WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2829 posts, RR: 73 Posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 31030 times:
For some time I have meaning to start a tribute to various airplanes which I believe had a great impact on commercial aviation. For my first tribute I have chosen the Tupolev 144.
The Tupolev Tu-144 was a supersonic transport (SST) constructed under management of the Soviet Tupolev design bureau headed by Alexei Tupolev.
Building of the first prototype of TU-144 ("044") was started in 1965. Simultaneously the second prototype was being built for static tests. Prototype "044" was initially intended for 98 passengers, later on this number was increased to 120. Correspondingly design take-off weight was increased from 130 tones to 150 tones. The prototype was built at "Opyt" Plant. In 1967 main aircraft components assembly was completed. In late 1967 the "044" prototype was moved to Zhukovskiy where the aircraft was being added with lack parts during all year 1968.
In late 1968 the "044" prototype (side No.68001) was prepared for the first flight. The flight crew was assigned as follows: test pilot E. Yelian , co-pilot -- M.Kozlov, leading test engineer V.Benderov and flight engineer Y. Seliverstov. In view of novelty and uncommonness of the new machine the Design Bureau began extraordinary approach: it was first time when prototype passenger aircraft was provided with ejection crew seats. During whole month they performed engines running, rolling, final ground checks of the systems. From the end of December , 1968, the machine was completely ready to perform the first flight. And finally on the last day of 1968 "044" lifted-off in Zhukovskiy for the first time and rapidly climbed. The first flight lasted for 37 minutes.
According to flight crew the aircraft proved to be flexible and easily piloted. The first flight became the vent of world-wide importance and main milestone in history of Russian and International aviation. It was the first flight of Soviet supersonic passenger aircraft, and it had achieved this two months before the Concorde would take to the skies on March 2 1969.
The development of the Tu-144 is said to be closely related to industrial espionage against the French company Aérospatiale, which was developing Concorde, although the Tu-144 flew first. The similarity of the Tu-144 to the Franco-British supersonic aircraft was superficially very great, but the differences in the control, navigation, and engine systems were dramatic. Another significant difference is that the Tu-144 wing did not have the complex curves found on that of Concorde, instead using small retractable canard surfaces to manoeuvre at low speeds.
At the Paris Air Show on June 3, 1973, the development program suffered a severe blow when the first Tu-144S production aircraft (reg 77102) crashed. While in the air it undertook a violent downwards manoeuvre. Trying to pull out of the subsequent dive, the plane broke up and crashed, destroying 15 houses and killing all six on board and eight on the ground. Unfortunately this would not be the last time in which the Tu-144 would suffer an accident.
The Tu-144S went into service on December 26, 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata in preparation for passenger services, which commenced in November 1977 and ran a semi-scheduled service until the first Tu-144D experienced an in-flight failure during a pre-delivery test flight, and crash-landed with crew fatalities on May 23, 1978. The Aeroflot flight on June 1, 1978 would be the Tu-144's 55th and last scheduled passenger service. A scheduled Aeroflot freight-only service recommenced using the new production variant Tu-144D aircraft on 23 June 1979, including longer routes from Moscow to Khabarovsk made possible by the more efficient RD-36-51 engines used in the Tu-144D version. Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled Aeroflot flights before retirement of commercial services.
A total of 16 airworthy Tu-144s were built: the prototype Tu-144 reg 68001, a pre-production Tu-144S reg 77101, nine production Tu-144S reg 77102--110, and five Tu-144D reg 77111--115. A seventeenth Tu-144 (reg 77116) was never completed. There was also at least one ground-test airframe constructed for static testing in parallel with the prototype 68001 development.
The Tu-144S model had NK-144 turbofan engines, whereas the later Tu-144D model featured more powerful RD-36-51 engines with better fuel efficiency (particularly during supercruise, not requiring afterburner) and longer range. It was also one of the last commercial airplanes with a brake-parachute, together with early Tu-134.
Although its last commercial passenger flight was in 1978, production of the Tu-144 would not cease until six years later, in 1984 when construction of the partially complete Tu-144D reg 77116 airframe was stopped. During the 1980s, the last two production aircraft to fly were used for airborne laboratory testing, including research into ozone depletion at high altitudes.
In the early 1990s a wealthy businesswoman, Judith DePaul, and her company IBP Aerospace negotiated an agreement with Tupolev and NASA, (also Rockwell and later Boeing). They offered a Tu-144 as a testbed for its High Speed Commercial Research program, intended to design a second-generation supersonic jetliner. In 1995, Tu-144D [reg 77114] built in 1981 (but with only 82 hours, 40 minutes total flight time) was taken out of storage and after extensive modification at a total cost of US$350 million was designated the Tu-144LL (where LL is an abbreviation for Flying Laboratory). It made a total of 27 flights in 1996 and 1997. In 1999, though regarded as a success, the project was cancelled for lack of funding.
