Talk:Tupolev Tu-144

Unnecessary comparisons all over the article…

I can´t see the need of continuous comparisons between the TU114 and the Concorde all over the article. The Concorde has its own article, with its own achievements. This is not a discussion about which was better aircraft; we must let the user decide, please. Guinart (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello people, One more time, the word Concorde is present about 50 times in the Tu144 article!... and almost all times to make unnecessary comparisons that reader can easily made checking the Concorde page as well… I recommend to those which want to establish the superiority of the Concorde over the TU144 to make a page specifically for that content, with a new title. In few months I will try a review of the article to correct that wrong encyclopedic conception. If anyone has an issue with that, please contact me. Guinart (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You are probably correct, however, IIRC, much of the article was originally written in a manner suggesting the writer was not using English as a first language (I know this as I tidied-up some of the original text) and as he/she included considerable detail on the Tu-144 not previously available in the West I assumed he/she was in fact Russian. So the comparisons were not made by Concorde 'fans'.

Unfortunately the Tu-144 and Concorde were the only two aircraft of the supersonic transport (SST) category ever built and operated so comparisons between the two are somewhat inevitable, there being no 'generic' supersonic airliner to gauge performance of one or the other by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The Tu-144 was developed solely to rival Concorde for political purposes, and it failed, rather badly. It could not even cruise supersonic without afterburner, which invalidated it as a design. It had other rather serious problems too. It made very few scheduled flights and didn't carry passengers on half of them. The comparison with Concorde was one which the Soviets deliberately sought to invoke. The Tu-144 had no other reason to exist. And that comparison unfortunately does not favour the Tu-144. At all. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a specific section (or linked article) reorganizing the comparative aspects of this article. I consider the comparison very relevant, because of the historical and technological context, adding relevant content, if not crucial, to the matter The mixture of the comparative aspects throughout the article is perhaps detrimental to objectivity HM7Me (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

change "The Tu-144 first in history went supersonic on June 5 1969" to "The Tu-144 first went supersonic on June 5 1969" McLovin McGee (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, Thanks for the request. --Redalert2fan (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

hello "and cruised at a speed of around 2,000 kilometres per hour" - This is in the first part of the page. >>and cruised at a speed of around 2,400 kilometres per hour - This is the correct number: 2400 km/h! thanx Showowindow (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is here in this Wiki site: "(M2.15 vs. M2.04)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showowindow (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no discussion of cruising speed near the text you're referring to. Also, please indent and sign your messages. See Help:Talk for more info. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

The summary does not discuss the reason why the aircraft failed. This is discussed later in the article and referenced already.

The aircraft used a new construction technique which lead to large cracks forming. I think this would fit in very well at the following location in the second paragraph, directly before the list of crashes:

The prototype's first flight was made on 31 December 1968, near Moscow[1] from Zhukovsky Airport,[5] two months before the first flight of Concorde. The Tu-144 first went supersonic on 5 June 1969[6] (Concorde first went supersonic on 1 October 1969), and on 26 May 1970 became the world's first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2. The aircraft used a new construction technique which resulted in large unexpected cracks, which resulted in several crashes. A Tu-144 crashed in 1973 at the Paris Air Show, delaying its further development. The aircraft was introduced into commercial service on 26 December 1975. In May 1978, another Tu-144 (an improved version, the Tu-144D) crashed on a test flight while being delivered. The aircraft remained in use as a cargo aircraft until 1983, when the Tu-144 commercial fleet was grounded. The Tu-144 was later used by the Soviet space program to train pilots of the Buran spacecraft, and by NASA for supersonic research until 1999, when the Tu-144 made its last flight (26 June 1999).

