Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
User currently offlineJeremy Head From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (16 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 826 times:

Can anyone help me? I'm a researcher for a UK TV breakfast show called the Big Breakfast. Every day we have a feature called "Vital Statistics" - a slightly wacky look at the numbers relating to all manner of subjects. I need to come up[ with some unusual numbers for Concorde - I'm also interested in the Russian attempt at supersonic passenger transport the TU144. Any mad numbers out there? eg
Number of parts that fall off Concorde a year?
Total cost of one concorde and number of years it would need to be in service to re-coup that cost ? ( I know itwould take ages if R&D costs were included!)
Espionage - I gather that the Russians actually stole the blueprints to develop the TU144 - what percentage of the plans did they steal?
Any other mad stats would be cool - I can't promise you a name check but hey you might see your info on UK TV!
PS I need this within the next 2 days!!!

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineA1ex From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (16 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 824 times:

What do u mean Russians stole the idea from BAe and Aerospatiale? Didn't hear anything about that.

According to the thing I read in "AIR Pictorial" and rumours heard in Russia, the Tu-144 crash during LeBourget AviaShow was set up. Apparently, Tu-144 hit the ground coz of a lame PanAvia Tornado fighter that was about to collide with Tu-144 and that Russian pilots had to perform the dive in order to avoid it. Concorde developers were trying to get rid of the russian competitor that way.

After all, you would get completely different views of the story from Russia and Europe. Everyone thinks that they have the correct facts right. And nobody hell knows what really hapenned.
I'm not that sure about numbers but Tu-144 was FASTER than Concorde. And currently one Tu-144 prototype is being used by in US for Super Sonic Transport (SST) studies. Also, Gulfstream Aviation were reported to have teamed up with Russian Labs for the development of the first Super-Sonic business jet (Carlos & XXX, Management Information Systems, 1993).

Zmey Gorynich and other russians over there: tell them that Russia didn't steal the Concorde plans... I'm fed up hearing during my stay in UK that most of Russian planes designs were actually stolen from the West and that Russians are pathetic in everything... That's just not right.

User currently offlineflyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 824 times:

I do know that the Russian designers took airport personnel out to dinner to get landing gear debris from them.

The Paris accident happened like this. A Frence Mirage III (I belive a recon bird) was sent up a few minutes before the Tu-144 took off to take pics. The Tu-144 saw the Mirage III come though the coulds for an instant during the show and pulled violently up. All four engines stalled out, and they went into a dive to restart. They got too much speed and lost too much altitude in the ive and pulled up again. I belive that the aircraft had a catastrophic structures failure. It then crashed. The Mirage III was taken out of all new reports and the story was changed to save all the English/Frence/US peoples butts. The Mirage was only set up to take pics of the Tu-144 in detail, not to cause it to crash.

Heres a well known fact, you can takeoff from LHR and arrive in JFK before you took off (time zone changes).

The concorde rises 2000ft during cruise because of fuel loss.

The concorde shifts fuel to the rear tanks of the aircraft during flight to maintain balance.

I am not sure about this, but I think that the Concorde actually streches during flight (a few inches?), but I may be wrong.

Another well known fact: Its nose changes pitch to allow visibility of the flight crew during takeoff and landing.

The Concorde, it carries less passengers and does not have as much range as a common B737-700.

Chris Barrow - I might have some more facts later, I currently don't have any books with me. I am sitting a super old Mac in my High School's Libary during 3rd Period.

User currently offlineflyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (16 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 824 times:

During cruise, the adverage temp. for the fusealage of the Concorde is 248'F (120'C), because of the friction at mach 2.2

Chris Barrow

User currently offlineAviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (16 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 824 times:

Very good Fly1F15.
Also, the leading edges of the delta wing glow red from the friction heat at cruise speeds.
Yes, the aircraft does expand during supersonic flight.
Its the only modern airliner with afterburners.
Also, it wouldnt be the first time Soviet agents came by the plans through industrial espionage.
They built the Mig29 Fulcrum after getting a close up look at an F14 years ago in Iran after the death of the Shah. Look at the Mig 29 and you will see F14 wrtten all over the design.
Here is one for you. The Concorde lounge at JFK will be closed for 9 months for renovations. LOL

User currently offlineA1ex From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 824 times:

...if Russians stole F14 Tomcat design, how come MiG29 is a way better fighter than F14?? Don't you think the original developers would get their plane better, if they're so smart to get the design first?

You see, again, different sides have different stories and justifications... Where's the truth?