The only Tu-144 on display outside the former Soviet Union was acquired by the Auto & Technikmuseum Sinsheim in Germany, where it was shipped --- not flown --- in 2001 where it stands in its original Aeroflot livery, on display next to an Air-France Concorde.
General Characteristics:
Crew: 3
Capacity: 120-140 passengers General characteristics
Length: 65.50 m (215.54 ft)
Wingspan: 28.80 m (94.48 ft)
Height: 10.50 m (34.42 ft)
Wing area: 438.0 m² (4,715 ft²)
Empty weight: 85,000 kg (187,400 lb)
Loaded weight: kg (lb)
Max takeoff weight: 180,000 kg (397,000 lb)
Fuel capacity: 70,000 kg (154,000 lb)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h, 1,550 mph)
Cruise speed: Mach 2.16 (2,300 km/h, 1,430 mph)
Range: 6,500 km (3,500 nm, 4,000 mi)
Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,100 ft)
Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²)
Afay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1292 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 30905 times:
I doubt that the Soviet government would characterize it as a commercial aircraft contributing to world commerce. Aside from that comment, bravo on the fitting tribute!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22934 posts, RR: 78 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 30738 times:
Good tribute, WINGS. The PBS show "NOVA" did an interesting review behind Soviet espionage on the Concorde project in "Supersonic Spies". Had some nice footage of 68001's first flight.
After the crash of 77102 (supposedly trying to evade a French military plane taking pictures of her), I understand that changes to the airframe included a more complex "double-delta" wing (ala Concorde's) and the engines being spaced farther apart in two seperate modules (of two engines each) rather then the original "four in a box".
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 30527 times:
Good tribute to a fascinating aircraft.
However-if Concorde had a very limited impact on commercial avaition, TU-144 had none.
Never really being in proper service.
The aircraft just did not work.
Had it, the USSR would have gleefully put it on routes to Cuba, and/or New York (via SNN?)-look, no US SST, but we've got one!
A Sputnik/Vostok with wings and passengers.
The fact the USSR never tried to actually operate it internationally, or on long term domestic services (who'd dare complain about overland sonic booms in the USSR?), speaks volumes.
Partial reheat in the whole of supercruise-so range/payload is gone, without a decent variable intake system-they even, desperately, asked BAC if they could buy and adapt Concordes system, not in the Cold War-could be applied to large supersonic military aircraft, Concorde's system was a BAC Guided Weapons Division product-part numbers even had 'GW' prefix's, very high cabin noise-pax seated next to each other on the short lived, limited internal services-communicated by passing written messages, vibration problems and biblical engine unrealiability.
The original version got airborne before the first Concorde prototypes-as directed by the Kremlin, but was even further from an operational aircraft than even Concorde Prototypes 001/002-which today we'd call 'Technology Demonstrators'.
However, the redesign from Concordes 001/002 to production standard, while extensive, was small fry compared to the virtually new airliner that Tupelov showed at Paris in 1973, compared to what flew in 1968.
The wing design in particular was poor, as well as other aspects such as the intake config.
Tupelov was a good design team, but they were handed a near impossible task, with crazy timeframe requirements.
In late 1997, NASA visited BA Concorde Engineering.
They wanted to see how a tiny fleet of unique, long out of production air vehicles was maintained, issues like vendor support etc.
They thought Concorde was a sort of Franco-British counterpart to the Apollo Programme. A large effort requiring a lot of new technology.
If so, then TU-144 was the airline version of the N1 Moon Rocket -done to beat the US Apollo effort, but started years too late, with political interference and impossible timescales, requiring the designers to 'shunt engineer' or try to circumvent areas where they were lagging.
With inevitable results.
But, thanks for the tribute, it was a fascinating aircraft to be sure.
(NASA brought one back with much better engines in the late 1990's for research, since AF and BA could not spare any Concordes, I doubt Airbus-the descendant of it's builders, would like Boeing having that sort of access either).
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4613 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 30489 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): After the crash of 77102 (supposedly trying to evade a French military plane taking pictures of her), I understand that changes to the airframe included a more complex "double-delta" wing (ala Concorde's) and the engines being spaced farther apart in two seperate modules (of two engines each) rather then the original "four in a box".
I think there are some mistakes in your post. First, the Concorde doesn't have a double-delta wing. The Tu-144 had it from the start. Compared to the prototype, the Tu-144S had the following major differences: The sweep in the first part of the double-delta was reduced. As you say, it has a different engine arrangement. Also it has the retractable canards. BUT: These changes were already made before the crash ! It was a Tu-144S that crashed.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22934 posts, RR: 78 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 30341 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 11): I think there are some mistakes in your post. First, the Concorde doesn't have a double-delta wing. The Tu-144 had it from the start. Compared to the prototype, the Tu-144S had the following major differences: The sweep in the first part of the double-delta was reduced. As you say, it has a different engine arrangement. Also it has the retractable canards. BUT: These changes were already made before the crash ! It was a Tu-144S that crashed.
