Military Review

The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind the vaunted "Concord"

150
Tu-144 vs. Concorde: Dmitry Drozdenko talks about why the USSR won the race for supersonic, because of which both incredible programs were curtailed and whether we can fly passenger planes across the Atlantic again in 3 hours in the foreseeable future.


The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind the vaunted "Concord"


Military technology has historically been the global driver for the development of science and industry. This was most clearly manifested in the twentieth century. Thanks to the rivalry of the military, we conquered the sky, conquered space and broke the sound barrier. Very little remained until the colonization of the Moon and Mars, but the XXI century came with its albeit global, but very virtual universe. By the way, this Internet universe was also presented to the world by military technologies. Now we compare megapixels and megahertz flagship smartphones, discuss brands and trends and completely forget that these things are not a breakthrough for humanity in the future. They do not move it forward.

Read the full article on the website of TC "Zvezda" - The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind the vaunted "Concord" e
150 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 06: 41
    +4
    And Europeans were aware that they participated in the competition?
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 11 October 2017 07: 05
      +9
      our Tu-144 left behind the vaunted Concord
      And if they were in the know, we no longer care!
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 07: 24
        18
        And the fact that Concord flew for many years and was a commercial success, and our Tu 144 flew a little and got into a joke because of what money for its design were thrown into the oven do you care?
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 11 October 2017 07: 28
          10
          They had more rich Pinocchio, here Concorde and flew longer than TU. But experience and best practices are not lost.
          1. Kenxnumx
            Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 07: 33
            +2
            That is, from the State Planning Commission ordered a plane that, in principle, was not needed. It’s a pity that you don’t know about this topic and why the 144 project really failed.
            1. Uncle lee
              Uncle lee 11 October 2017 09: 43
              11
              Quote: Ken71
              that 144 failed

              Nobody has failed anywhere! Tu-144 was created, flew.
              PS M50 Myasishchev was in one copy, but did not go into the series. And they are still proud of him, and just keep silent about the TU-144.
              1. Kenxnumx
                Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 10: 13
                11
                That is, a passenger plane that almost did not carry passengers is not a failure. Like a bomber not adopted for service.
                1. kpd
                  kpd 11 October 2017 10: 35
                  +7
                  And the fact that the best heavy supersonic bomber is the TU-160, which used many of the best practices with the TU-144, is this also a failure?
                  And with the TU-144, everything is also not as simple as it seems, Aeroflot refused it because of the high cost and complexity of operation, the aircraft had a novelty coefficient too high, plus we had problems with the flight range, and there was a ban on flying over populated areas supersonic adopted in Europe and the USA did not contribute to exploitation.
                  1. Kenxnumx
                    Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 10: 45
                    +7
                    Respected. Try to understand, although it may be difficult for you. If you make a hammer but you didn’t succeed and it is impossible for them to hammer in nails then this is a failure. Even if you used a pen from it to make an ax. The operating time is certainly good and positive, but the passenger plane itself didn’t go to the international economy, it brought almost no passengers.
                    1. kpd
                      kpd 11 October 2017 14: 38
                      +2
                      I completely agree with the fact that it didn’t work out, but the question is rather that it was just that time was a little different. That the Soviet Union, that the United States, that Britain and France - no one really knew what could come of the simple opportunity to create a supersonic passenger plane. Yes, the project turned out to be unnecessary, but how many experimental devices were being built then? Not all projects were successful and recouped the costs of them, but if you do not try then there will be no development at all.
                      The USSR lost the moon race, the United States lost the race for the first supersonic airliner. Have flights to the moon paid off? It is possible that the development of technology has paid for the project. Did the creation of the TU-144 pay off? Well, if you look at the last instance built in 1985, then yes - the country received a full-fledged supersonic airliner, only at that time no one needed it.
                      1. Kenxnumx
                        Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 16: 16
                        +1
                        And now they are being built. The same fighter with reverse sweep was a failure. This is normal in engineering searches. There is a debate about the excessive enthusiasm of the article.
                      2. SERGUS
                        SERGUS 11 October 2017 16: 40
                        +2
                        Quote: kpd
                        USSR lost the moon race

                        Well, it’s in question, there are too many rumors about this now, and rumors, as you know, are not born from scratch.
                    2. aybolyt678
                      aybolyt678 16 October 2017 11: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: Ken71
                      I didn’t go to the national economy; I didn’t bring passengers;

                      objectively, this is a commercial failure, in Soviet times there was no one and nowhere to fly on supersonic, only Magadan, perhaps. They could not sell abroad.
                      and do not forget that since 1984, the country was headed by Gorbachev
                    3. trahterist
                      trahterist 17 October 2017 17: 11
                      0
                      Already answered. The complexity and high cost of maintenance have put an end to Tu-shke. Concord, amiable, also did not shine with particular success, especially in such an indicator as profitability, so to speak, it was exploited 'on the choke'. And accident also to a certain extent put a fat point on the fate of the French brother in misfortune Tu-144.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. Uncle lee
                  Uncle lee 11 October 2017 11: 19
                  12
                  What a manner of groaning everything Soviet and praising the foreign! We would go to their beloved bourgeoisie!
                  1. Kenxnumx
                    Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 15: 03
                    +7
                    And what kind of manner, if there is nothing to say, then turn to personalities and give advice that no one asks. We have not a country of advice for a long time.
                    1. Uncle lee
                      Uncle lee 11 October 2017 15: 30
                      10
                      You have nothing to say, except for the abominations about the country in which you are unworthy to live!
                      1. Kenxnumx
                        Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 16: 04
                        +2
                        Judging by the fact that this country also waved a pen at you and you turned out to be unworthy. And in general, everything. So now, if you please, love Russia.
                    2. trahterist
                      trahterist 17 October 2017 17: 13
                      0
                      Proof of Concord's 'success' never imagined what to expect
                  2. insular
                    insular 12 October 2017 01: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: Uncle Lee
                    What a manner of groaning everything Soviet and praising the foreign!
                    This is logic, this is adult. Those. it’s normal to boast of boasting about “having no analogy in the world”, and any comments, then the machinations of “lovers of the bourgeoisie” must certainly be expelled from the country.
                    I will not even make assumptions about the adequacy of such persons - for me this issue has been resolved. And something all the time it reminds me ... Is it not a case of chance? There, too, "you-all-lying-agents-the Kremlin" and "suitcase-station-Russia".
                    1. Uncle lee
                      Uncle lee 12 October 2017 02: 11
                      +6
                      In deduction methods, you have surpassed Sherlock Holmes. I wish you further success in this field!
                      hi
            2. fa2998
              fa2998 11 October 2017 19: 49
              +4
              Almost 100 tons of kerosene for 50 passengers! MEANS TO RIDE ONE ON THE SUPER SOUND NECESSARY 2 TONS OF KEROSIN. And not so far. Awfully unprofitable! Under the planned economy, and ticket prices from the very beginning, it was a commercial failure. But under the Soviet regime, it was a pennant about the victories of the communist state, they don’t look at the price, then they rejoiced and turned into a quiet one ..hi
          2. andrewkor
            andrewkor 11 October 2017 19: 16
            +2
            The cost of a flight across the Atlantic to Concord'7000 $!
            1. kig
              kig 12 October 2017 02: 17
              +2
              round-trip ticket price London-New York was $ 10500
              1. iouris
                iouris 14 October 2017 14: 32
                0
                Some are now ready to lay out millions to spend several hours in space.
        2. FID
          FID 11 October 2017 08: 59
          12
          Quote: Ken71
          And the fact that Concord flew for many years and was a commercial success

          Then why was it removed from flights ??? It's about commerce ... The Concord flight was like visiting Disneyland, unfortunately ...
          1. Kenxnumx
            Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 10: 17
            +5
            27 years of flight is Disneyland. Very interesting. And they took it off because fuel prices rose and because of limited demand, production was curtailed to restore which is expensive at any cost.
            1. kpd
              kpd 11 October 2017 10: 26
              +7
              They didn’t remove it at all because of fuel prices.
              Concord stopped flying due to the actions of competitors, it was simply forbidden to fly over-the-air over populated territory and all that was enough to prevent it from competing with subsonic Boeings on the most profitable routes. He ate a bunch of fuel, tickets were expensive, and the gain in flight time was only on very limited routes running over the ocean.
              1. Kenxnumx
                Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 10: 46
                +2
                Maybe it played
                1. Gransasso
                  Gransasso 11 October 2017 10: 54
                  +5
                  Quote: Ken71
                  Maybe it played



                  The Concorde was closed for a very simple reason ... economic as usual ... because of the "stuff" it ... it was a niche product for rich people .. for which time is money and are willing to pay a lot to fly fast ... lost the business economic race jets that have become widespread and affordable for the rich .. and much more convenient ... a business jet is always at hand .. you don’t have to go to Paris or London to catch a Concord flight
              2. Rus2012
                Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 35
                +1
                Quote: kpd
                Concord stopped flying due to the actions of competitors, it was simply forbidden to fly over-the-air over populated territory, and all that was enough to prevent it from competing with subsonic Boeings on the most profitable routes.