Yep, Concorde expands, as well as The BlackBird SR-71.

Carries around 100 passengers.

Yes, u land before u take off :).

After all, if need numbers go to British Airways's site, about Concorde. They have them.

User currently offlinePaul From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 374 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (16 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 824 times:

The reason the TU-144 never flew before or more was because it was a far more advanced aircraft then the Concorde. Right now Boeing is leasing the TU-144 and is redesiging its systems. This plane could be the most important design for Airbus to shoot down, because this could put an end to Airbus's competitiveness.


Veni, vidi, vici.
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (16 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I'm sorry but I don't see the F14 wrtten all over the design of MiG29.

Mig29 is a single seat fighter (F16, F18 class), F14 is a two seat interceptor shipboard fighter.
MiG29 weight empty aprox. is 8175Kg, F14 empty is aprox. 19050Kg
MiG29's wings don't move like the wings of the F14.

Faro, Portugal

User currently offlinejr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 974 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (16 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 824 times:

How about this for the environmentally conscious : The Concorde's engines though very powerful still generated very high levels of nitrous oxides and other exhaust gases.

19 concordes were built of which 13 are still in service with
Air France and BA.

Country: Great Britain/France
Manufacturer: British Aircraft Corporation/Aerospatiale
Designation: Concorde
Type: Commercial Transport
Service Dates: 1977 to present
Length: 203'-9"
Wingspan: 83'-10"
Height: 37'-5"
Empty Weight: 173,500 lbs
Gross Weight: 408,000 lbs
Maximum Speed: 1,354 mph
Maximum Range: 4,090 miles
Maximum Altitude: 60,000 ft
Number of Crew: 3 + 100 passengers
Engine Type: Turbojet
Engine Manufacturer: Rolls-Royce SNECMA
Engine Designation: Olympus x 4
Engine Thrust: 38,050 lbs

I've flown on 9V-SPK.
User currently offlineCool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (16 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 825 times:

Couple of things.

First of all, Jeremy, why dont you just ask British Airways (like Paul suggests), I'm sure they can give you som good numbers on the plane.

Secondly, nobody really knows if Russia stole blueprints or not. Or who is to say that the French and the British didn't steal Russian plans ? Then again, it's not at all inconceivable that two independant design teams come up with more or less the same end result, especially if it's being designed in the same era.

Also, I doubt it very much that the leading edge of the concords wing actually glow due to the heat increase. As somebody mentioned, the temperature increases to about 120 degrees C, which isn't nearly enough to accomplish this.

Furthermore (being a bit nitpicky here), the increase in temperature is largely due to the air being compressed by the approaching plane rather than the friction of the air over the surface.

Then one last thing, about the MiG-29 design being taken from the F-14. The thing that they have in common is that they both are twin engined fighters with a twin tail design (they aren't even the same size). So is the F-15, which was designed to counter for the MiG-25, which (surprise!) has the same general lay-out. So why aren't we all saying that the F-15 was copied from the Mig-25 ? Who's to say ?

User currently offlineA330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (16 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 824 times:

actually, nearly all Russian fighter designs are more advanced in terms of aeronautics than western countreparts. Their navigational equipment though is far behind...
Russia did not "steal" western designs as often as is presumed,I think

User currently offlineflyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (16 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 825 times:

Hi Cool Cat,

I, being an F-15 expert (at least I think so), know why the MiG-25 and F-15 are similar in shape. That is the necessary and most feasible (in the late 60s) shape for the role the aircraft will play. Also, even though the shape is similar, the aircraft are very different. The MiG-25 contains large amounts of steel, while the F-15 has titainum and composites instead.

The MiG-25 was mainly designed to be an high speed high altitude interceptor with a very fast dash speed (mach 3+)

At the time the F-15 was designed, the US government thought that the MiG-25 was a super manuverable, efficent, no frills dog fighter, so the USAF wanted something even better than what they thought the MiG-25 was. So, the F-15 was designed to be a super fighter that could take out the MiG-25. It became such a good fighter, because when it came to designing the F-15, there was no expense spared. But, it was later learned that the MiG-25 was not a fighter, but a high speed high altitude fighter, and the F-15 was left with nothing that could even come close to its capibilities. Designers are just now comming out with planes that can come close to the F-15, but the F-15 was designed more that 25 years ago! It also has never lost a dog fight, and has shot down more than a few MiG-25s.

