Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 28 Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
Hello!!
This is my question:
I’ve seen a stunning (to me) photo. I cannot display it here since I do not have a scanner. It was the cover of a collection about airplanes, and:
1.- was credited (copyright owned) by NASA.
2.- The thing was a Tupolev 144, clearly identified on the side of the fuselage as Tu-144 (but with latin letters instead of cyrillic (it should be TY-144)
3.- Carried a large MOCKBA (that's MOSCOW), this time in cyrillic alphabet alogn the fuselage
4.- Its register number was 77114, marked under the wing
5 and most surprising (to me).- On the tail there were the flags of Russia (not the all-red Soviet Union, but the white-blue-red of Russia) and of United States together
Does anybody know what it is, and/or has a scanned picture like this one?
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
A few minutes ago I saw, at airliners.net photoindex, some photos of the reg# 77102, crashed al LBG during the Paris Airshow, and the number 77115 (consecutive of the one I refer to) stored in Russia, but nothing about the 77114.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1207 times:
This was the TU144LL (Letayushaya Laboratoriya - Flying Laboratory) aircraft used by NASA in conjunction with the Russian government for experimental SST flights back in the late '90s. I believe the aircraft was operated on no fewer than 10 flights to test various materials and the affects of supersonic flight. The TU144 used in the tests was taken out of storage from Monino, re-engined and re-furbished. The aircraft was not used for anything more than the experiments, and was taken out of service once again.
The study, I believe, was done towards the development of future supersonic airliner production and flight feasibility. Tests were made involving engineers from NASA and Boeing, but foreigners were not allowed to fly the aircraft. I have some cut-outs from a magazine, showing the rather spectacular landing of the TU144LL, with canards fully deployed, nose down. It looks more rugged than Concorde, more handsome than graceful. Too bad the TU144 was so flawed.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1159 times:
To understand why the Tu-144 was built, you also need to know the historical context in which it came about. At the time it was announced to the public at the 1965 Paris Air Show, it was seen by the Soviet leadership as a direct technical challenge to the Anglo/French Concorde. It was very much in the same manner in which they were competing against the US in the race to the Moon.The Soviet Union could not be seen to be inferior to the West in any area of technology.
As a result of this "race" mentality, the designers were put under enormous political pressure to beat Concorde into the air, the deadline being set for first flight to be before the end of 1968. They did it, just, with the maiden flight taking place on 31 December 1968. However, between 1968 and 1973 the Tu-144 was almost completely redesigned. The production aircraft was virtually a different design and really should have been given a different designation. The aircraft which crashed at the 1973 Paris Air Show was one of the "new" Tu-144's. The aircraft modified for NASA use is also one of these versions.
Does anyone know what happened to the original 1968 prototype and its whereabouts if it still exists?
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Hi all:
I'm not sure about this, but I think that the prototype is stored at the Tupolev aircraft museum near Moscow.
And it wasn't the tu-144's fault that it crashed at the Paris Air show. It was that mirage that was on a collision course with the tu-144, the 144's pilot pushed the 144 down too hard, causing the compression pump to stall. and they almost got the engine back up, but the 144 fell apart cause its stress limation was exceed.
Anyway, I think that if they had not crashed at the PAS, the USSR government would of give more budjet to enhance the tu-144.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 934 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
There was a facinating article in Air Internationl magazine about the TU-144/ NASA program that was in a Spring (I'm sorry, I dont have the issue right in front of me) 1998 issue. It has some great photos and a bit mroe background than the web-site has.
I got the impression that all the engineers, both US and Russian were surprised at how well the aircraft performed. There was no mention as to the "flawed" nature of the TU-144 but that it was hampered (just like the Concorde is) by 1950s engine technology in production models, its high fuel useage and relatively short range for what it was intended to do. It seemed like the re-engined and re-instrumented aircraft was leaps and bounds ahead of the earlier models and incorporated a great deal of new hi-tech components.
The article also notes that there is only one other potentially airworthy TU-144 left, parked along with the rest of the fleet in Zhukovsky, the others are a lost cause.
Dnalor From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
I must say that's the first I have heard about a engine stall, all the articles I have read on that Paris Airshow crash stated that one of the canards failed due to the pilot over stressing the aircraft as part of the display flight
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
As I read it, the article said the the second stage turbine pump stall due to when the pilot pushed the plane too hard towards the ground, the aerodynamics of the delta wing, pushed all the air above the wing, But the compresser needs the air to be driven, so causing a stall, if only the plane had been above 10,000feet, it would have enough time to push air back into the turbines, and be able to restart the engines.
