With the reitrement of Concorde just a couple of days ago i've begun wondering why it lasted for so long and the TU-144 didn't. I know a lot had to do with the 1974 Paris Airshow crash but is that the only reason? How come no other airlines besides Aeroflot ever purchased it? Imagine if more of the Eastern bloc airlines had purchased it, supersonic travel would probably still be commonplace today. So did Tupolev ever receive any orders for the TU-144 from any other airlines besides Aeroflot or did they have no intention of selling it to anyone else? And pricewise how much did a brand new TU-144 cost compared to a new Concorde?


Thanks

Well for one thing, the Tu-144 didn't start out as a passenger jet - it originally flew from Moscow to Alma-Alta with cargo and mail in '75 and it wasn't until nearly 2 years later that passenger service opened up. From the get-go, the aircraft were plagued by mechanical problems and the Tu-144 had problems even maintaining its one flight per week schedule. Then, in '78, there was another crash (that AFAIK killed everyone onboard) and was withdrawn from passenger service a week later.

So why didn't the Tu-144 catch on elsewhere? The rails have always been the preferred method of travel in Russia and with an extensive rail service throughout the Eastern Bloc, train was a preferred method of travel for the average Russian citizen travelling both in and out of the USSR due in part to the pricing. Any other reasons would be greatly appreciated.

Neither were successful in any economic sense.

In a nutshell, it did not work.
(Surely if it had the USSR would have used it on international routes for maximum PR effect).
Discussed here;
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1206606/

It says a lot about SSC technology of the times when the TU-144 didn't make economic sense under the old Soviet model. Plus it would have helped if there was a Soviet equivilant to LHR/CDG-JFK in terms of prestige and yield... as opposed to flying mail really really fast to Kazakistan.

View Large View Medium Photo © Yevgeny Pashnin

View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Pritchard

What were they thinking when they put those seats in on the TU-144?

The above link provides mostly excellent information however there are some myths:

"Had multiple crashes on Russian Domestic Flights" // Not really true, it just made an emergency landing in open Marshland in Jegoriewskiem. 2 of the 8 crew were killed.

"Unlike Concorde, afterburners had to be used throughout the flight" // True for the original models, however Kolesov RD-36-51A engines which equipped Tu-144Ds were more powerful and more efficient permitting supersonic cruise without the use of afterburners.

Jeremiah

BTW there was an excellent article about the Tu-144 in the October issue of Airliner World. Well worth a read for anyone interested in the aircraft.

Jeremiah

[Edited 2003-10-27 15:30:27]

Hi Aa757first,

We shouldn't be harsh on the TU-144 interior, it was probably designed in the 70s while the Concorde had regular interior upgrades.

I realize though that the TU-144 has a 3x2 seat configuration. Intresting.

The fact that it was designed and built during the throes of the Cold War has a lot to do with it. Much of what the Soviet Union cranked out was of marginal quality unless it was directed at the War effort. And any potential customers of this plane were on the opposite side of the Soviet Union from a political/war standpoint, so that didn't help.

>>>Then, in '78, there was another crash (that AFAIK killed everyone onboard)

>>>Not really true, it just made an emergency landing in open Marshland in Jegoriewskiem. 2 of the 8 crew were killed.

According to the usually very reliable aviation-safety.net, everybody on board (3 crew) were killed and the a/c was lost.

Daniel

Daniel,

Well thinking about it, wouldn't a test flight have had more than 3 people on board? There are already a minimum of 4 flight crew.

But yes, after a landing in Marshland, I am quite sure the plane itself was lost.

Jeremiah

Didn't the Russians and NASA get together and pull a TU-144 out for a series of flights about 10 years ago? Does anyone know if these flights were supersonic?

@Richierich: For more information on those flights:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html

and

http://www.moninoaviation.com/tu144llupdate.html

[Edited 2003-10-27 16:24:11]

the average Russian citizen travelling both in and out of the USSR due in part to the pricing

The average Russian citizen wasn't allowed to go beyond Soviet borders period. That was the law in the USSR back then.