                + 1! all right!
                However, the trouble lay in yet another fact that was not previously envisaged - in the era of Internet and “electronic document management” and “video conferencing” with the effect of presence, the needs (which were calculated with the growth of economies), “televisions of first persons” were no longer required!
              3. kig
                kig 12 October 2017 02: 15
                0
                Quote: kpd
                Concord stopped flying due to competitors

                Concord stopped flying due to:
                - increase in fuel prices
                - ever-increasing maintenance costs
                - after resuming flights, after a well-known accident, a series of incidents followed, the most unpleasant of which was a fuel leak and a shutdown of one of the engines, as well as a steering wheel failure
            2. FID
              FID 11 October 2017 12: 28
              +3
              Quote: Ken71
              27 years of flight is Disneyland. Very interesting.

              Who flew? And for what? Businessmen flew with bobiks and watermelons ...
              1. Kenxnumx
                Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 15: 04
                0
                Yes businessmen. And what does not suit you.
              2. Rus2012
                Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 37
                +1
                Quote: SSI
                Businessmen flew with bobiks and watermelons ...

                ... alas, they already flew much less than the aircraft developers expected (I-no and virtual communication - closed the needs) y.
            3. Gransasso
              Gransasso 11 October 2017 19: 41
              +2
              "... British Airways bought out planes and parts from the state.

              The airline incurred all the costs of maintaining the program - about £ 50 million per year at the first stage and hundreds of millions in the next 20 years of operation. In years of increased demand for first-class flights, each British Concorde earned an average of £ 30-50 million in operating profit per year. British Airways reported revenue of £ 1,75 billion at an operating cost of £ 1 billion. Air France’s revenue was an order of magnitude lower .... "
          2. Gransasso
            Gransasso 11 October 2017 10: 28
            +2
            Quote: SSI
            Quote: Ken71
            And the fact that Concord flew for many years and was a commercial success

            Then why was it removed from flights ??? It's about commerce ... The Concord flight was like visiting Disneyland, unfortunately ...



            You are surprised that after 30 years of operation sometimes the production of certain types of aircraft is sometimes closed? ... does this only concern Concord? ... or was it supposed to fly forever? ...
            1. FID
              FID 11 October 2017 12: 30
              +3
              Speaking exclusively about Concord ... No need to be a prophet ...
              1. Gransasso
                Gransasso 11 October 2017 13: 04
                +1
                That's it ... about Concorde ... you don’t have to be a prophet to sing why ... enough basic knowledge in the economy to understand that the economic realities of the 2000s are different from the realities of 60-70 ... in connection with which the project was closed .. how dozens before and after it
                1. kig
                  kig 12 October 2017 02: 23
                  0
                  When Concord was created, it was believed that supersonic is the future of passenger traffic. Well, and then the economy came first. It turned out that the 747th attracts more passengers and makes more money. In addition, do not forget that the mid-70s is the first oil crisis (Suez Canal, again the Jews are to blame =))
              2. Rus2012
                Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 38
                0
                Quote: SSI
                Speaking exclusively about Concord ... No need to be a prophet ...

                ... uv. colleague, why are you spending money on a troll?
          3. g1v2
            g1v2 11 October 2017 12: 43
            +1
            Good day. hi As far as I remember, you worked with that 160. Surely about that 144 in the know. How close are they? Is it possible, using some developments from the Tu160 bomber, to expand the production of a supersonic passenger aircraft? Is there any possibility of unification? And is there any way to reduce the price of its production and operation, due to the same composites and modern technologies? Purely interesting. hi
            1. FID
              FID 11 October 2017 13: 37
              +5
              Quote: g1v2
              Good day.

              And I welcome you! It is not cost-effective to drive passengers by M = 1, or M = 1,5 ... It is much better to fly on the fly with half a thousand passengers on board ... Tupolev developed for supersonic commercial aircraft, but ... All this nonsense, about sound claps, noise exceeded, etc. - this is from the evil one ... Concord passed the sound barrier over the ocean, and when landing - a regular plane. Military aircraft produce much more noise and nothing. Passenger supersonic (my opinion, personal) is a matter of the future, perhaps, but why? Who needs this? To get from Sydney to London to resolve business issues when there is a Network? For ONE passenger who urgently needs ??? Tu-144 and Tu-160 are fundamentally different cars in both aerodynamics and design. There is no talk of any unification or modernization. Moreover, on the 144th control system (this is a terrible secret) stood Thomson firms (France) ... Lowering the price of production is easy, but the operation ....
              1. g1v2
                g1v2 11 October 2017 14: 03
                +1
                How mass transportation is possible. But maybe there is a chance to occupy some niche? I also think that passenger supersonic is a thing of the future. But maybe the closest? Just in my opinion, this is a chance to stop running after the herd. And cut the corner and release something that competitors don’t have. Maybe not passenger, but transport? Surely there is an opportunity to make it cheaper. For example, due to weight reduction and the use of composites, which means lower fuel consumption. request
                And as for unification, I thought more about the engine. NK 32 seems to be on the Tu-144LL. All the same, Kuznetsov is deploying their production now. Maybe they can be used in supersonic commercial aircraft? Mass production reduces cost. And the engine is far from the cheapest part of the plane. hi
                1. Kenxnumx
                  Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 15: 07
                  0
                  But what about developments related to flying in low orbits. If you dream
                  1. g1v2
                    g1v2 11 October 2017 15: 32
                    0
                    So far, nothing concrete has been observed there. And here is what already existed in the iron and flew. Many years have passed since that 144. Computer simulation has come into our lives. composites and more. Maybe it's time to return to the old project on a new technological base? request
                2. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 42
                  0
                  Quote: g1v2
                  passenger supersonic is a thing of the future

                  alas, nobody needs this anymore. In addition to the narrow tasks of the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Internal Affairs ...
                  To businessmen too *
                  Counted many times ...
                  There is no flow and never will be.
                  If only a few units of "business jets" based on the Su-27 / 34. But this is very good. expensive!!!
        3. Rus2012
          Rus2012 11 October 2017 19: 55
          0
          Quote: Ken71
          Our Tu 144

          our Tu was the "illegitimate brother" of the 70 product (now known as Tu-160)!
          The main forces worked for the "blood relatives", and the secondary forces worked for the "citizen", alas ...
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 12 October 2017 07: 33
            0
            Quote: Rus2012
            Quote: Ken71
            Our Tu 144

            our Tu was the "illegitimate brother" of the 70 product (now known as Tu-160)!
            The main forces worked for the "blood relatives", and the secondary forces worked for the "citizen", alas ...


            Everything is exactly the opposite ...
            Read the memoirs about how Tupolev got pistons on the commissions in which he tried to push the “militarized” Tu-144 in the project, which in the future became the Tu-160. and how is it there ...
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 12 October 2017 11: 10
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              Read the memoirs about how Tupolev got pistons on the commissions in which he tried to push the "militarized" Tu-144 in a project that in the future became Tu-160

              ... you, dear, judge by memoirs.
              And there are still people - who directly "cooked" in this ...
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 12 October 2017 12: 54
                0
                Quote: Rus2012
                Quote: ZVO
                Read the memoirs about how Tupolev got pistons on the commissions in which he tried to push the "militarized" Tu-144 in a project that in the future became Tu-160

                ... you, dear, judge by memoirs.
                And there are still people - who directly "cooked" in this ...


