so nach KI generiert anhörte. In englisch ist es wesentlich angenehme...auch wenn ich nicht alles 100% verstehe.
Backfire Tu 22 M3 used the same reactors, and is still in operations and being modernised ,,over 500 were built..the passager supersonic program helped Tupolev to develop improved bombers TU-22M3 and TU160 far better than previous TU22 Blinder. The Reactors from Klimov NK 144-22 derated coming from the TU 144 to Kouznetzov NK 22,NK23 puis NK25 , the reactors upgrades have been the main struggles for range and speed…the Tu 144 was also upgraded to Koliesev RD36-51 to reach Mach 2.15 on TU144D and finally in the late 1990 to the TU 160 bomber Kouznetzov NK321 turbofans for a top speed of Mach 2.3 on the TU 144 LL, a joint research program with NASA funds !!! But none of all those like the Concorde were commercially viable . A much lighter composite air frame flying higher and faster is required to regain some efficiency with thinner air around…and there also the conventional turbojet propulsion systems are also speed limited at Mach 2-2.4 …A Cryogenic liquid H2 to reach cruising speed and altitude which requires near 1/2 of the energy…is also a weight saving potential then cruising on kerosene as the airframe heats up..there the current Boom program is not ambitious enough,,
I must say that the end bit about the US and Russia working together for research on the Tu144 is how it should be. Working together to grow and learn.
I agree. it should in theory.
but what can you grow together with a homicidal maniac?
We tried.
It doesn't work. Programs when you work together between seem to just cost more with more hassle.
I feel bad for the smart Russians. They all left the country. Doesn't seem like we will be seeing a competitor from them in a while if ever.
I cannot believe the life span of the engines and frame compared to the Concord. I kinda wish he did a deep dive on why it is such a large discrepancy since the Soviets were not usually that far behind when they put their resources to it. Truly wild.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Thank your politicians for that one.
@@SN57ONE Yeah politicans and buisnesses in each country crying and whining about getting a piece of the program. Then you have things like commmunication issues, and supply issues.
"Hey Slovokia is in the program! They can design X part even though they suck at that part, and shipping costs will increase!"
Anyway the buisnesses themselves are too blame too. All the small issues pile up. I read the supply chain behind joint programs between countries just simply is usually garbage.
Slight quibble: You said the TU-144 had no vertical stabilizer. That is incorrect. It very much had a vertical stabilizer. What it did not have was a horizontal stabilizer. Being a delta wing the elevators were included in the trailing edge of the wing.
The technologies that were tested on the Tu-144 formed part of the successful Tu-160 program, which quietly flies all 14,000 km in cruising mode, but can also be supersonic.
But the TU-160 is not a civil aircraft carrying 100 pax in a comfort like the Concorde and the engines have a very limited life.
@@stabilo3170 In the USSR, any advanced west programs were primarily considered from the point of view of military use against the USSR. And any projects usually had a dual purpose, especially those launched in the 50s and 60s. In the 70s, a separate civil aviation industry was already formed, but still civilian aircraft were built as dual-use - with a reinforced fuselage, chassis and proven, but old engines. By the end of the 80s, the industry began to deviate from the norms of the military, but by this time the economic situation of the USSR and political stability had been undermined. And in the 90s, the oligarchs and officials almost destroyed the industry because they could not finance it.
@@stabilo3170 to put it simply, supersonic passenger aircraft were just unfeasible in a communist economy. it was already a sinking ship in the west where only the wealthy was able to afford a flight, in a communist country it was pretty much unsustainable
@@engenius11 This is true. The Tu-95, which is still in use, had a civil counterpart, the Tu-114.
@@stabilo3170Are you jealous at Russian airforce.
Maybe the Tu-144 was not state of art plane, but on otherside, the lessons learned on that project wasn´t just waste of money. They learned a lot, and improve it, so much. Maybe not the best airliner, but definitely a milestone for another military projects, which cames like Tu-160 White Swan. So either you win, or you learn... Last thing, they did it, at least. Build it, maybe not perfect, but made it. And then NASA decades later cames to learn something. :)
i love the ears of the tu144
It's called moustaches. French tech copied by the Soviets (Dassault Patent, used on the Mirage Milan)
Im British 🇬🇧 and i also think it has a very pretty look. This era of aviation was so cool. But this jet seems very scary
@@tomchloe3208 Well, russian copy of a French-Brit jet...crasher...