There was an article in a Toronto newspaper this weekend re: Concorde. The author, a usually very knowledgeable and respected foreign affairs correspondent, made at least one mistake by claiming Concorde was never profitable, while BA claimed to have made Concorde profitable in the 90s.

As for the TU-144, he said that British Intelligence were informed that KGB agents were trying to get plans for the SST, so they essentially planted false documents misleading the weight and balance statistics, and rendering the Soviet build SST useless... Sounds a bit outlandish, but I doubt he made it all up...

klik

OK maybe they copied some from Concorde but I'm not getting into that. The aircraft have differences. Did Airbus copy the 737? Let's hope not but similar problems lead to similar solutions. If you wanna solve a math problem you could solve it various ways and yet end up with the same solution. And btw air travel wasn't expensive at all. My grandpa told me that a ticket by train from Moscow to St. Petersburg was 12 rubles while a plane ticket was 14.

Actually, BA made Concorde, once free of government fully, very profitable from 1983-4 right through to 2000, otherwise Concorde would not have survived BA being privatized in the mid 1980s.
We were operationally profitable after the 2001 relaunch, but the limited service we provided could make only so much, (limited as we had a hostile Director Of Engineering from late 2001), then as more maintenance requirements emerged (some of which were not even directly Concorde related) and AF had to bail out for a number of reasons, both technical and marketing related, that was the end.
A more pro-Concorde Engineering management would have put more pressure on Airbus to provide support for BA into 2004, while accepting that AF finishing did mean the end of the BA operation sooner rather than later, that's always been understood as a reality.

The TU-144 attempted to get around areas that the USSR could not match technology wise.
Spying may have happened, but probably to confirm that the basic configuration for Concorde was the one, with no 'plan B' if it was found not to be viable.
Boeing eventually had a 'plan C' with the 2707, as the first two swing wing configurations were found not to be practical.

However, would you like to travel in a SST that had no real method for controlling the variable intakes (so surges must have been a problem), had an air con system so bulky and loud that pax needed ear defenders (as unlike Concorde the fuel was not used for a heat sink), landed too fast, had problems with fuel transfer to maintain trim as the C.G. moved aft and a host of other serious limitations.
That was the TU-144.

>>>Then, in '78, there was another crash (that AFAIK killed everyone onboard)

>>>Not really true, it just made an emergency landing in open Marshland in Jegoriewskiem. 2 of the 8 crew were killed.

According to the usually very reliable aviation-safety.net, everybody on board (3 crew) were killed and the a/c was lost.
___________________________________________

Well thinking about it, wouldn't a test flight have had more than 3 people on board? There are already a minimum of 4 flight crew.


aviation-safety.net is wrong in this case. Of a minimum 4 flight crew 2 were killed. The aircraft, of course, was lost, but it was not a crash like both those in Paris (in 1973 and 2000) - it was an emergency landing.

Very interesting interior photo. The seats are absolutely the same as on any other Soviet airliner before Il86 (those were not much different either). Five abreast, but the aircraft was only 40 cm wider than Concorde - quite cramped, I'd say.

The average Russian citizen wasn't allowed to go beyond Soviet borders period. That was the law in the USSR back then. - not correct. Technically, any Soviet citizen might go abroad but only having invitation, or in a tourist group, or for a business trip - meaning, it had to be "organized", you couldn't just buy ticket, get passport and go. Plus, having passport is not enough: to cross the border every next time you must get an outgoing visa (one that allows you to leave your country)! Still, not the same as "a law not allowing to go abroad"...

Why wasn't the TU-144 as successful as the Concorde?


Hmm.....

What makes you think the concorde was successful, eh?

......becuase Concorde flew for 27 years, and proved that reliable supersonic commercial transport could be achieved, day-in, day-out......from the depths of the European winter to the most balmy of summer evenings. Concorde made supersonic travel routine. That is her finest achievement.