                Those. you are hinting that in 1965-1970 you were among those. who really discussed the future bomber’s appearance as part of the commission?
                How old are you?
                In order for you to be admitted to the commission then, you would have to have experience and an appropriate position.
                Relevant including and age.
                You should have been at least 40 years old then.
                In 65-70.
                So you are now well over 90?

                My grandfather "cooked" a lot in this boiler.
                And he is 95 years old however.

                In the fall of 1972, reports on the above-mentioned projects “160” of A.N. Tupolev Design Bureau (with a chewing wing based on Tu-144), T-4MS (“200”) Design Bureau P.O. were heard at a scientific and technical council at the Ministry of Aviation Industry . Sukhoi and M-18 Design Bureau V.M. Myasishcheva.

                The project of the 160 aircraft did not receive support because of its "inconsistency with the given tactical and technical requirements." Colonel-General V.V.Reshetnikov said at a meeting of the Air Force scientific and technical committee regarding the design of the design bureau of A.N. Tupolev that the Air Force was actually offering a passenger plane! The situation was also somewhat complicated by the aerodynamic quality of the presented aircraft, which was erroneously overstated in the project. Reshetnikov himself in the book already mentioned above recalled the following in this regard:

                “Sitting down in a small room and peering at the posters hung on the stand, I was surprised to recognize the familiar features of the Tu-144 passenger supersonic plane. Was it really the same? With its technical and flight characteristics, it did not reach the desired values, sinned with a low level of reliability, was uneconomical and Big troubles also happened. Civil aviation fenced off in every possible way from it ...... Aleksey Andreevich (Tupolev - approx. author), holding himself somewhat more constrained than usual, went up to the stand with a pointer in his hand. it boiled down to the fact that between the extended packages of engines occupying the lower part of the fuselage bombs crashed into which missiles and bombs would be placed.Without delving into further discussion, it was obvious that, becoming a bomber, this failed liner was under the weight of ammunition and defensive weapons it will become heavier, lose its last margin of safety and all flight characteristics will fall down.

                After about five, maybe ten, I got up and interrupted the report and said that we did not intend to consider the proposed project further, because a passenger plane designed at one time for the needs of Aeroflot, even in a new look, cannot get rid of its original features properties that are completely redundant in the combat version, and at the same time fail to embody the specified requirements for a strategic bomber.

                Alexey Andreevich, apparently, was ready for such a turn of the matter. Without a word of objection, he turned to the central, largest poster, took it by the "scruff of the neck" and pulled it down with force. In complete silence, there was a crackle of a tearing whatman. Then, turning to my side, he apologized and said that he would invite us again to consider a new advance project. "
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 12 October 2017 19: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: ZVO
                  You should have been at least 40 years old then.
                  In 65-70.

                  ... my young friend :))) I think my real age allows you to contact you like that ...
                  Why do you think that the participants in the discussion of the “future bomber look” should have been for 40let?
                  If you were related to such works, you would be well versed in the topic. As well as the fact that such work could be related to graduates of relevant universities. And even older students-admitted to work. Of course, it’s not up to them to determine the strategy, but to carry out calculations, other materials, participate in technical meetings, scientific and technical conferences at various levels - quite according to their strength and capabilities. Of course, experience is a great thing, but not the main thing.

                  I never wrote to myself that I was a member of the Tu team. However, in the discussion of some of the details of this topic accounted for. Moreover, my young friend worked there "across the river". And all these topics of the "seventies" and others. - influenced our personal lives ... And willy-nilly they also had to be taken into account :(

                  About age again - immediately after graduation, even in the last year ("introduction to the topic"), was involved in work on the "exotic", so we called the work that went beyond the traditional framework. And from the very moment I got to work, I’ve been in these topics, including the Civil Code and the MVK, sometimes, as they say, young men who have no hair, also visited the deputy chairman of the State Commission ...
                  There were all kinds of situations. Now I understand the reasons for such nominations - few of the more experienced comrades voluntarily or by status wanted to take responsibility in case of failure ...

                  PS: and frankly, in the role of "people - who directly cooked in this", I didn’t mean at all myself, but, first of all, my close colleagues - then leading in the "products" and my direct and high bosses, who determined the strategy ...
    2. Fitter65
      Fitter65 11 October 2017 13: 39
      +2
      Quote: Ken71
      And Europeans were aware that they participated in the competition?

      They were in the know, even at one time there was an exchange of experience, the French went to us, we were to them. So there was a normal spirit of competition. Only one nuance makes these planes Europeans lifted a real prototype of a passenger plane into the air, and we are just a technology demonstrator, because the first serial passenger Tu-144 was very different from what took off on December 31, 1968. And then the fight for range went on and the Tu-144D appeared, this is the third option ... And all this cost money and not small .. .
    3. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 October 2017 19: 51
      +1
      Quote: Ken71
      And Europeans were aware that they participated in the competition?

      but what? Of course there were ...
      Moreover, there was a third competitor - 3,14ndos ... who quietly merged ...
      But! They say, then they did EVERYTHING to dump the Concord!
    4. NordUral
      NordUral 12 October 2017 09: 48
      0
      There were, my friend, there were, and even were very.
    5. Popovich
      Popovich 13 October 2017 21: 11
      0
      Kent opened the training manual on side 78 and skipipastel - Did Europeans know that they participated in the competition?
  2. Nehist
    Nehist 11 October 2017 06: 43
    +6
    No matter how he left, in fact Concordes were used on regular airlines longer and more often !!!! Hurray, the author’s articles on the newspaper leave it to the newspaper True, well, or to government reports !!!
    1. andj61
      andj61 11 October 2017 09: 38
      +6
      Quote: Nehist
      No matter how he left, in fact Concordes were used on regular airlines longer and more often !!!! Hurray, the author’s articles on the newspaper leave it to the newspaper True, well, or to government reports !!!

      The Tu-144 was ahead of Concorde only temporarily - it took off earlier, the speed of sound and the two speeds of sound were overcome earlier. In fact, both projects were not commercial. They managed to sell 9 Concord planes out of 14 made - 5 by British Airways and 4 “Air France,” because they were controlled by the governments of the countries that developed the aircraft.The remaining 5 aircraft, after unsuccessful attempts to sell them, were sold to the same airlines at a price of 1 pound and 1 franc, respectively.
      We did not consider the cost of kerosene, and due to this cost and extremely expensive operating costs, they added another zero to the cost of a ticket for a regular transatlantic aircraft. We, knowing full well that servicing a supersonic airliner and maintaining it in a state of airworthiness, is prohibitively expensive (and for a commercial flight you also need a network of corresponding airfields), we were satisfied that we flew first. France and England until the zero years tried to maintain their reputation as advanced aviation powers. As a result, when a disaster occurred in 2000, and the airliner with passengers crashed at Charles de Gaulle Airport, its operators with a clear conscience wrote off the plane. But both projects were not commercial - from the word "absolutely"! bully hi
      1. Gransasso
        Gransasso 11 October 2017 10: 08
        +3
        Quote: andj61
        We, knowing full well that servicing a supersonic airliner and maintaining it in a state of airworthiness, is prohibitively expensive (and for a commercial flight you also need a network of corresponding airfields), we were satisfied that we flew first.




        Thank you ... I haven’t laughed like that for a long time ... it was in the USSR that they cared about the cost of kerosene and operation ???))))

        For decades, thousands of civilian aircraft flew in the country with monstrous performance in terms of fuel and not only efficiency and it didn’t bother anyone ... about tens of thousands of military aircraft we don’t even remember ...


        And suddenly ... suddenly ... the Politburo was concerned about the overspending of kerosene on a 1 (one) weekly flight to Alma-Ata or where he flew there and therefore closed the most prestigious project of Soviet civil aviation ....


        Who are you trying to tell this joke ...
        1. Kenxnumx
          Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 10: 19
          0
          Like the anecdote that the owners of the Concord quarter-century operation suffered one loss.
        2. andj61
          andj61 11 October 2017 10: 57
          +3
          Quote: Gransasso
          Thank you ... I haven’t laughed like that for a long time ... it was in the USSR that they cared about the cost of kerosene and operation ???))))