Oui. Ce film est avant tout americain et par jalousie ils véhiculent cette histoire de Mirage au dessus lors de la démonstration du Bourget. Bref une chaîne peu fiable. Il existe des centaines de reportages sur cette histoire. Vaut mieux les regarder eux !
@@denisjammet9487 They couldn't even take the Boeing 2707 airborne, for sure they were jealous!
Well, the American SST project cost a billion dollars, and never even left the ground! (Because Boeing only had a mock up made of plywood!) 😅
The manufacturers early on knew the SST concept wouldn't work, but it was demanded of them by the government. So they worked on the concepts while at the same time developing new commercial aircraft that would go on to regular service. This included the 737 and 747, legendary aircraft that served the world well. They dropped the SST programs literally as soon as the government called it off.
@@Oldbmwr100rs Boeing stuffed up with the swing wing design (later dropped as it's too heavy) and an unrealistic top speed (Mach 3 or something). Much of the aircraft had to then be made of titanium, which they didn't have much experience in using. The 2707 project was a failure, sure they had some great designs with the 747, 727, 737 etc.
@@Andronicus2007 It's like I said, they really weren't interested in doing the actual plane, between Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing all kinds of stuff kept changing, I believe Boeing started taking cues from Lockheed and Douglas dropped out early. By the time the Concorde was getting further along, in the US environmental groups were pushing for bans in supersonic travel over the continent. The entire thing was a huge waste of time and money and that was figured out early on. They had bigger ambitions in larger scale passenger travel. Only reason the SST project lasted as long as it did was due o our government demanding it without listening to anyone. They didn't want to be "left behind" by the concorde or soviets, and both of those projects were between disasters and huge wastes of money. The British basically gave up their entire aircraft manufacturing because of this project. Boeing went on to lead the world in production airliners.
With a far greater knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft than the British the Americans quickly concluded that SSTs were not going to be commercially viable and predicted the failure of Concorde.
Boeing built the 747 instead and the results were dramatically different
Boeing became the largest aerospace company in the world while Britain no longer makes any jet aircraft of its own today.
Concorde was an epic failure that led to the destruction of the country's entire jet aircraft industry.
A very well done look at the Soviet approach to supersonic public transport. With a lot of footage I’ve never seen before, along with many new facts I wasn’t aware of, this look at the Tu-144 was an unexpected pleasure to watch. Thanks for the great content! Keep it up!
"general believe that the soviets were technologically inferior, is widely overblown"
directly followed by
"yes they stole design documents, the technology was less sophisticated, the pilots knew the plane was dangerous"
is pretty funny
"The biggest waste of money in aviation history"
Boeing: hold my beer
I don't think the A380 ever earned a profit for Airbus - how much they lost, overall, could be comparable to what Tupolev spent.
Exactly. Plus F-35 comes to mind - supersonic money guzzler
Dassault Mercure: Hold my wine
@@dmitryisakov8769 It might be expensive, but it's streets ahead of any of your aircraft Ivan.
Может быть, это и дороговато, но это на порядок выше любого вашего самолета Ивана.
@@jpdemer5...there is a slight difference. The A380 was a success as an aircraft.
That Lockheed Martin L2000 prototype looks the business
The canards would extend during takeoff and landing, and retract at other times (the opposite of what the video says).
𝚆𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚒𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚋𝚎𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚞𝚒𝚕𝚝, 𝚘𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚍 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚏𝚕𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚏𝚝 𝚢𝚘𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏?
So why did the French jet follow it if the canards are not even extended normally?
@@purplestrawberrysunset "retract at other times", those "other times" are when it flies at high altitude.
@@purplestrawberrysunset It was flying above right after takeoff
@@purplestrawberrysunset There was no Mirage-III, fake news!
I love the "it's not what you think"
There are both aircrafts few meters apart in one german museum. Cockpit of TU-144 was like a being in ww2 submarine - really messy compare to Concorde. I can't imagine how brave pilots must have been to fly over mach 2 with this machine. Wild engineering. Clarkson: POWEEEEER!
I can understand why some people think this aircraft is a copy of the Concorde. But in reality if you are engineering two different aircraft to achieve the same goals, you are going to get something that looks similar. It is like saying a Ford car is a rip-off of a Toyota car because they both have four wheels and an engine.
Not What You Think Narrator: Just like that DC8 made history you can make your own mark in the skies with War Thunder!!
Me: Smoooottthhh!
Second aircraft being a totally different design?