User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (16 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 824 times:

that was the collest show I would whatch it all the time when I lived in England. It was in that house.
That is to cool

User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (16 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 824 times:

The concorde stretches 1 foot. ANd the nose goes down 12.5 degrees. there is alot of confict in this forum right now. I would only takes the solid facts from here. ALso the oily rags that said go to BA they are not going to tell some one who will be on TV about parts falling of the plane.

User currently offlineAviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (16 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 824 times:

Alex, Id say you have it backwards. The second design is always better because you improve on the original design.
As for the Mig 29 being a "way" better fighter. I wouldnt be so fast to bet against the skill of a Naval aviator and his Tomcat.
Think about it.

User currently offlineflyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (16 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 824 times:

This is with pilots of equal ability at using their aircraft.

In a dogfight between 2 F-15Es in AA config and 2 MiG-29s. I give the F-15Es a 100% kill rate.

Between 2 F-14s and 2 MiG-29s, I would give the MiG-29 a better chance because of its advanced targeting system and the F-14s lower manuverabilty.

I have seen a mock dogfight between 2 USMC F/A-18s (I belive similar in performace to MiG-29) and 2 USN F-14s. Those F-14s were dead before they even knew it.

User currently offlineAviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (16 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 824 times:

But, I said............. would you bet against the Tomcats??
Dont forget, pilot skill has alot to do with it.
The US Naval aviator in my opinion is the finest aviator in the world.
Now, how much would you like to bet against the Tomcats????? LOL
There is no such thing as equal. There is a victor and a shot down loser. lol
Now how much??.............. lol

User currently offlineflyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (16 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I'll bet $.1, thats all I can afford. So, when you were in the navy, what did you fly? I have talked to many people in the Navy, and the F-14 is on its way out. It will be replaced by the F/A-18E/F. If it was good enough to counter current threats, why are they getting rid of it?

OK, instead of equal pilots, the best F-14 pilot (and RIO) in the world vs. the best MiG-29 pilot is the world. The MiG-29 pilot would win, but it would be some fight.

At Topgun (NAS Miramar), the instructors use MiG-29s and fight against the F-14s. I would like to see a tally for wins and losses in those fights, because it will probably never happen when an F-14 is put up against an even qualified MiG-29 pilots, so for the F-14, all of their actual dog fights will be like shooting fish in a barrel. But, if they ever get in a dogfight with a Russian or possibly Chinesse pilot in a MiG-29. I think the MiG would win.

It all really comes down to the pilots though. I bet that a F-86 could deep six an MiG-29 if the MiG pilot was not very good and the F-86 pilot was very good.

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (16 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I don't think the F14 is on its way out.

The F14D represents the second stage in a two-stage upgrade of the F14A of wich 557 delivered to US Navy. The first stage was the F14A (Plus), re-engined with the F110. The F14D has some 60% new avionics, APG-71 radar, ASN-139 digital navigation and secure datalink.

But in fact, the production line ended in 1993 (sorry if I'm wrong)
"Go ahead, make my day..."

Faro, Portugal

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9638 posts, RR: 41
Reply 19, posted (16 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I was under the impression that the Concorde stretches by 6 inches in
flight - that's more of a Big Breakfast statistic.

Apologies to anyone who hasn't a clue what The Big Breakfast is - it's
my alarm clock every morning.

PS Love the show - where's Denise?

User currently offlineScott From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (16 years 12 months 15 hours ago) and read 826 times:

What nobody has mentioned,is that the F-14 with the Pheonix missile(150 Mi. range from an altitude),Would take out the Mig-29 long before The mig pilot even saw the F-14 on his radar.(Let's not forget that the F-14 has more that one Pheonix incase of a mis.)

User currently offlineSpeed Demon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (16 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 824 times:

Good going Scott. Not only that the US Naval aviator is by far and away the finest trained killer in the air.
I agree with Alex that the Mig 29 is a superb fighter.
Im not saying its not. What I am saying is that I wouldnt be so fast to count the naval aviator and his Tomcat out. Forget that top gun crap from the movies too. If I was a Soviet pilot sent to attack a US aircraft carrier, id be mighty worried about those Tomcats.

User currently offlineaviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (16 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I agree with you on some things. However, Im sure Im alot older than you are and I remember well what a sophisticated and far reaching Intelligence service the Soviets had.
They made the Germas of WWII look pale by comparison.
The Soviets spent billions on industrial espionage alone. Their military intelligence service (GRU)
were able to penetrate the highest levels of foreign services with moles, operatives and a collection of electronic information gathering systems.
Im not saying the Soviets copied the F14 exact down to every rivet, but they were able to gather valuable
information that saved them years and millions in R&D.
This was their aim. Not to steal or copy a design but to gather enough information that would save the long lead time in developing fighter aircraft.
Ill bet you anyone in the intelligence service will tell you that at one time in the late 70's to mid-80's the Soviets were the undisputed kings of intelligence gathering.