You're right. Concorde and the TU-144 had an ogee wing, which was a variation on the double delta which was used by Lockheed in their L-2000 SST proposal.
And you are also correct in noting that the TU-144 had those changes implemented to her prior to Paris, as GDB outlined.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 30323 times:
Shame that the Tu-144 that was up for sale was without engines. I wonder about the tires who made them and how much better would the Michelin tires used by the Concorde after the accident be?
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3812 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 30187 times:
WINGS: Thanks for a great history on a fascinating aircraft, although I think its impact to the world of aviation was actually pretty small. Concorde may have been second, but it clearly made a much bigger footprint in the annals of history than the Tu-144.
Sort of strange that the Le Bourget area was witness to two thirds of the world's supersonic transport crashes - Tu-144 at Goussainville in 1973 and the Concorde crash at Gonesse in 2000. Different times, different circumstances, but strangely ironic.
Question: what exactly happened at the Paris Air Show crash? Were the pilots "showing off" or going outside of the known range for the aircraft? After all, it was an air show. Or was it a design/structural fault?
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1343 posts, RR: 63 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30128 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14): You're right. Concorde and the TU-144 had an ogee wing, which was a variation on the double delta which was used by Lockheed in their L-2000 SST proposal.
To be more precise, Concorde and the "prototype" TU-144 used ogee delta planforms, while the "production" TU-144 and the L-2000 used a double-delta. Although the prototype's wing strongly resembled Concorde's in plan, it was purely optimized for supersonic cruise and lacked Concorde's intricate twist and droop, which enhance low-speed lift and help control center-of-lift movement at supersonic speed.
The production TU-144 was radically redesigned compared to the prototype: the fuselage was significantly enlarged, the engine inlets were split into two pods, the main landing gear was moved, the wing was totally redesigned with a new planform and shaping, and retractable canards were added. The TU-144Ds later received new engines.
Prototype TU-144 - note smooth, Concorde-like curvature of leading edge and nearly flat wing:
Production TU-144 - features a sharply kinked double-delta planform, more twist and droop in outboard wing sections, retractable canards:
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22934 posts, RR: 78 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30114 times:
Quoting Richierich (Reply 18): Question: what exactly happened at the Paris Air Show crash? Were the pilots "showing off" or going outside of the known range for the aircraft? After all, it was an air show. Or was it a design/structural fault?
Based on info provided at http://home.comcast.net/~yoshac/TU144/index.html, it looks like the Russians disabled some of the flight control limitations to allow the airplane to perform stronger maneuvers (as it was being "shown up" some by Concorde). This caused a fault in the system that sent the elevons into a dive while the pilot was instructing a climb via the control column. This pitched the plane into a steep dive and probably flamed out one or more of her engines. In an attempt to pull-out of the dive they overstressed the airframe, which failed and broke apart.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2182 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30080 times:
The Paris Air Show crash is still debated. I dont wanna start an argument about it but it seems both sides are partially true. The test pilot was told to do "something more..." so that he can outperform the Concorde. But on the other hand there has been proof of a spy Mirage in the region so it is unknown which caused it or if maybe it was an unlucky combination of both. There is a forum member....I believe RIX, who has flown on the Tu-144 and has said it's pretty noisy. But in Yefim Gordon's book about it it doesn't mention that. My dad saw the Tu-144 back in the early 1970s when it came to Sofia for a visit, he said that on takeoff it was very impressive. Interesting story about it, Balkan had a Tu-134A parked next to it, so if anything should fail or the Tu-144 would happen to be delayed or cancelled they would at least show the "new Tu-134A" instead of being left empty-handed after all the media buzz around its arrival.
Virgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29957 times:
I love the TU-144 over the Concorde... Its a fabulous plane.... Otherwise I got a feeling theres a debate brewing here so I did a search on a PBS show that I watched a while back. It was "Nova" and the title was Supersonic spies... It went indepth about the competition between the two aeroplanes. Some theories the Russians stole a design to a French Mirage hitting the TU-144 at the Paris Airshow.
LH648 From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29951 times:
My grandma was lucky to fly on Tu144 as a passenger...
Actually Aeroflot didn't want to operate Tu144 - maintenance was too complicated. And no benefits for airline - there was no market for Tu144 in USSR. Actually there was no market in USSR at all.
So they was pushing to get rid of it... And thats why Tu144 had a very-very short commercial story...