Sounds a lot like the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It was also the first supersonic commercial jet TO CRASH.
one crash in 27 years still makes it the safest jet in the skies,
you bell end.
Well it had to be one or the other as there were only two of them and lets be real they both crashed once.
@@RonSchuurman-td7yjwrong, Tu 144 crashed twice
“D” stands for Dalniy means distant. I flew on tu 144, 77112 to Khabarovsk. This plane is in Germany
18:30 it's not really "finished", but more like "improved". Also suits better.
11:00 Crash was not due to collision avoidance. That flight was before load testing of airframe, so it couldn't withstand 4g. And the aircraft was in experimental state, so some command lines were connected through a patch panel. And cabin engineer connected it wrong, so in certain moment canards went to extreme position and plane made a turn experiencing 4.5g.
18:30 "Dorabotaniy" ("Доработанный") means "upgraded". "Finished" would be "Законченный" ("Zakoncheniy").
bonjour j'ai vu le TU exploser en plein vol à ce moment il était en piqué , l'avion aurait décroché et tentait de reprendre de la vitesse pour voler les forte contrainte aurait casser la cellule en deux suivie d'une boule de feux dans le ciel . le crash c'est fait sur la petite ville de Dugny tuant plusieurs personnes .
I watched an interview made during the 90s to the son of Andrei Tupolev, he said that KGB forced his father to use the Intel that KGB stole from France. He had almost completed the engineering of the wings but the Party wanted to accelerate the completion of the prototype so they coerced him to get the work done using that data. He was a genius, no doubt, but Soviet engineers were always pressed to the point of risking being accused of treason, like Bartini and Koroliev.
Many years ago BBC ran a mini series of 4 programmes entitled The Story Behind The Headlines or something like that. The story of the Tu144 was one of them. Another was how Israel managed to build their own Mirage's after France refused to sell them more than the test airframes they had provided. What the other 2 were about I can't remember.
Tell your great story to Edward Snowden or Julian Assange
@@engenius11you drank to much copium, go home troll
Nevermind of course the fact that he was arrested and then "detained" in a Secretive NKVD(pre-KGB) Design Bureau for like 6 years between 1938 and 1944 and you can twist that to push any narrative as these "documentaries" usually do. I mean the KGB hasn't existed since 1993 and people in Western countries still talk about it like it still exists.
Despite the issues with the Tu-144 (and the Concorde), I gotta say -- they were both _seriously cool_ looking planes.
Who else clicks "LIKE" before the video even starts?
Love this guy!!
Airframe lifespan is “not what you think”. Lifespan may be extended upon inspection, if such inspection doesn’t discover structural damage/fatigue or other conditions, that may deem the aircraft not airworthy. So in a sense, airframe life span in most cases will mean time till life extension inspection.
As a German I want to listen this clip in english!
Einstellung>Audiotrack>Englisch
the german track is weird
I hate taht it always switches back to the german audio track, even if I set my location AND language to english :( so annoying
Hey, just curious, does it sound weird in German, or is it the translation?
Basically, if you could only understand German, would you be able to watch the video?
Thanks!!
@@NotWhatYouThink Congrats on 3 million!!
That was the most in-depth study on this plane I’ve ever seen. Good job.
Funny little thing that was.
You know the Soviet Union produced this, their first supersonic commercial airliner, before the first factory producing toilet paper opened? I think that kind of sums up the USSR.
That's one hell of a fact there. Hard to believe.
Where's your source proppie?
@@CountingStars333 I don't have a peer reviewed paper for you but there are plenty of accounts to be found. Honestly I just heard that somewhere and restated it and there's a little bit more ambiguity to it than that with different people claiming it was produced (though perhaps not industrially) years before the 1969 date you see placed around the place (only slightly after the Tupolev Tu-144), but for most people, newspapers on a spike was the norm well into the 70s.
Then again the deeper ideological reason for my saying that is to state the obvious fact that the Soviet centrally planned economy and system of government and society in general is a terrible thing which resulted in that kind of outcome.
@@chrisgoblin4857 I'd imagine it's a myth, just like a lot of other "facts" that people purport about the Soviet Union.
@@SwapBlogRU I was born in the USSR, and I assure you, that myth actually had a basis in reality. The problem with paper was a big thing for the USSR, not just toilet paper - any paper.
They've built a toxic big factory on the shore of Baikal to fix this problem.