207.141.33.19 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Movie Trivia

The Tu-144 appears several times in the 1977 Russian/Georgian film "Mimino", sometimes available on YouTube Santamoly (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Author's Technical Ineptitude

The author of the TU-144 Wikipedia page obviously does not have expertise in aerospace engineering, but does have an obvious bias against the Tupolev 144. The world's first SST to take flight was an experimental aircraft, all of which have deficiencies. Regarding the TU-144's supersonic aerodynamic effficiency, which was superior to Concorde, the figure quoted for the latter is incorrect and may refer to its L/D(max) which is irrelevant to Wikipedia readers. Concorde's supersonic cruise L/D was 7.14, an abysmal figure. Reference for the foregoing is: "Concorde: The Inside Story" by BAC Concorde Chief Test Pilot Brian Trubshaw. Next, the prototype TU-144 and TU-144S were powered by the NK-144 family of afterburning turbofans. Before the 21st century, all supersonic afterburning turbofan powerplants required augmentation, or afterburning, during supersonic cruise! Therefore, the NK-144's employment of afterburning during TU-144's supersonic cruise is not a valid criticism! The NK-144 was in development when the Soviet SST Program was launched and some of that powerplant's deficiencies were known, so therefore an order was issued for the new, non-augmented engine, the RD-36-51A turbojet. It's well to note that the RD-36-51A was modeled on the GE4 and simpler and about 40% more powerful than the Rolls Royce Olympus. The TU-144D's cruise SFC of 1.22-1.26 cannot be compared to Concorde's 1.19 due to the former's longer & wider fuselage, larger wing and other variances, but a primary factor is the engine is producing greater thrust. The Olympus engine was not the wonderful powerplant as reported. According to published figures, Olympus augmented SLST was 38,050 lbs, but Concorde's FAA Type Certificate A45EU reports 37,080 lbs. The engine weight as originally published did not include the complete installation! Concorde required constant, expensive maintenance; the foregoing and low utilization were responsible for the outrageous fares, not fuel cost as often reported. The performance attributed to Concorde in the article is incorrect. The FAA TCDS states maximum certificated operating altitude as 60,000 feet. Concorde was not capable of accommodating the loads for which the TU-144 holds multiple world records, as maximum structural payload was originally 28,000 lbs. The TU-144's maximum cruise speed was Mach 2.35 which was demonstrated in all models. The bottom line is that a fixed-wing SST requires low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio which are features of the Tupolev 144. Concorde was a compromise aircraft for which both of the aforementioned figures of merit were so mediocre that performance was marginal, if not unsafe. Production TU-144 models could takeoff and land without use of their retractable canards. The structural and cooling noise issues could have been been resolved as they involved detail design and manufacturing. The USSR had the world's largest ore deposits used to make titanium, so more of that metal could have been substituted for aluminum if necessary. The final TU-144 aerodynamic configuration of a large, modified double-delta was superior to Concorde and the fuselage seated five abreast, which permitted a greater payload. JTF17A (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The FAA thrust figure for the Olympus 593 is for the engine thrust in reheat at the time the aircraft was certificated in 1976 , and thrust was raised to 38,050 with a 103 % Contingency Rating available for emergencies by the time the aircraft entered service or shortly after. In addition supersonic drag of the airframe was reduced by a significant amount after entering service simply by re-profiling the rudder and elevon trailing edges. Concorde may have had an 'abysmal' L/D figure but it remains the only aircraft ever to be able to cruise at Mach 2 for three hours without reheat, which it routinely did for numerous transatlantic flights.

Concorde prototypes were flown to 68,000 feet to prove the cabin pressurisation and more importantly to demonstrate the ability to descend rapidly should pressurisation fail or a cabin window break. Maximum Rate-of-Descent using two inner thrust reversers was around 10,000 feet per-minute. The addition of a fourth additional air conditioning pack late in development allowed over-capacity making the cabin air able to remain breathable should a window break at altitude.

"... performance was marginal, if not unsafe ... " - Concorde would not have received a Type Certificate if that had been the case, Concorde still being the only commercial SST ever to be awarded one.

Concorde's cruising speed was deliberately chosen to be Mach 2 in order to allow the use of conventional aluminium alloys and so keep the cost of manufacturing low enough for airline customers in a free market to be able to afford to buy it.

Concorde wasn't designed to break records, it was designed to be a supersonic airliner that normal airlines and airports could operate without any special handling measures and which would make a profit for its operators, and it did. British Airways' 7 Concordes generated 25 % of BA's profits from 1987 until 2003 when it was retired. Most passengers loved it. So did the crews, and so did BA, who were working on a life extension programme to allow operation to 2013 when the decision was made to end operation due to Air France dropping out of the Type maintenance contract with Airbus after the Paris crash.

Concorde was operated successfully by two airlines, BA and AF, for 27 years, BA's 7 Concordes carrying over 2 million passengers, AF's slightly fewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)