          Have you ever read my post? two lines above -
          Quote: andj61
          We did not consider the cost of kerosene,

          And the Tu-144 in economics was many times worse than any of the most gluttonous Soviet aircraft.
          Flights were carried out by only two aircraft - No. 77109 and No. 77110. Their specially trained Aeroflot crews were piloted, which included test pilots of the Tupolev Design Bureau as co-pilots, aircraft commanders were retrained from other models of Aeroflot pilots. Each passenger flight “Moscow - Alma-Ata” (they were carried out on Thursdays), the entire apparatus of the Ministry, all the authorities of “Aeroflot” - everyone stood on their ears.
          They removed the Tu-144 from operation for the following reasons:
          1. Too expensive and exorbitantly difficult service, many times higher than the same on subsonic aircraft. If you approach with the same standards as on conventional aircraft - this led to malfunctions and accidents.
          2. Lack of infrastructure. We simply did not have suitable GDP at airports for the normally safe operation of the liner. Moscow, Alma-Ata - and that’s it! In the beginning of the 80s, Krasnoyarsk was planning to reconstruct, but this business died out. There weren’t even alternate aerodromes. The spare in Tashkent did not fully meet the safety requirements.
          3. There was a problem with the engines. We didn’t reach the planned flight range of 6-7 thousand km, we reached only 3500, and to Alma-Ata, where regular flights were made, there were a little less than 3300 km - almost at full range. Imagine - they close Alma-Ata due to weather conditions, and Tashkent will not be able to accept it either - where to plant it at all? And while there is a maximum of 30-40 minutes to land!
          Yes, we were not asked, neither by the cost of development, nor by the cost of kerosene. But, nevertheless, the economy also landed in our plane - maintaining the airplanes in flight condition was prohibitively expensive, and taking advantage of the destruction of engines during the next ground tests, passenger flights in the early 80s also had to be postponed again. This time forever. hi
          1. Gransasso
            Gransasso 11 October 2017 11: 35
            +2
            Quote: andj61
            3. There was a problem with the engines.




            This is the key point ... the rest is lyrics ... in Soviet realities ...


            They swelled a lot of money into a plane of monstrous cost that could only cover the distance that covers any Tu-134 freelance, not to mention there more advanced aircraft ... even Soviet-made ..... with no practical time gain ... which should was to be his "skate" ... because of the meagerness for a supersonic airplane of flight range .... while taking off .. picked up the train .. accelerated .. and that's it .. it’s necessary to slow down ...



            This is how to build a Ferrari to drive a hundred meters on it between two traffic lights ...
            1. andj61
              andj61 11 October 2017 11: 45
              +2
              Quote: Gransasso
              They swelled a lot of money into a monstrous aircraft that could only cover the distance that covers any freelance Tu-134, not to mention there more advanced aircraft ... even Soviet-made ...

              No need to even compare with the Tu-134 - he did not fly further than 2000 km.
              And they swelled a lot of money into Concord, and even into the American unrealized project. This is the reality - no one has been given information about the success or failure of the project in advance. The experience of our engineers, ground services and pilots gained tremendous. It is only a pity that due to geopolitics and the collapse of the USSR, we were not able to use this experience. The Americans partially used it. From 1995 to 1999, one significantly modified Tu-144D (No. 77114) called Tu-144LL (“Flying Laboratory”) was used by NASA to research high-speed commercial flights in order to develop a plan for creating a new modern supersonic passenger aircraft. It is official, but it may well be that not only passenger. hi
      2. kig
        kig 12 October 2017 02: 28
        0
        TU-144 was terribly uneconomical. For comparison: the fuel mass of TU and Concord was the same, but the radius of Concord was almost 7000 km, and the first TU was only 3000. Later it was brought to 5000, but it was already too late.
      3. NordUral
        NordUral 12 October 2017 09: 49
        0
        That's it!
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 00
      0
      Quote: Nehist
      Concords were used on regular airlines longer and more often !!!!

      And we didn’t make much sense to use the Tu-144, except on the highway - Msk-AA = 3150km ...
      Although, we just need supersonic on the Msk-Vladik (Khabarovsk) = 6500km highway, for on-farm needs (Ministry of Emergencies, Moscow Region, Ministry of Internal Affairs ... and so on and so forth ...).
      Even Concord flew on the track no more than 5500 ...
      Such are the things ...
      1. Gransasso
        Gransasso 11 October 2017 20: 14
        +2
        Quote: Rus2012
        Even Concord flew on the track no more than 5500 ...



        One of the first Concord routes ... Paris-Rio.d. Janeiro ..

        The distance between Paris and Rio De Janeiro is 9168 kilometers.


        Did he fly there with a transplant? ...
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 49
          +1
          Quote: Gransasso
          The distance between Paris and Rio De Janeiro is 9168 kilometers.
          Did he fly there with a transplant? ..

          ... and you dig further -

          ATP Concorde
          Ferry range - 7500 km
          Practical range
          - supersonic - 6470 km
          - on call - 4900 km
          1. Anglorussian
            Anglorussian 11 October 2017 21: 34
            +3
            He refueled in Dakar (one was even damaged during landing). Rio would not have otherwise reached.
        2. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian 11 October 2017 21: 36
          +1
          Did he fly there with a transplant? ...
          At Dakar-Yoff Airport.
          1. Gransasso
            Gransasso 11 October 2017 22: 23
            +3
            Thanks for the information! hi
            1. Anglorussian
              Anglorussian 11 October 2017 22: 25
              0
              No problem drinks
  3. SMP
    SMP 11 October 2017 06: 47
    +4
    Very little remained until the colonization of the Moon and Mars,


    Unfortunately for a very long time, we still fly on the principle of Chinese firecrackers 5 years ago.

    That is, until scientists come up with a replacement for the jet propulsion rockets with a measurably low efficiency, our future is the colonization of the Moon and no more, the construction of plants in the near-moon and near the earth orbit for smelting over pure alloys in zero gravity and various composites, on a global industrial scale, without these materials it’s not even possible to dream of engines with decent efficiency, space and solar radiation protection systems, for the development and colonization of Mars. All further than the moon are automatic robots.

    Now we are comparing megapixels and megahertz of flagship smartphones, discussing brands and trends and completely forget that these things are not a breakthrough of humanity into the future. They do not move it forward.


    But this is a fact of 100%.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 11 October 2017 06: 55
    +7
    The Concorde flew 25 for years after the removal of the Tu-144 from the lines, so the attack is completely inappropriate.
    But the prospect of the return of such planes should be, and the Atlantic should be of last interest to us, its territories are quite vast.
  5. Wolka
    Wolka 11 October 2017 07: 19
    +2
    what prevents repeating what has already begun, Vladivostok-Moscow-Kaliningrad will be only happy
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 07: 25
      +1
      Ticket prices will, by definition, be higher.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 04
        0
        Quote: Ken71
        Ticket prices will, by definition, be higher.

        ... almost an order of magnitude :(
    2. passerby5
      passerby5 13 October 2017 09: 31
      0
      don’t know don’t know. somehow showed that ours from Sakhalin through China fly to Moscow. they say cheaper. and then the price will be .... I’m even afraid to guess)))
  6. Conductor
    Conductor 11 October 2017 07: 30
    +3
    1. The author is aware of when they removed the Tu 144 from the lines and when was Concord?
    2. The author, tell me, where did you get that one step lagged before the colonization of the moon, give the facts.
    3. Why do we need passenger flights across the Atlantic? Its territory is large. The lowest price for a ticket Vladik Moscow (plane) is 30000 rubles, and try to find it.
    4 . Urpatriotism is not the best.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 09
      +1
      Quote: Conductor
      Urpatriotism is not the best.

      ... all of this?
      We need such an aircraft!
      Needed when financial affairs and issues are relegated to the background:
      - for the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Internal Affairs ... - when minutes decide EVERYTHING!
      And what's more, such a question (from LA) regularly appears on the agenda. Last time - the possibility of creating a passenger conveyor based on the Su-27 / 34 was considered ...

      So, nods to "Urapatriotism" - plug in one place ...
      1. Gransasso
        Gransasso 11 October 2017 20: 27
        +1
        Quote: Rus2012
        Last time - the possibility of creating a passenger conveyor based on the Su-27/34 was considered ...