And even after that the standard for thickness for the soviet toilet paper was 0.0001 micrometer or something close to it. The newspapers did a better job because they were thicker and had an added bonus in that you could literally shat on the party bosses propaganda while no one was watching.
50 flight hours as the entire lifespan of an aircraft engine is wild. Like, not 50 work hours for each hour of flight, just you get 2 days of flight time, buy 4 new engines. Absolute madness.
I don't believe the Tu-144 was a "dumb" idea at the time. It looked like the future of commercial air travel was supersonic. "Detente" with the West meant America and its allies might be open to buying Soviet made products, including planes. The Boeing SST started late, and the US Senate pulled the plug on it, creating a "vacuum" for such aircraft should demand for them have grown. The USSR needed export money from more sources than just certain minerals, natural gas, oil, and weapons, for the vast country was a net food importer. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now know Mach busting jets, be they American, European, or Soviet in origin, didn't make good business sense for the airlines.
Maybe, but the Tu-144 was a rush job and it showed. Cabin noise during flight made conversations impossible, it was plagued by mechanical trouble and the thirsty engines resulted in a fairly short range (although that one was improved before the model was withdrawn). There were only a bit more than 100 commercial flights.
All SSTs are a "dumb" idea... Concorde was the biggest failure in commercial aviation history and destroyed the UK aircraft industry... Boeing and the Americans with far more knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft realized that SSTs were not commercially viable, Boeing built the 747 instead and the rest is history.
Today Boeing is the largest aerospace manufacturer in the world while the British? no longer make any jet aircraft!
It wasn't a dumb idea, but it was a dumb aeroplane.
@@tz8785 All SSTs were a dumb idea... Concorde was also ultimately a failure, and its dead-end concept saw no commercial sales or follow-up designs.
The Concorde has been plagued with technical and safety issues from day one and was eventually grounded due to serious safety related design defects that were deliberately covered up for years.
I walked through one of these things in the sinsheim technical museum in germany. Impressive retro interior.
Actually the Concord never made a cent. I don't think supersonic passenger was a failure. It was just too far ahead of it's time for the infrastructure
If you average it out all the airlines of the world combined never made a dollar in profit.
@@sananselmospacescienceodys7308 Concorde is the biggest financial failure in commercial aviation history, Concorde was a 3.5 billion colossal failure.
The inability to supercruise being the fatal flaw cannot be stressed enough. That caused both the crazy noise and the thirst for fuel. Afterburners are great if you want lots of extra power, but they are unbelievably inefficient.
The fact that the Concorde could is frankly crazy for the technology of the time. The list of planes that can do that is very short even today (all others being fighter jets), and Concorde is still the fastest.
Love your pronunciation of 'dorabotaniy', sound like some remote village name in deep forest with population of 13.5 people :)
More precise translation will be 'revised' I guess
Dorabotanny means combination of fixed/improved. I wonder that the abbreviation was even possible because it assumes that the previous model wasn't good enough 😅
I'm not even sure that it is right explanation.
Traditionally, soviet planes (and even some missiles) got letter D for "dalniy", in american tradition it is equivalent of ER for "extended range". And indeed Tu-144D was exactly that - a version with extended range compared to standard version.
Similarly, letter S in Tu-144S means "seriniy" or "serial", meaning it's a production model.
In most cases letter S doesn't even used, for example Su-27S can often be named as just Su-27, which is not exactly right, because Su-27 - is name of pre-production series of planes, basically a prototypes.
Chill guys, I’m native speaker of russian, I know what “dorabotaniy” means:)
Redesigned
Upgraded
Improved
Still waiting for the video "I visited the most incapable ship in the us navy"
Might be a long wait!
@@NotWhatYouThink its ok i dont mind waiting
Thar would be the LCS and Zumwalt-class
@@worldwanderer91 he's already done videos on those
@@NotWhatYouThink can you come do a tour of coast guard cutter Munro?
The Concorde was actually the biggest waste of money in Aviation History. As it wasn't canceled, and yet many flights were only half full and yet a full flight wouldn't cover the cost of the fuel...
The Soviets were good at calculating the social costs of having an SST, and that included replacing windows & treating hearing loss. Britain & France didn't compensate those who suffered hearing damage in international waters, but they had to cover the costs of treating their own citizens like the Soviets did but at a much higher cost...
