Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde Vs Concordski?  
User currently offlineAerlingus330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11603 times:

Which one do you prefer... The Anglo-French Concode or the Russian Tu-144?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Powell



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Allan



AerLingus330


Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11586 times:

In what aspect?Looks? performance?

Mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlineACdreamliner From UK - Scotland, joined May 2005, 520 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11583 times:

Concordski, I think it looks alot more macho, would have love to have flown one, of only that french mirage fighter hadn't dived infront of it at the paris air show all those years ago.

bit ironic is it not that both 'corcorde' crashes happend in paris dont u think???



Where are you going?
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7653 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11570 times:

The TU-144, hands down. I mean just look at it...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong


It looks like the way a SST should.



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMH017 From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11563 times:

Tupolev TU-144: prefer the looks of the engines closer together than the duo-set of Concorde's, especially from the rear as the photo of ACDC8/Peter de Jong shows  Wink


don't throw away tomorrow !
User currently offlineAerlingus330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11532 times:

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 1):
In what aspect?Looks? performance?

Whichever you normally base your opinons on...lol

AerLingus330



Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300
User currently offlineAeroVodochody From Czech Republic, joined Feb 2005, 540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11523 times:

Tu-144, Faster, more powerful, and better looking, with a range of only about 60mi. less than Concorde  bigthumbsup  Sucks that we won't be seeing more of them....  Sad


Try not to be jealous, we can't all be Czech.
User currently offlineAn225 From Israel, joined May 2005, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11510 times:

Probably the Tu-144, since it has such a great look and appeal.
I wonder if it is comfortable to fly in it. Based on the Russian record of back-breaking seats (Tu-154, Yak-42, etc.) I am not sure it is comfortable. Also, I heard that during the few flights that it flew, the passengers were using ear plugs given to them by the crew. The air-condition and the engines made such a loud noise that it was not avoidable.

What do you think?


Cheers,

Uzi


User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3768 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11509 times:

I think:

Concorde - Is the female version and is more sleak!

Concorski - Is the male version pure power and toughness!

This has no resemblance to real life male and females btw  Wink

Rob!


User currently offlineHorizonGirl From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11455 times:

I like the Concorde in terms on performance and successes.
I like the Concordski's appearance better.
When I was around 5, I did not know the name of the Tupolev Tu-144, so I
just called it the Concorde with puppydog ears.  Embarrassment

Devon



Flying high on the Wings of the Great Northwest!
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11443 times:

In the long haul plane tournament I think concorde won by 20-1 votes !!!


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11435 times:

Def TU-144.But the Concorde was more Successful.  Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAeroVodochody From Czech Republic, joined Feb 2005, 540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11424 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 10):
In the long haul plane tournament I think concorde won by 20-1 votes !!!

Hehe.... yeah that was my one vote Big grin I guess the Tu-144 isn't as well known... but I think its the better A/C performancewise, eventhough it most likely isnt as comfy as the Concorde  Wink



Try not to be jealous, we can't all be Czech.
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7653 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11418 times:

I voted for the Concorde in the other thread. I never really paid attention to the TU-144 until this thread. But I have to admit I like it somewhat more.

I guess that'll teach me to take a bit more time in a vote next time ...  Big grin

[Edited 2005-06-07 17:56:31]


A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineMADtoCAE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11402 times:

Concorde
Period.
Off topic: are there any TU-144 safety cards out there?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11353 times:

Hate to break it to you all, but TU-144's performance was poor compared to Concorde, forget brochures, consider real life.

TU-144 needed to retain reheat in supercruise, so poor range, worse still with pax. Concorde was efficient in supercruise, TU-144 was not.

No reliable intake system so lots of engine unstarts and other nasties (they were so desperate they even asked for Concorde's system. Made by BAC's Guided Weapons Division, during the Cold War too)!

Poor aerodynamics compared to Concorde, poor wing design leading to extensive redesign to incorporate retractable canards, big weight penalty there.

Poor engine intake config, another big redesign needed.

Bad cabin noise, on the handful of 'commercial' flights inside USSR pax seating next to each other needed to write notes to communicate.

Bad cabin vibration.

But that won't sway people, I know this.

But consider, it is the late 70's, Cold War on, US has dropped out of the SST game after the failure of the B2707.
The USSR would love to rub the US nose in it, imagine TU-144's into JFK, a better image than IL-62 against 747's, DC-10's, L1011's.
Or for the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
So, Moscow via Shannon, then on to Cuba and/or JFK.

In reality, no much more than 100 or so internal USSR flights, some with pax, most with mail.
Really little more a pre service set of proving flights.

Why did the service beyond the USSR I described above never happen? What a great stick it to the US PR opportunity it would have been.
Because the damn thing was too risky to put overwater, too unreliable, SNN-JFK range capability? Only with none or very few pax.
A dead duck after 1978, but it was one of Brezenev's (SP?) pet projects, so only finally and formally axed after he was dead and buried.

A brave attempt by an otherwise the great Tupolev design team, (what a beauty the TU-114 propliner was), but this time they had too little time (started in 1963), too little money, too many irrational goals (like have it flying before Concorde AT ALL COSTS).
In fact, it was just like the N1 Moon Rocket, compared to the Saturn V.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Concorde Vs B-1B Which Is Louder posted Sat Apr 15 2006 20:08:06 by 747400sp
Concorde Vs Concordski? posted Sun Jun 5 2005 00:26:13 by Aerlingus330
Vulcan Vs Concorde? posted Fri May 27 2005 00:25:48 by Aerlingus330
AA VS UA posted Wed Nov 15 2006 08:53:48 by Joffie
Boeing 737-800 Vs Airbus 320 - Which Is Smoother? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 05:03:17 by Biddleonia007
Cathay Pacific Vs Virgin Atlantic posted Wed Nov 8 2006 16:15:42 by RB211-524H
Why The Fuss Between Widebody Vs. Narrowbody? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 03:29:37 by HPLASOps
GE Vs. Rolls-Royce Engines? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 04:24:19 by Freedom747
Airbus Vs Boeing Over The Pond posted Tue Oct 31 2006 03:30:21 by QXatFAT
VS Vs BA posted Thu Oct 19 2006 17:28:33 by Anirudhvs