        And where are you going to stuff the passengers in su-27 / 34 ... on the pylons under the wings? ...
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 11 October 2017 21: 01
          +1
          Quote: Gransasso
          And where are you going to stuff the passengers in su-27 / 34 ... on the pylons under the wings? ...

          SuperSonicBusinessJet (FANSTREAM) -

          http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/52/page32.html
  7. svp67
    svp67 11 October 2017 07: 38
    +4
    The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind the vaunted "Concord"
    Well now it’s clear why he FIRST “finished”
  8. evil partisan
    evil partisan 11 October 2017 07: 38
    +1
    And the wing for the Tu-144 say R. Bartini invented ...
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 11 October 2017 08: 51
      +4
      He did not work at that time either in the Tupolev Design Bureau or in TsAGI, but was engaged in seaplanes. In addition, Bartini had the idea of ​​a saber-shaped wing for supersonic aircraft, but here it is animated. More often they say that they simply stole it from the Europeans, but it’s from the category - in the pictures it seems to mean the same thing, but about hundreds of CVTs and purges of many models in TsAGI there is simply not enough mind to read.
      1. FID
        FID 11 October 2017 09: 08
        +8
        Quote: Engineer
        just not enough mind to read.

        It's just that the mind is not enough .... Most often, they say that we stole ... Not everyone understands that there is such a SCIENCE - AERODYNAMICS, which determines both the appearance and number of motors!
        1. Gransasso
          Gransasso 11 October 2017 10: 39
          +1
          Quote: SSI
          Quote: Engineer
          just not enough mind to read.

          It's just that the mind is not enough .... Most often, they say that we stole ... Not everyone understands that there is such a SCIENCE - AERODYNAMICS, which determines both the appearance and number of motors!



          Yeah .. only apparently the bourgeoisie and aerodynamics were bourgeois .. and the astronautics ... and therefore both Concord and the same Shuttle flew for 30 years ...

          And for some reason, the most advanced Soviet aerodynamics in the world was enough only to create pale experimental copies of these devices ... because there were no engines ... engines to copy, general aerodynamics laws will not help there.

          Engines are the main reason for the failure of these Soviet devices
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 11 October 2017 11: 22
            +5
            Shuttle is a deeply loss-making program. And even before the first flight, it became known that it was unprofitable. Read at least the children's Wikipedia, that not a couple of launches a year, but a couple a month should make these launches commercially profitable. But, technically, even this was not possible. Reusable systems also turned out to be unrealizable at that time: replacing Shuttle engines after a flight, cladding, etc. There, only solid-fuel reusable boosters turned out to be reusable, but unstoppable anyway. Let’s add here the impossibility of using the Shuttle in high orbits, because of which it was necessary to spend huge amounts of money on maintaining the low orbit of the ISS, so that the Shuttle could dock to it, as well as not being able to serve, and therefore keep American satellites in high advantageous geostationary orbits. . We add here an unrealized crew rescue system and, as a result, two tragedies and dozens of dead astronauts. And what do we have as a result? The program was closed, 30 years in the development of rocketry passed the United States. The USA is not able to create its own competitive engine for disposable systems of the USSR level of the 70s. The latest heavy rocket launcher will use Shuttle engines and its solid propellant boosters. Although yes, they have a Musk with a rocket with engines from the lunar carrier.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 October 2017 19: 35
              +2
              Quote: Engineer
              Shuttle is a deeply loss-making program. And even before the first flight, it became known that it was unprofitable. Read at least the children's Wikipedia, that not a couple of launches a year, but a couple a month should make these launches commercially profitable.

              EMNIP, in order for the shuttles to make a profit, it was necessary to carry out 60-80 launches per year. The trouble is that nobody needed so many launches.
              Again, EMNIP, at the development stage, they planned to use shuttles for repair in orbit or the return of faulty satellites from space to earth. As it turned out, for the vast majority of spacecraft it’s cheaper to build a new one than to repair an old one.
            2. Gransasso
              Gransasso 11 October 2017 20: 30
              +1
              Quote: Engineer
              the development of rocket technology passed by the United States. The USA is not able to create its own competitive engine for disposable systems of the USSR level of the 70s




              This is who told you such a sensation ... I’m embarrassed to ask ...
        2. iouris
          iouris 13 October 2017 12: 18
          0
          Quote: SSI
          there is such a SCIENCE - AERODYNAMICS, which determines both the appearance and the number of motors!

          All designers strive to get the optimum. With approximately the same level of technology, it turns out about the same thing (the devil is in the details).
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 13
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        just mind is not enough to read

        ... devans just don't need it!
      3. evil partisan
        evil partisan 12 October 2017 07: 30
        +1
        Quote: Engineer
        He did not work at that time either in the Tupolev Design Bureau or in TsAGI, but was engaged in seaplanes.

        I know. But such a legend among my fellow rocket launchers (as they said: “we are the 2nd generation rocket launchers”) went around.
  9. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 11 October 2017 08: 23
    +3
    The victory was not that they were ahead (just three months - a minuscule for such a difficult program), but that they did it at all, that is, showed the power of the USSR not only in the military-industrial complex.

    Incidentally, fantasy Bourgeois Musk promises to fly anywhere and not in three hours, but in an hour (literally tomorrow); yesterday there were five but big, and today three, but small. laughing
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 October 2017 08: 55
      +4
      The power of the state is not in airplanes, but in the fact that people are working, and they believe that they will be able to live in retirement, that hospitals are not subject to quotas, that it’s easier for me to go to Crimea or Sochi, and not Turkey, that there are groceries in the store. Such are the simple joys. And the fact that someone there created Tu 144 to the evil of the imperialists did not give a damn about 99% of the population. As now, Sochi is the Olympics (Putin calmly said, well, they stole 20% of nonsense,)))))) Universiade in Kazan, World Cup, Bridge in Vladik, Kurashivo)))
      1. Gormenghast
        Gormenghast 11 October 2017 09: 49
        +4
        The power of the state is not in airplanes


        This, I'm sorry, is already an old song.
        Produced 250 aircraft per year, and now 0
        Does not matter! Freedom! We live all the best and the best. Even pendobandits are with us!
      2. Igor V
        Igor V 11 October 2017 11: 36
        +2
        99% of the population was proud of the Soviet technology, there wasn’t even a damn about it.
        1. a.sirin
          a.sirin 11 October 2017 14: 27
          +2
          To be proud is one thing, to receive some profit from achievements is another.
      3. Rus2012
        Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 18
        +1
        Quote: Conductor
        they will be able to live in retirement, that hospitals do not have quotas, that it’s easier for me to go to Crimea or Sochi, and not Turkey, that there are groceries in the store. Such simple pleasures

        ...those. YOU are a consumer and for "consumer obscurity". And what is interesting created for the working people? Just wondering...
        1. passerby5
          passerby5 13 October 2017 09: 42
          0
          and I'm talking about the same thing. yes created something and well done! BUT! why for the national economy, for a specific person it somehow didn’t really go in favor? that is the question. Take the same navigation. Well it used to be already BUT secret !!! and there for some reason, and for the military goes to the citizen. Here I can’t put it in my head
  10. Engineer
    Engineer 11 October 2017 08: 47
    +4
    Externally similar aircraft were actually very different. Technologically, because of a little faster and more, it was necessary to develop new alloys and assembly technologies, such as, for example, wing ribs, which the Europeans could not cope with. This gave a big impetus to the development of domestic aircraft manufacturing, which is not silly to understand. Aerodynamically, the Tu-144 is a cut above, thanks to TsAGI. Here the engine failed the Tu-144. Then of course they put a new one, or rather one of the early variators, and he surpassed Olympus, but that was no longer important. At the expense of the fact that many put Concord's undoubted advantage here - the duration of operation. He flew along one route, was unprofitable, although initially there were a lot of plans. After the Concorde disaster, no one remembered him, and our Tu-144 was somehow interested in the Yankees that they even invested in bringing it into flight condition and drove for research purposes. Why not Concord? And they quickly got rid of it, having sold it to museums. And yes, no one in the KB doubted that the Mirage had provoked a catastrophe. Doubted only intentionally or not.
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 11 October 2017 09: 30
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      This gave a big impetus to the development of domestic aircraft manufacturing, which is not silly to understand




      And in what was the “impetus” expressed to the domestic aircraft industry? ... what miracles of the aircraft industry “grew” from the achievements of this useless, essentially flightless miracle? ...
      1. Igor V
        Igor V 11 October 2017 11: 40
        +2
        The “push” was expressed in the fact that 80% of the Boeing's fuselage is made of our titanium alloys, which they buy from us. No one in the world can do that. And the sanctions did not stop.
        1. Gransasso
          Gransasso 11 October 2017 11: 54
          +1
          Quote: Igor V
          The “push” was expressed in the fact that 80% of the Boeing's fuselage is made of our titanium alloys, which they buy from us. No one in the world can do that. And the sanctions did not stop.