Also on that articie, it explain why it would not happen to the Concorde, due to it's leading edge wings, being able to redirect the air back to the bottom of the wing.
The article was on a web site, sorry I lossed the link. Anyway, I really think that if it haden't crash at PAS, it would be superior to the Concorde, sad.
Silverstreak From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 281 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1125 times:
On a NOVA PBS TV presentation, they reported the truth about the Tu-144 crash. According to the report, the French were very interested in the operation of the Tu-144s' canards. They had a Mirage fighter tail the Russian SST to observe the planes' maneuvers.The fighter got too close and the Russian pilot tried to avoid the Mirage only to put the Tupolevs' engines' out and the fuselage to brake-up. The 144 fell into a small village and several people on the ground were killed(also the Russian crew). There was a cover-up that had the Russian captain "showing-off" with the 144 and that he had put his plane beyond its' limits.Only until recently has the truth come out about this tragedy due to the agreement of the French and Russian governments. It seems to me the Tu-144 never had a chance to succeed due to political interference - Russian and otherwise.
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1118 times:
Are you sure that is was not another tv show making up stories trying to get ratings? If not, the Russian crew has to be pretty stupid to override the engine limation systems(that was pretty high-tech for it's time) which monitor the engines condition, and not to let it go through the limit, and the only way the pilot to override the system is to not respond to the system's command 3 time in a row. And under what condition would the Captain "show-off" his plane with engines out, and less than 1000 feet?( The 144 only broke up at aboyut 500feet)
I don't think that I would go too far into politics, but if the Russians really want to compete with France and British, than it would of put more funding into the research of the 144, making it better.
Silverstreak From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 281 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1106 times:
I agree with you 400er about television programs with alot of sensationalized content. One exception though in my opinion is the NOVA series on the PBS network. Their reports are factual and the program on the Tu-144 crash was excellent. The program presented all sorts of data that illustrated how the Mirage contributed to the demise of the Tu-144 and its' crew. I also agree with you about not enough money going to the development of the Tu-144. Equally contributing to the woes of the project was Breshnevs' government interference in the aircraft development time and that the Tu-144 should beat Concorde at all costs. A good read about the Tu-144 is a book titled "Soviet SST - The Techno-Politics of the Tu-144" by Howard Moon. I have always found the Tu-144 an interesting subject and when it was used by NASA, I was glad that in a way the plane was sort of vindicated in the end.
767-400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1105 times:
The reason that NASA/Boeing used the Tu-144 instead of the Concorde dor testing is how the shape of the wing compared to the Concorde's wing. I dont have a picture of the wing's format of the Tu-144, but its a much different type of delta wing then sued by the Concorde. I guess NASA felts that the wing was a better type of delta wing. I doubt the Tu-144 as "inferior". But another reason I think is to increase relations with America and Russia.
Starship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
Here are all the pictures you wanted.
Flight Tests Began With Russian SST Roll-Out: A modified Russian supersonic passenger jet was rolled out of its hangar at the Zhukovsky airfield in March 1996 to symbolize the start of a joint six-month flight research program between NASA, a U.S. industry team and the Russian aeronautics establishment.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
In 1988 the Soviet Union sent two Mig 29 Fulcrum fighters to the Farnborough Air Show. It was the first visit of the type to a Western air display (not including an earlier Mig 29 visit to a Finnish Air Base). On the day they arrived, I was "spotting" at Blacbushe airfield, which is about 3 miles from Farnborough airfield. I heard jet engines above me and looked up to see a Canberra bomber scudding through the low clouds. Months later I was talking to an aquaintance and he told me that the Canberra was being used to take infra-red photos of the two Mig 29's which had just landed at Farnborough and were sitting on the apron just outsude "A" Shed. This "spying" activity (which is genuinely true) lends a degree of credibility to the Mirage / Tu-144 story.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 28 Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
Starship:
THANKS A LOT!!! Great photos
Megatop:
I you the site you suggested: (but “lerc” domain is off use). Whoever wants to enjoy it, go ahead. It's very interesting: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/HSR/TU144/Tu-144.html
Thanks a lot to you too!!!
Sponsor Message: 
From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4744 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5255 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 1999, 335 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 369 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
