crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:52 am

Anyone else following what the Russians are up to ?

Last year, PUTIN requested the TUPELOV design bureau to start working on a Supersonic passenger version of their TU 160 bomber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcg5nZtNM0

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... senger-jet

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear ... er-1328838
 
AC77X
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:27 am

Interesting. This reminds me of the 1990s Tupolev 344, a business jet variant of the Tu-22M3 which would hold 10-12 passengers with 3 seats per row.
 
dcajet
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:12 am

Oh please. Sounds like propaganda pipe dreams.
"Unattended children will be given espresso and a free kitten"
 
qf744fan
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:58 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:30 am

Considering the safety record of their last attempt, this just sounds like suicide with extra steps.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:41 am

Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off. Nothing but another failed attempt that will A-Be DOA, or B- sell 2-3 frames to Aeroflot that will fly a year or two before being inefficient, unreliable, grounded and then mothballed.
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:54 am

Sorry, but I am one who admires Russias unique approach to advancement in aviation technologies.

Sometimes it is better to go with tried and true rather than to shoot for the moon concepts.

Russia, if they can make the swing-wing bomber tech work and transfer to a civilian SST airliner, would be somewhat ahead of what the rest of the West is planning at this stage.

I only wish Russia the best in advancing supersonic travel in ways that make their large country smaller and accessible. No one group of people should have a monopoly on all things that go fast.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1137
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:53 am

There was a thread about this last year:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1384781

And another before that:
viewtopic.php?t=1379867

Some good stuff buried in those threads.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12486
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:16 am

"Russia, if you're listening... I hope you can reinstate schedule supersonic passenger travel. I believe that our AvGeeks would reward you mightily."
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:40 am

I would applaud such a machine as an aviation enthusiast, in practice, it is Putin's propaganda for internal use. This project will go nowhere, no economics, no aftersales, no market. Perhaps the Ruski might even convert one bomber to this, but that is the max.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tu204
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:58 am

The main problem with SST's wasn't economics or reliability in my opinion, but ecological impact and the sonic boom throughout the whole flight where you are above Mach 1.

This isn't adressed here.

Plus the Tu-160 is optimised for being subsonic and making a Mach 2 dash to break through air defences.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:02 am

qf744fan wrote:
Considering the safety record of their last attempt, this just sounds like suicide with extra steps.


What safety record? Nothing from with the Tu-144 safety wise. First crash at Le Bourge was due to trying to fly it like a fighter jet and the second was an APU fire due to a fuel leak in the APU compartment when the crew had clear indications they had a fuel leak... and still decided to go ahead with the test starting of it in the air...

You can just as easily smash A320's into the ground if you fly them like a moron...just ask AF.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
OlafW
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:09 am

hmm, reactivating a 1980s design, and planning to deliver 70 of them (military only) in the next 16 years, when in the first 32 years only 36 were built, including nine prototypes - yep, that sounds like success in the making...
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:11 am

there are no news, no plans and no matter to discuss.
just repost some yellow press
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:25 am

nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off.


Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.
 
Redd
Posts: 1019
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:54 am

Amiga500 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off.


Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


This is actually true in many ways. They took the shuttle design and improved on it. Also, there was nothing wrong with the Tu-144 safety record. The crash at Le Bourget and its causes are something you should look into, the same would have happened to Concorde if it was in its place at that moment.
 
User avatar
SR380
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:32 am

The Tupolev 144 was issue from a military bomber. It was merely a first try out. They were supposed to built a bigger variant called the Tu-244. At some point it was even meant to used cryo hydrogen for fuel:

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/transport2b.htm

The Soviet had eco friendly prototypes planes (Tu-155/156) even before A or B!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:32 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


Apparently it was so advanced it didn't even have to make it to space.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6319
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:41 am

Redd wrote:
Also, there was nothing wrong with the Tu-144 safety record. The crash at Le Bourget and its causes are something you should look into, the same would have happened to Concorde if it was in its place at that moment.

Not to mention, the TU-144 had a better safety record than Concorde with regard to passenger fatalities/miles flown!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:52 am

At least we will get to see all the Russian bots chime in. Nice of the OP with his long posting record here to start this thread.
 
Redd
Posts: 1019
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:57 am

aviationaware wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


Apparently it was so advanced it didn't even have to make it to space.


:lol:

It did make it to space though....

And it flew without a crew and the entire flight including the landing was flown by automation. Not bad for 1988.