          Wow ... that means the Tu-144 was created in the 60s with an aim to create titanium semi-finished products in the 2000s at a joint venture with Boeing, a cheap Russian slave force from imported raw materials on Amer machine tools .... they knew how to be in the USSR far-sighted ...


          PS take a little interest in the topic .... in the world, dozens of companies producing titanium parts .... including several that make the full cycle ...


          PPSRussian titanium semi-finished products Boeing finishes to the desired accuracy at US enterprises before putting on aircraft ...
          1. Igor V
            Igor V 11 October 2017 16: 25
            +3
            British Radio Electronic Division! It was about body parts that no one does. And with your approach to history, the main failures of the Soviet economy are the victory in the Great Patriotic War and flights into space, and, of course, the defense industry, which did not make a profit. With such a worldview, you should trade in a shop, rather than discuss world problems. sad
            1. Gransasso
              Gransasso 11 October 2017 22: 34
              +1
              the material necessary for all this, besides VSMPO-AVISMA, is now produced in the world by three more American companies: RTI International, Titanium Metals Corporation and Allegheny Technologies.
              1. Gransasso
                Gransasso 11 October 2017 22: 41
                +1
                directly in Verkhnyaya Salda, VSMPOAVISMA carries out preliminary machining of titanium stampings - blanks of aircraft parts with an accuracy of 30 microns. Finishing is done at the Boeing plant in Portland, Oregon, and subcontractors.
            2. passerby5
              passerby5 13 October 2017 09: 51
              0
              not well then are you so at it? I also wonder, won. we were well battered a lot of things were bombed .... but Germany was also well dispossessed .... but they somehow recovered and I think you will not argue that somehow they have "a little" different? production at a different level. level of well-being. Yes, of course, they themselves did not fly into space, but for some reason 70a or more percent at the same cost (I exaggerate) the car industry products will be chosen in spite of their patriotic views ... I do not want to swear. why do we somehow all through the left egg?
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 23
        +3
        Quote: Gransasso
        "push" to the domestic aircraft industry? ... what miracles of the aviation industry "grew" out of the developments of this useless, essentially flightless miracle? ...


        a citizen of a non-state, and what do you care about our member?
        I dare say that the Tu-160 and Tu-144 are twins and brothers in spirit (certainly not in the cogs and mission). Still need to bring something in mm and sec?
  11. Conductor
    Conductor 11 October 2017 09: 02
    +4
    And Red H, who said that ROSNan had a lot of money, a lot, but where is the product? Pu has been in power since 2000 (let me take it that way) for 17 years. Stalin was in power, let’s take 1925, for 17 years, industrialization and the war were won, but there are many excesses, I do not idealize Stalin, but the state developed only Pu and Mu. what? stolen in Sochi or there at the Vostochny cosmodrome, yes)))) Moo, in general, this is how you have to be a freak so that you could hold onto the premiership like that. ))) What is it better than Poroshenko?
  12. Gransasso
    Gransasso 11 October 2017 09: 05
    +1
    Tu-144, Buran ... the story of the achievements of the Soviet genius .. senseless and merciless ... how to swell a mountain of money in nothing .. but for what .. and what would happen ..
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 27
      +4
      Quote: Gransasso
      Tu-144, Buran

      Man, you can’t even imagine what you say / scum gumagu.
      "Tu-144, Buran" is primarily Tu-160, PAK-DA, Zircon, Yars, Yars-M, UBB, Efremova Bird and there is ...
      Unlike the west - we have "manuscripts do not burn!"
  13. Old26
    Old26 11 October 2017 09: 28
    +5
    Slaughter article title:
    The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind vaunted Concord

    The point is not only and not so much in who first took off. And how many flew at the same time. Here vaunted Concord flew off a quarter century, making weekly flights. And how many ours flew off? It's almost like the Space Shuttle program, which they also like to call deadlock. However, our "Buran" made only one flight and their dead end "Shuttle" - 135. An almost complete analogy with the "Kokord"
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 11 October 2017 11: 15
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Slaughter article title:
      The battle for supersonic: how our Tu-144 left behind vaunted Concord

      The point is not only and not so much in who first took off. And how many flew at the same time. Here vaunted Concord flew off a quarter century, making weekly flights. And how many ours flew off? It's almost like the Space Shuttle program, which they also like to call deadlock. However, our "Buran" made only one flight and their dead end "Shuttle" - 135. An almost complete analogy with the "Kokord"



      Hello .. do you consider Buran an analogue of the Shuttle? ... or is it just the most successful full-sized copy of it .. which lacked almost everything that would make it a space shuttle ... engines .. crew life support systems and much much more .. .
  14. Fuzelir
    Fuzelir 11 October 2017 10: 19
    +3
    The development and construction of the Tu-144 was a policy on the theme "we can, we can do it." However, I personally do not consider this aircraft useless, because the fact that the Concord flew longer is the result of not so much of its superiority, but of maintaining prestige. The Soviet Union, sorry for the expression, "cheap show off is more expensive than money" was nothing. Therefore, they built, tested, did not like, removed.
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 11 October 2017 11: 08
      +1
      Quote: Fuzelir
      The development and construction of the Tu-144 was a policy on the theme "we can, we can do it." However, I personally do not consider this aircraft useless, because the fact that the Concord flew longer is the result of not so much of its superiority, but of maintaining prestige. The Soviet Union, sorry for the expression, "cheap show off is more expensive than money" was nothing. Therefore, they built, tested, did not like, removed.



      You have a very bizarre logic .. like the concept of the word Pont .. Concord flying 30 years and transporting several million passengers in a fierce competitive environment is Pont ...


      And to swell a mountain of money in the Tu-144 which fell apart at the very first air show and could not fly even in the greenhouse in terms of competition in the conditions of the Soviet airport, where everything that had been flying in the air for decades was at the top of prudence ...


      Maybe it's all the other way around? ...
      1. Alex
        Alex 11 October 2017 13: 06
        +3
        ... Tu-144 that fell apart at the first air show

        The crash in Le Bourget occurred due to the fact that the pilot, seeing a Mirage above himself, abruptly went down to avoid a collision, and then went into climb, which led to a significant overload and destruction of the car in the air - for heavy aircraft, permissible overloads 2-3g total. This is a disaster.
        With regards to why they built such a plane. Nikita Sergeevich ordered to wipe the nose of the English with the French. In response to what turns out to be too gluttonous, he said that we have a lot of kerosene. It was in the early 1960s, long before the oil crisis. They began to build a few years later, flew six months earlier. Boeing did not fly at all.
        That Tu was copied from Concord - nonsense, invented by the Western press, which even gave the nickname to the 144th "Concord". Nobody stole anything from anyone: there was a legal exchange of information between ours and the Anglo-French with mutual trips. Despite the external similarity, the cars are still different.
        Aeroflot Tu-144 was imposed on top. As soon as the crash occurred in a test flight, he happily stopped its operation. Concord flew for almost 30 years, because there were people who could afford to pay for an expensive flight, a kind of attraction. And we didn’t get used to just write off expenses, unfortunately.
  15. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 October 2017 11: 13
    +3
    Quote: Ken71
    And the fact that Concord flew for many years and was a commercial success, and our Tu 144 flew a little and got into a joke because of what money for its design were thrown into the oven do you care?