The Soviet Union heavily depended on passenger aircraft as well as passenger railways to transport their citizens and party officials. While the party officials were keen on fast flights when they needed to visit far parts of the Soviet Union, flying on the Tu-144 convinced them that conventional jet aircraft were a better choice. Note that on many of their aircraft if the seat in front of you was empty you could use that seat to give yourself a bed, and those party officials often managed to sit behind those empty seats...
And while it might be hard for westerners to understand Soviet Economics, keep in mind that Aeroflot had the best passenger miles per gallon efficiency despite having less efficient aircraft simply by making sure that their aircraft were full most of the time, and by flying at the most efficient speed for their aircraft...
But did the snoop droop?!
Yes. ^^
Yes
concorde had only the air intakes controlled automatically, and even that was not a first, many supersonic fighters of the time having this feature, long before Concorde.
also, tou make a big confusion between Time Bryween Overhauls and the design lifetime *for both airframes and engines(.
War früher am Flughafen tätig, hatte die Concorde ein paar mal gesehen, unglaublich dieser Vogel
Wow. To be a pilot who had flow both the Concord and TU144 is something special.
>The Biggest Waste of Money in Aviation History
You need a reminder about Boeing 2707, that not even built and almost bankrupted Boeing?
Don't Cry Commie Baby
How about the A380?
Das Ding ist bis 1978 noch von Scheremetjewo nach Sibirien Linie geflogen. Danach wurden noch zwei Exemplare bis Ende der 80iger flugbereit gehalten, kamen aber nur noch für das Raumfahrtprogramm der SU sporadisch zum Einsatz. Gutes Video.
The concorde was a much bigger waste of money because it was a lot more expensive and the end result was the same, an impractical aircraft that had no reason to exist other than propaganda
Man I can’t wait for supersonic air travel to come back just not like that Thing
Too inefficient, complicated and needless.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907tell that to boom supersonic and see what they say
I heard a story that after the crash, the Politburo demanded reports from the Paris KGB and GRU residencies. The GRU had loads of people at the show with cine cameras, and the KGB guys weren't interested. Andropov, then KGB head asked the GRU boss for one film from the show so he had something for the Politburo. The GRU guy said. 'Chairman Andropov, I'll not give you one film, I'll copy them all and send them to you for 10 am tomorrow, after we've shown the Politburo them at 9.30.' Andropov slammed down the phone.
Knowing what we know now, Concord itself was a commercial failure also, perhaps a bigger one than just not being very good. The thing burst into flames...
It flew for 27 years and had very few issues along the way. The crash was caused by debris on the runway that wasn't cleared up that ruptured its fuel tank.
Might want to get your facts straight.
I got a loaf of bread from a bakery outside of Paris for my birthday once. It was flown over on the Concorde and cost $200 in 1998. Took 3 days to get to Edmonton.
Sounds like the jet was a bit of an Aeroflop.
Concorde was an aeroflope
Flawed, but still one of my favourite aircraft. NASA used the last TU144 as a test bed for future SST research.
Finally a person who regonizes the hard work the Tupolev bureau put in the TU-144 without calling it a blatant copy
Just the title is stupid. Boeing 2707 was a much bigger commercial failure than Ru/EU SSTs that actually worked.
@@DaRush-The_Soviet_Gamer Yeah...if you want a lot of money wasted - americans are ones you should go with.
My two favourite aircraft all in one video. I visited both crash sites near CDG. TU144 in Goussainville and Concorde in Gonesse, about 4km away from each other 😢
mom: we have concord at home
Yes, I know dear but that cheap POS is broken again, now drink your vodka you’re gonna be late for school.
When seeing the 144 and the Concorde side-by-side, you sort of are in an uncanny valley: they definitely are similar, but you can tell something is different between the two planes. Just by a superficial glance, the latter give the idea of being more sophisticated and better-thought, while the former has ingenuity on its side, but you can perceive it's sort of a knockoff.
Basically, all of the proposals for SSTs of this era feature delta wings and long slender fuselages...
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Maybe it's an almost obligate set of technical solutions for a supersonic airliner.
There is absolutely no way this was the biggest waste of money in the history of aviation
The test bed had ejection seats but the prototype and 14 production models didn't. Paris airshow proved that. Been on both Concorde and TU144, albeit in static at Sinsheim. No ejection seats.
Fellas, it’s a trap. *DON’T install War Thunder if you value your sanity 😭😭😭*
Take it from me - 4000 hours 💀
Is it too addictive?