User currently offlineFreddy From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (16 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 825 times:

Dear American Friends,

I'm amused to hear your discussions over how the "evil Russians" weren't capable of creating their own aircraft but used their Intelligence service to steal American and European blueprints.

I'm sure that would sound reasonable to anyone that base their opinions on what they have seen in movies like Top Gun, Rambo, Rocky or any other of the thousands of American movies made during the eighties perpetrating Russians as evil and stupid.

I'm sorry to have to brake the news to you guys but movies are just that, movies. The widespread American fear of Communism during the last thirty years lead the movie industry to create pure propaganda films with the US as the good guys and Russians as the evil.

Yes, Russia had a powerful Intelligence service. But so did the US and the UK. We have no proof of anyone stealing blueprints from someone else so we'll just end that discussion.

US pilots better than Russian? Lets see...Is it fair to assume that the Russians trained as much as the Americans? I think so and I'm sure you'll agree.
Then what? Is Americans of some better race that makes them better pilots? I doubt that as well. So if you don't happen to own some yet unpublished test between all Russian and American pilots I'd say we'll end this discussions as well.

US have better planes than the Russians? Yes, the very latest models of the American fighters are better than the Russian I dare to say with the economic situation in Russia and so on. But we're not discussing the latest models we're talking about the F-14, MIG-29 and similar.
This discussion needs a lot of factual statements as well as very high knowledge of the different aircraft types. I do not have that knowledge and nether do you. Yes, you might have seen Top Gun and the F-14 is simply a much better aircraft then it's Russian counterpart in that movie.
But if you stop screaming and waiving the starts and stripes for a minute and instead try to use your free mind you'll hopefully see my point. It's childish to base your opinions on movies or even what country an aircraft was built in.

A true aviator would base his opinions on facts alone and never claim that one aircraft is better than the other. One aircraft might be better than the other on a specific area but there is no aircraft that's best on everything.

Thank you,

Fred Carlsson
United Kingdom

User currently offlineCool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (16 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 824 times:

I like you Freddy ! Keep up the good work.

25 A1ex : ...someone finally clears things up. Thanks Fred! Yes, we cannot judge pilots skill just by determining whether they're US' or Russia's. You cannot sa
26 CX747 : The facts hurt Freddy. The facts are that most U.S. warplanes outperform and outduel Russian built aircraft. The facts are that the F-14 Tomcat and th
27 Scott : This is not over cock swinging patriotism,nor the movies.As CX747mentioned,the FACTS hurt,and they do.The F-14 radar can track 36 targets simultainiou
28 A1ex : People, do even know what Russians have in their amunition? Ah? Russia won't probably announce all their projects on TV like US does...so I'd SHUT thi
29 Freddy : Pathatic. That's what this is. Obviosly this Scott and CX747 haven't understood anything of what I wrote. There's no point arguing with childern. Fred
30 Cool Cat IIIc : Freddy I agree that they have completely missed the point, which is a shame. One thing I would like to add to all of this (although I should know bett
31 Scott : To Cool Cat IIIc:Sure,I'll admit,almost all of it may be riding on the qualities of the pilot.To Freddy:Quit whining!
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...
UK Space Program Dropped For Concorde posted Wed Nov 1 2006 22:56:07 by Leezyjet
Concorde's Bad Safety Record posted Wed Nov 1 2006 21:16:24 by B741
NYC Concorde posted Wed Nov 1 2006 18:20:58 by CVG2LGA
Any Footage Of Concorde Doing A Barrel Roll? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 19:57:38 by Gh123
Prototype Concorde's At Museums In 70s? True posted Sat Oct 28 2006 19:19:50 by Soundtrack
Concorde Landing Kai Tak (Video) posted Tue Oct 24 2006 01:42:39 by HighFlyer9790
Concorde In KWI? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 19:48:19 by 777boi
Concorde "French Keep Concorde Hopes Alive" posted Fri Oct 20 2006 00:41:19 by Trekster
Concorde - Well You Never Know? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 14:48:50 by DHHornet
Concorde Schedules For IAD posted Tue Oct 10 2006 21:10:56 by TranStar