    If Concord hit commercial success, why isn’t it in mass operation today? It was the complete commercial failure of Concord that stopped his flights. A ticket is ten times more expensive and the greatest risk for passengers, and only for 2-3 hours. Therefore, only a few machines were wishing to be wished for operation ..
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 15: 14
      0
      And about commercial success, there are several branches above.
  16. Warnoob
    Warnoob 11 October 2017 11: 20
    0
    They didn’t leave at all. They appeared at about the same time, but Tushka (produced 16 pieces) stopped carrying passengers already in 1978, and Concord (produced 20 pieces) - in 2003.
  17. nnz226
    nnz226 11 October 2017 12: 10
    +1
    Outstripped, so what ??? The Tu-144 didn’t even really fly, and the Concorde wandered across the Atlantic for many years! The sense of advancing, if the result in the end, was - ZERO !!!
  18. iouris
    iouris 11 October 2017 13: 49
    0
    No one was ahead of anyone. The project was a breakthrough and a dead end, because the United States did not participate in it, but created 747. In our case, engines became a burden. The last blow was dealt by the energy crisis of 1973. It is strange that there is still no business supersonic aircraft.
  19. Tsoy
    Tsoy 11 October 2017 14: 17
    0
    The star is such a star ...

    Concord ... TU ... What is the difference if everyone has done a Boeing 747? 1500 boards and still flies. That's just going to close the production.
  20. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 October 2017 14: 18
    0
    Quote: WarNoob
    They didn’t leave at all. They appeared at about the same time, but Tushka (produced 16 pieces) stopped carrying passengers already in 1978, and Concord (produced 20 pieces) - in 2003.

    The creators of Concord showed the greatest obstinacy in errors. He flew more and accumulated financial losses and casualties.
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 15: 16
      0
      By the percentage of accidents on the number of flights, Concord is far from the leaders
  21. Sivasa
    Sivasa 11 October 2017 18: 58
    0
    Tu-144, this is a waste of money.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 11 October 2017 21: 07
      +1
      Quote: Sivasa
      Tu-144, this is a waste of money.

      ... be careful with the wind: "Whoever sows the wind will reap the storm" (c)
  22. midshipman
    midshipman 11 October 2017 19: 41
    +5
    Dear readers, of the few I had to take part once in a flight on a Tu-144 together with my colleague Bravo A. He was the developer of the complex VNPK-154 (NII-33). Once Anatoly Bravo even had to report to A. Tupolev about the principles of this complex. Tupolev then enthusiastically reacted to this development of NII-33. I have the honor.
  23. Rus2012
    Rus2012 11 October 2017 20: 29
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    And how many flew at the same time. Here the vaunted Concord flew off for a quarter of a century, making weekly flights.

    Well, "old" - they wrote to you above "flew at a loss." Moreover, the last, control shot, the Concorde was made by former competitors “from the bottom”. Well then you do not remember the story?
  24. MadCat
    MadCat 12 October 2017 01: 33
    0
    Tu-144 left behind the vaunted Concord

    that144 was a failed loss-making project, for the sake of prestige, so the concord was far from profitable (BUT he at least flew more than 25 years!). Another question is whether it was worth pushing for the sake of this prestige by swelling millions of rubles into a previously unprofitable undertaking?
  25. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 12 October 2017 01: 51
    +5
    Kenxnumx,
    I recall that we have already met in the fields of VO. So, I remind you that it is not for you to teach me and indicate what and how I love. I'm already old enough to understand events and people. hi
  26. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2017 10: 05
    +1
    Quote: Rus2012
    Well, "old" - they wrote to you above "flew at a loss." Moreover, the last, control shot, the Concorde was made by former competitors “from the bottom”. Well then you do not remember the story?

    I remember the story well enough. And including that, "Concord" did not give the income that was expected from him. How much he was unprofitable - I can not judge, there is simply no data. The question is somewhat different. Sometimes, frankly, it warps from such article titles as the current one: Like our TU-144 left behind praised Concord.
    What left behind? That took off before? So, sorry, the race was in everything. Both aviation and astronautics demanded "priority." The main thing first. And then - it does not bother.
    Both Concord and the shuttle were unprofitable, as did not meet the expectations for profit that were invested in these systems. But at the same time call them dead ends or say that "left behind" - you must have some kind of perverse logic. That would fly TU-144 years 30-354 - the first to vote for this article title. But in this reality, alas, everything was not so. There are almost 100 people unsubscribed by topic

    Quote: Gransasso
    hello .. do you consider Buran an analogue of the Shuttle? ... or is it just the most successful full-sized copy of it .. which lacked almost everything that would make it a space shuttle ... engines .. crew life support systems and much much more .. .

    “Buran” at the design stage underwent a series of transformations from the “complete analogue” of the American “Shuttle” to what remains in the end.
    As for the engines. He didn’t have any marshes, such as the one in American. And in the US, these engines were used as marching in the presence of an outboard tank with fuel. The fuel supply on the shuttle itself was negligible. Our shuttle had maneuvering engines, as well as engines that allowed it to leave orbit. The life support system was on both the American and our shuttle. EMNIP SJO provided the work of 7 cosmonauts for almost 2 weeks. And all the rest is what?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 12 October 2017 11: 31
      0
      Quote: Old26
      our TU-144 left behind the vaunted Concord.

      and Tu-144 and Concord - were primarily technology demonstrators ...
      Both projects crippled THREE things:
      1. virtual office work - I-no, videoconferencing, electronic document management. Accordingly, a drop in demand and passenger flow.
      2. competition from competitors
      3. special requirements for supersonic flight techniques
      The fact that
      Quote: iouris
      The project was a breakthrough and a dead end, because the United States did not participate in it, but created 747

      ... patamushta - not really ....;)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
      For nothing, have they really started to design ATP ?! Having studied our Tu-144 from all angles and in flight. Why even restore one copy to airworthiness ...

      But we, our country, need such an aircraft! Just patamushta our country is huge and long!
      Mb and not designed for high passenger traffic. So on the 6-30 people.
      As one of the options for "board number one", as an aircraft for the express delivery of "specially trained people" to the desired point ... and there is, and there is.
      Just needed!
      1. iouris
        iouris 12 October 2017 14: 23
        0
        1. Our country is so huge that it is constantly shrinking. 2. We need a lot of things, but we also need to be able to. 3. With the high-quality organization of management processes, the need for the delivery of people by air, especially supersonic, disappears.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 12 October 2017 19: 23
          0
          Quote: iouris
          which is constantly decreasing .... but we must also be able to. ... there is no need to deliver people by air, let alone supersonic.

          in short - trollo! ; (((
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 12 October 2017 20: 56
            +1
            Quote: Rus2012
            Quote: iouris
            which is constantly decreasing .... but we must also be able to. ... there is no need to deliver people by air, let alone supersonic.

            in short - trollo! ; (((


            You wrote about the same thing ...
            But it really is.
            Indeed, we have fewer people. who need urgent and immediate. For any money.
            "Business" is all digitized, video conferencing, electronic digital signatures, electronic document management, online conferences, etc.
            More and more things can be done "no matter where you are," rather than rushing to the other end of the ball.
            Special Forces - this is how they scatter bases around the ball. And let there a small unit based, but it is always in an hour or two of summer. With the Ministry of Emergencies the same.
            Doctors on teleconference-video conferencing are already conducting operations.
            and hospitals equip regional centers normally.
            And not like before - Moscow and ... everything else.
            It’s already possible to marry remotely ... -)
            so in reality - supersonic - no one else needs.
            What is the point in saving 3 hours of a flight out of 9, i.e. instead of 9, you spent 6 if you spent at least another 3-4 hours on the way to the airport, all procedures, etc.
            it turns out 10 instead of 13.
            And when you understand that a flight from Moscow to Vladivostok is not 6 hours.
            This is a minimum of 10 hours spent on the flight. here you already “understand” that this is already “not quick”.
            And when you realize that it’s “not fast”, you are ready to fly in 14 hours.
            It's all about soap bubbles ... Yeah.
            1. iouris
              iouris 12 October 2017 21: 51
              0
              It can be considered proven that the transportation of passengers at a speed of over 900 km / h in the atmosphere is unprofitable today. Conclusion: for flights at very long ranges you need to go beyond the atmosphere.
            2. Rus2012
              Rus2012 13 October 2017 11: 39
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              You wrote about the same thing ...
              Doctors on teleconference-video conferencing are already conducting operations.
              and hospitals equip regional centers normally.
              And not like before - Moscow and ... everything else
              .
              It's all about soap bubbles ... Yeah.