0:52 Concord's Cockpit not TU-144
Saw one of these rusting away in Monino in 2016. Even the Russian tour guides were embarrassed to talk about it lol
and parked right next to it is the MIG 21 testbed…
I wish I would've able to see the Concorde. This jet is the reason I fell in luv with the SR-71..
Did it go through 27 engines or 27 pairs of 4 engines?
Even back then, if you wanted a great airliner, you went with Europe. The "superpowers" couldn't match France and the UK. Still can't.
The A300, Airbus' first liner, didn't hit the market until 1972. Hardly the "great airliner" that everybody went with instead of Boeing.
Until Japan entered the ground arena The Superpowers couldn't match France in making an affordable & reliable economy car either, (the US still can't & the UK made some good efforts) long live the no frills Citroen CV2. simplicity reliability economical transportation & fun!
I was 12 years old when the Paris crash happened. It was a major CRINGE event , on newsreels at the movies and we were even shown newsreels at school , we only got TV some years later.
I think that this debacle helped to make people resist Concorde which turned out to be the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
No elevators, it had a rudder
Supersonic Passenger Travel in general has to be subsidized or it is not practical from a cost point of view for most people.
The faster an aircraft travels the more fuel it burns(generally burning less at cruising altitude and cruise speed). A Supersonic Jet flying at supersonic speeds burns several metric tons of jet fuel per hour(for the Concorde I believe it was around 20 metric tons of fuel per hour). At the same time a Turboprop Aircraft flying at a much slower 300-400 km/h(185-250 mph) burns 10 times less of the same jet fuel for the same number of passengers. Both get you to the same location, but the Supersonic Jet will cost more just based on fuel. So as a result - a Trans-Atlantic flight in a Regular Jet can cost $1,000 while the same flight costs $10,000 in a Supersonic Jet. The Supersonic Jet sacrifices efficiency for speed. A Regular Jet can carry more passengers without needing so much fuel or fly longer distances.
It also costs more for maintenance since the airframe, engines, and other moving parts wear out easier and more often because of the higher stresses on the aircraft at Supersonic speeds.
This is one of the reasons why the speed and design of Passenger Jets has not changed since the 1960's. Airlines can't afford higher costs, passengers can't afford higher prices.
The Soviet Union initially tried subsidizing the Tu-144 flights for passengers in the 1970's but it was soon proven impractical and it was abandoned, as was commercial use of the aircraft by 1980. France and the UK tried this experiment for much longer, but they too followed soon after the year 2000.
Flew before Concorde, crashed before it too… more times. The Anglo-French team designing Concorde leaked incorrect blueprints to Soviet spies so they got a huge leg up on the project but also ended up with a white elephant that was as impractical as it was dangerous.
Oh, now I see, that you didn't get education
The best documentary on the TU144 that I’ve seen - Thanks!
Obviously the western people will call it a “waste of money”
yeah, they are pretty good at stating the obvious.
Because it was.
@@GorgeDawes 😂
They love their stereotypes and prejudices.
3:52 ngl that modified mig-21 looks soo cool
Aero Flop
Never get tired of watching your video
Ejection seats in a loaded passenger aircraft is hilarious to me.
it was only on ghetto first airframe
Wouldn’t you want a ejection seat in a inferior built pos that constantly breaks down?
I would be curious about an interview with Rob to see what were the differences between flying with the Concordski and Concorde :D
I don't understand what you're talking about? It was bigger, with more powerful engines, it flew before the Concord, it's a waste of money (a plane full of faults). The F-35 was the most expensive, and my tax dollars were wasted. An engine with low power and little reliability.
haha, buy the Rafale, its the best plane in the world.
Eh?
😂 I have a Russian submarine I want to sell you, oh, and a TU - 144 😂
The Soviet industrialization that began with the 1st Five-Year Plan was carried out with capital and technology from the capitalist West. Companies from the US, Germany, and bankers from Wall Street and the City of London poured millions of dollars and sterling into the Soviet economy. Ford tractor factory, which was later modified to produce the T-34 Tank, the construction of Magnitogorsk, the largest steel mill in the world and everything else, were carried out by Western capitalism. In 1966, FIAT installed a factory in the city of Togliatti to produce the Zhiguli, later called Lada, which was a version of the FIAT 124. The Soviet Space Program was completely Nazi German and was based on the V2 bombs used in the Second World War. The MIG-9 jet, the 1st Soviet jet, was based on a German Messerschmitt jet. There is nothing in technological terms that was created by any communist nation. According to David Remnick, in his book, "Lenin's Tomb", the extinct USSR was a poor and backward country with nuclear weapons. Brazil's HDI, already in the mid-1970s, in the South and Southeast, was higher than that of any communist country. The USSR was already bankrupt in the mid-1960s. What gave breath to the Soviet regime from the 1970s onwards, filling its economy with petrodollars, were the two oil shocks: in 1973, due to the Yom Kippur war. , and in 1979, with the fall of the Shah of Iran. The USSR was one of the largest oil producers in the world. A lesson for the unwary: those who generate wealth are private entrepreneurs and, in 1922, Von Misses predicted the collapse. of the Soviet economy due to the absence of a free market. Conclusion: The extinct USSR never created technology in any aspect of human activity.