25 Iwok: Wings, great job! The 144 is a really interesting aircraft; moreso in my mind than Concorde. While not a successful commercially as the Concorde ( di
26 Edina: Concorde made a fortune for BA, not only directly but also indirectly......in terms of prestige & brand value alone the fleet is sorely missed. After
27 Superfly: Awesome tribute WINGS! What a shame Monino was closed when I visited Moscow last June. I was looking forward to getting some photos of my own.
28 WINGS: Once again thank you all for your positive feedback. It sure means alot to me. Like I previously mentioned, I have now posted a new tribute thread. Th
29 AmericanB763ER: Apart from being the very first SST to actually take to te air - TU 144's had pratically none. Did a TU-144 ever achieve Mach 2.35 in real life? (The
30 Jush: I still love the Tu144 more than Concorde. It just looks better Thanks for your detailed and brilliant tribute Regds jush
31 TaromA380: What is the fate of the built frames ?
32 Newagebird: Fantastic tribute...ive always admired tupolev...they were always that other company no one really knew too much about. Wish i could've flown that air
33 Halls120: How so? Concur with all of the above. A great post, but I have a hard time agreeing with the claim that the Tu-144 "had a great impact on commercial
34 WINGS: Hi Richierich and Halls120, I believe that all previous airplane designs and programs have helped mold aviation as we know. Even though it had little
35 Osiris30: Now *that* was a plane Valkery (or however you spell it LOL).. mmmmmmmm... I want one
36 Stitch: The North American XB-70 Valkyrie. Fantastic plane. Ranks right up there with Concorde as the prettiest thing man has sent into the skies.
37 LH648: Tu-144 CCCP-68001/00-1 Experimental. Scraped Tu-144 CCCP-77101/01-1 Pre-serial. Scraped Tu-144S CCCP-77102/01-2 First serial Tu-144. Crashed at Le Bo
38 HAWK21M: Great Tribute.Fantastic Pictures especially the rare ones regds MEL
39 Osiris30: I think fantastic is an understatement. M3 heavy bomber, I just wish I could have heard what she sounded like.. all those engine (6 wasn't it?).. the
40 GDB: I've seen the discussed show about the 1973 Paris crash, if it is the same programme, it was originally a BBC production shown in the late 1990's. But
41 A342: To my knowledge, the following is true: Concorde: ogee wing Tu-144 prototype: sharply kinked double-delta Tu-144 production models: double-delta with
42 Tu204: Good post. Regarding the differences between the prototype and the production model, there was a big difference. I spoke to test pilot Edward Elyan (c
43 HKGKaiTak: A great read Wings ... I visited the Sinsheim museum earlier this year and what a wonderful sight it is seeing Concorde and the Tu-144 side by side. T
44 A342: One of them is the Tu-144LL, right ? Do you also have performance data for that one ?
45 RIX: - no, it wasn't me ... I've flown on Concorde; as for Tu144, I only saw one (in Monino). - these are taken from two different aircraft, Tu144S and Tu
46 Ptrjong: Monino is supposed to have a grass runway - I never saw a runway when I was there - and the Tu-144 is said to have landed on it. Can anyone confirm th
47 Sovietjet: Tu204 - Did capt. Elyan ever talk to you about the second crash? From what I've read, the crash was due to inflight fire. If so, how could he be at fa
48 Afay1: There is a long RTR-produced show recording on the Tu-144 floating around the internet, that naturally, I cannot find a link to at the moment and is t
49 A342: I think you mean "it needed reheat in supersonic flight", other wise you would be contradicting yourself. BTW, I think the Tu-144S had the ability to
50 N231YE: Wasn't there a Discovery Channel thing once about Boeing or Nasa working with Tupolev to design a new supersonic passenger transport?
51 Osiris30: Boeing leased a 144 for a while to do some research regarding supersonic and transsonic flight. Some of that data fed into the now cancelled Sonic Cr
52 GDB: The Boeing/NASA HSCT project, which involved the TU-144 being returned to flight, was ended in December 1998. A business case could not be made for pr
53 N844AA: Hey, WINGS, I'm sure you're already hard at work on the next installment, but I hope you'll consider writing about the Trident at some point. That see
54 Tu204: Yes, he told me that it was an inflight fire due to a fuel line leak. The nature of the flight was to start the APU in flight and the leak (a broken
55 CPHGuard: In my humble opinion, i disagree with that. In terms of moving passengers from A to B, you are correct. But in terms of aviation development they bot
56 Richierich: They may have achieved this goal but because of the lack of sustainability of the service - not to mention the 2 crashes - it was never going to be v
57 RIX: - well, what I mean, it needed reheat during whole supersonic flight. No surprise, it was "somewhat noisy" in cabin ... The engines might be literall
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2829 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1292 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, 
(concorde is a beauty though)
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 38 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Oct 2001, 521 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4613 posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 934 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Apr 2005, 2323 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Awesome Video Keesje thanks for sharing. I just love the sound of this beast. 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2182 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 294 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 530 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