              ... all that you write is called ideal management of an ideal society.
              According to statistics, there is a place to be. And no more...
              But in real life much different.
              Even the management method of the so-called "free flight" has a tendency to slide in time to an inconspicuous fall ....

              Therefore, in such a vast country - a "flexible and instant impact"
              What it means instead of 9 hours to fly to Vladik for 3 (not for 6, as you write) - this is really faster to react to 70%.
              Not always, not everywhere, field specialists are qualified enough to respond successfully. Yes, and they almost always need to give an initial impetus, because on the ground due to too much saturation they acquire the syndrome of excessive inert mass. Such are the realities, they are the same everywhere, what is ours, what is foreign ...

              It is unnecessarily to prove that the first person in the country needs such a conveyor; there are examples of the fact that they have to use military supersounds from time to time. Only we do not know about it ...
      2. passerby5
        passerby5 13 October 2017 10: 07
        0
        I directly recall the words from the song: it is necessary to sew, do you think it will be worn? ... I think it should be sewn. Well, not exactly. as for the development of technology, yes all this is necessary. but it is also necessary to think about economic feasibility
    2. Gransasso
      Gransasso 12 October 2017 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Both Concord and the shuttle were unprofitable


      "... each British Concorde earned an average of £ 30-50 million in operating profit per year. British Airways reported revenue of £ 1,75 billion at an operating cost of £ 1 billion. Air France’s revenue was an order of magnitude lower ...."



      Quote: Old26
      And all the rest is what?




      What are the consequences of the lack of marching engines? ..


      The existing systems had yet to be tested / tested in real conditions .. You know what it usually translates into in reality and not on paper ...


      The rest is, for example, docking systems .. equipment for working in outer space, unloading / loading systems of cargo, etc., etc.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 12 October 2017 19: 25
        0
        Quote: Gransasso
        What are the consequences of the lack of marching engines? ..

        Which one? :)))))))))))))
  27. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2017 20: 19
    +2
    Quote: Rus2012
    and Tu-144 and Concord - were primarily technology demonstrators ...
    Both projects crippled THREE things:
    1. virtual office work - I-no, videoconferencing, electronic document management. Accordingly, a drop in demand and passenger flow.
    2. competition from competitors
    3. special requirements for supersonic flight techniques

    Kamrad! I agree with your arguments. The question, as I wrote, is in the title of the article. How can a plane that has made much fewer flights and operated a quarter century less could leave behind its competitor? And so everything is correct ...

    Quote: Gransasso
    What are the consequences of the lack of marching engines? ..

    The existing systems had yet to be tested / tested in real conditions .. You know what it usually translates into in reality and not on paper ...

    The rest is, for example, docking systems .. equipment for working in outer space, unloading / loading systems of cargo, etc., etc.

    Shuttle engines do not operate in orbit. All evolutions are exclusively by orbital maneuvering engines and orientation engines. In the same way as on the Buran And on the early versions - OS-120 and OK-92
    The LSS, in principle, was worked out before that, although it was not installed on the 1K ship. But on an analog EMNIP checked.
    Of course, the “Stork” was not tested on the first flight, but ground testing was quite serious. There was no docking system on Buran, but the USSR had gigantic experience in creating docking systems. And the usual system "pin-cone" and APAS
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 12 October 2017 20: 44
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Shuttle engines do not operate in orbit. AT



      I know this .... but due to the fact that they could not create these shuttle engines, which would be reusable .... I had to compensate for their thrust with disposable additional accelerators on Energy, which complicated and increased the cost of the entire structure ... and reduced the useful weight cargo ...




      For other problems and systems, there were still years and billions needed for fine-tuning ... therefore, they limited themselves to the minimum necessary for a one-time demonstration flight
  28. Old26
    Old26 12 October 2017 21: 01
    0
    Quote: Gransasso
    I know this .... but due to the fact that they could not create these shuttle engines, which would be reusable .... I had to compensate for their thrust with disposable additional accelerators on Energy, which complicated and increased the cost of the entire structure ... and reduced the useful weight cargo ...


    About could not create - I'm not sure. The command to make like on a shuttle is a political decision. And everything else is a purely technical solution. As for the reduced payload - at Buran these characteristics were higher than at the shuttle

    Quote: Gransasso
    For other problems and systems, there were still years and billions needed for fine-tuning ... therefore, they limited themselves to the minimum necessary for a one-time demonstration flight

    That limited to a minimum = I agree. Everything else is unprovable. Both the manipulator and the product "SPK" have already been worked out. Part in space, part on earth in numerous mining
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 12 October 2017 22: 02
      +1
      As for the marching, as far as I know, they definitely did ... just the mass-dimensional did not work out the right thing. Therefore, they refused and added accelerators.


      As for the rest, we both move into the sphere of more or less well-founded hypotheses and not facts .. Therefore .. Thank you for an interesting and informative conversation hi
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 13 October 2017 00: 52
        0
        Quote: Gransasso
        As for the marching, as far as I know, they definitely did ...

        ... are you telling this to someone? ;)))))))))))))))))))))
        Not planned and not required as on shuttles.
        It’s just that sometimes two engines 17Д12 of total thrust 180кН for orbital maneuver are also called marching. At the first they were and worked ... ДУ 17Д15 - also stood and worked.
        BEFORE - stood, but did not turn on, because they were not required in the first flight ...

        Read about ODE - http://www.buran.ru/htm/odu.htm
        The composition of the ODE includes:
        two orbital maneuvering engines with thrust in 90 kN, void specific impulse of thrust 362с and with the number of starts up to 5000 per flight;
        38 control engines with thrust according to 4 kN, specific impulse of thrust 275 ... 295с (depending on destination) and the number of starts up to 2000 per flight;
        eight engines of precise orientation with thrust according to 200H, specific impulse 265с and with the number of starts up to 5000 per flight;
        four solid-fuel emergency engine engines with a thrust of 28 kN and a total thrust impulse of 35 kN s.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 13 October 2017 00: 38
      0
      Quote: Old26
      That limited to a minimum = I agree.

      .... uh, do not be so hasty!
      As you know, five flight specimens of the Buran ship were built or were under construction.
      On the first flight - much of what was set up starting from 2 was simply not required.
      For the rest - it was produced and produced according to the Program.
      And practically ALL that was required was designed, tested as part of ground refinement and was made for a standard installation. Accordingly, if the Complex had not been closed, everything would have been implemented. And moreover, according to actual operation, it would be modernized and expanded ...

      Well, when the Union collapsed, the meaning was already lost ... and opportunities. For many things turned out to be "zakordon" ...
  29. passerby5
    passerby5 13 October 2017 08: 35
    0
    Kenxnumx,
    somewhere in the VO was about the reverse sweep. the point is that the thing you need is good to increase maneuverability. but not a failure, but the need for it has disappeared due to the invention of a nozzle with a variable thrust vector
  30. Old26
    Old26 13 October 2017 09: 29
    +1
    Quote: Rus2012
    As you know, five flight specimens of the Buran ship were built or were under construction.
    On the first flight - much of what was set from the 2nd - was simply not required ..

    And I said that. Minimum of what was required in flight. Why put the manipulator ("Stork" EMNIP) in the first flight if it was not planned to be used. The same thing with the item "21" (astronaut's vehicle). Nafig it was needed in an unmanned version.

    It really was built 5 flight. True, the last two were in the initial stage. Those with whom I had to talk essentially said that in the first year or two only two ships could be operated. the rest would be pulled up later

    Quote: Rus2012
    For the rest - it was produced and produced according to the Program ..

    Have I denied it somewhere? Even the EMNIP payload was at that time “in readiness” in only one copy. The rest are in the making

    Quote: Rus2012
    And practically ALL that was required was designed, tested as part of ground refinement and was made for a standard installation. Accordingly, if the Complex had not been closed, everything would have been implemented. And moreover, in actual use, it would be modernized and expanded ....

    I explained this to the comrade, that much has already been worked out on the ground.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 13 October 2017 11: 24
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Really built 5 flight. True, the last two were in the initial stage.

      4-re were already pasted with ceramic tiles ...
      Well, as for readiness - by itself, according to the Plan ... For a lot of things would have to be developed based on the experience of further flights.
      A colleague, "Devan" does not understand ...