Why are you writing BS
1. Gorky Automobile Factory(GAZ) never built any T-34's. That was the Stalingrad Tractor Factory and Kharkov Locomotive Factories originally which had nothing to do with Ford. And Western countries in the 1930's had no money(capital), they were all dealing with the Great Depression after the failure of their Stock Markets. It was Soviet gold and grain that kept companies like Ford alive. Soviet Union bought and paid for Technology imports back then even though it had a negative effect on the population since grain was exported to pay for it as Drought affected much of North America and the USSR at the time causing food shortages.
2. Brazil doesn't have Winter Weather 8 months of the year and by itself is one of the largest countries in the World with tons of resources and people, not exactly Lichtenstein.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 Yeah, can you tell me more?
CAN WE HAVE A VIDEO ABOUT SOME POLISH STUFF ?
car theft innovation? 😉😉
@@BOZ_11rude
Was it the BIGGEST waste of money? The Spruce Goose, the Saunders Roe Princess, the Bristol Brabazon and the R101 airship also vie for that title.
nah no one can beat the USA in over spending (b2)
The Russian Concorde really lost out because it was denied the blackjack engine and that it did the sonic boom but knowing that it was later used for post it's just sad
I really enjoy your videos thank you
Such a dumb plane, and the passengers hated it because it was so loud and not luxurious at all.
9:53. I love how they wrench something in the engine bays with hand tools. “Torque wrenches? No, but we have vodka. And we are first, remember!”😂
That’s not unusual , the vast majority of aircraft of that era and prior were assembled with hand wrenches, especially when there’s no room for other tools. We torqued large bolts that had large assemblies together - the fuselage to wings, tail section to fuselage, landing gear components, the prop, the usual engine assemblies (ie, cylinders, heads, connecting rods, etc). But most of the AN3 and AN4 bolts were just done simply by feel. Certain small (3/16, 1/4”) high strength, structural bolts and fasteners would be torqued to spec, (which could be different depending on the type of bolt and type of joint), but those were exceptions.
Tighter than snug, not so tight that any more will deform a bolt - over tightening is better than tight enough, but “you’re not holding down the world,” to quote Charlie Whitney, one of my A&P instructors.
However, a qualifier - I’ve worked exclusively on WWII and postwar military propeller planes. Maybe you’re absolutely correct, and ANY- and EVERYthing related to turbines must be accurately torqued.
Plus, they could be just snugly tightening ALL of the bolts of an assembly, before the final tightening. Kinda like when you have something with a few bolt holes, you insert a single bolt and tighten it, and now the other two bolt holes don’t line up.
"was built for propaganda purposes" - is an amusing argument. Next: they built a spaceship for propaganda purposes
so true. For having seen and been inside both in a museum, the Tu144 was much larger and spacious. Rumors say it crashed because of a mirage III getting a little too close, would make sense for the french to observe their competitor, even better to crash them.
Ah yes, because the Soviet Union was definitely known to be completely utilitarian and immune to propaganda-fueled projects.
Why amusing? If it never was able to carry a meaningful amount of passengers what was the purpose?
Yes, the airplane that was rushed in development to beat the upcoming announcement of the Concorde in the west… totally not propaganda! Sacrifice safety and quality for political image, so they can say they did it first! Totally not propaganda!
@lightning366 @@eleypvr7294 lmao, did either of you bots even watch the video? the aircraft was a piece of junk. only flew 55 flights with passengers on it and had *hundreds* of malfunctions. cope harder.
I am quite sure the Concorde pilot at 4:48 is going "Yeeeehaaaaa" and his passengers are going "OMGgggggggggggggg". 🙂