Now, the Soviets didn't have the money to keep the program going but that's an entirely different matter.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:36 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


Apparently it was so advanced it didn't even have to make it to space.


It did. Completed launch, flight, orbit, descent and recovery unmanned.

Which was something that NASA dearly wished the shuttle could have done.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:38 pm

Bricktop wrote:
At least we will get to see all the Russian bots chime in.


So far we've observed at least one dumb ____ that would likely believe everything fox news tells them.

Which probably isn't a Russian bot.


[edit: Revised my count of dumb ___s down, one is a fairly rational argument.]
 
rbretas
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:21 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off.


Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


Not really, the Buran was indeed a rushed up (and still 7 years late) copy of the Space Shuttle. But the launcher, Energia, was no doubt more advanced than the American one, the later responsible (direct and indirectly) for the two mission losses of the shuttle. Energia boosters are still flying in the form of the Zenit rocket and it's derivations, including the Antares rocket (US) and the engines on the Atlas (US) and Angara (RUS).
 
BAeRJ100
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:49 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:44 pm

tu204 wrote:
The main problem with SST's wasn't economics or reliability in my opinion, but ecological impact and the sonic boom throughout the whole flight where you are above Mach 1.

This isn't adressed here.


There's nothing to be addressed in regards to the sonic boom. It's all to do with an object traveling faster than the speed of sound, nothing to do with the design of the object itself. It's physics, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it.
B737/738/739/744ER/752/753/763/77L/77W/788/789
A223/320/321/332/333/346/359/388
MD82/MD88/717/F100/RJ85/RJ100/146-100/200/300
E175/190/CRJ700/900
 
FatCat
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:45 pm

Redd wrote:
Now, the Soviets didn't have the money to keep the program going but that's an entirely different matter.

nor do the americans, as I can see the Soyuz flying, but the Shuttle not
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
cskok8
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:37 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:45 pm

Concordsky NEO?
 
FatCat
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:52 pm

oh and by the way, the TU-144 had flown, also on small scheduled services, but not the Boeing SST; TU-160 is still in service and in production, the B-1B isn't anymore in production, and planes in service are day by day less; the overall strategic bomber force is younger and more vast, Reds also carry more modern nuclear ordnance, have more modern ICBMs, in greater numbers, and with a better readiness...
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:55 pm

rbretas wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off.


Buran was more advanced than the shuttle.


Not really, the Buran was indeed a rushed up (and still 7 years late) copy of the Space Shuttle.


Beyond being a white compound delta wing object that went to space, they'd actually very little in common.

Buran would have been much cheaper to keep flying as it didn't have the (ultra expensive) main engines the shuttle orbiter had.

Buran also had crew escape systems active through all stages of flight.


There was a school of thought in the mid 90s where NASA might be better off buying the Buran from the Russian and using it instead of the shuttle.
 
musman9853
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:04 pm

BAeRJ100 wrote:
tu204 wrote:
The main problem with SST's wasn't economics or reliability in my opinion, but ecological impact and the sonic boom throughout the whole flight where you are above Mach 1.

This isn't adressed here.


There's nothing to be addressed in regards to the sonic boom. It's all to do with an object traveling faster than the speed of sound, nothing to do with the design of the object itself. It's physics, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it.


NASA/LM are working on quiet sst prototypes that are designed to not have a sonic boom at ground height
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
Ellofiend
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:34 pm

FatCat wrote:
oh and by the way, the TU-144 had flown, also on small scheduled services, but not the Boeing SST; TU-160 is still in service and in production, the B-1B isn't anymore in production, and planes in service are day by day less; the overall strategic bomber force is younger and more vast, Reds also carry more modern nuclear ordnance, have more modern ICBMs, in greater numbers, and with a better readiness...


Not sure if that was meant to reassure the westerners :lol: Although perhaps they are in better hands these days even with Putin than a certain someone else
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4002
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:10 pm

qf744fan wrote:
Considering the safety record of their last attempt, this just sounds like suicide with extra steps.

Or the safety record of their latest non supersonic passenger jet.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1216
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:29 pm

FatCat wrote:
oh and by the way, the TU-144 had flown, also on small scheduled services, but not the Boeing SST; TU-160 is still in service and in production, the B-1B isn't anymore in production, and planes in service are day by day less; the overall strategic bomber force is younger and more vast, Reds also carry more modern nuclear ordnance, have more modern ICBMs, in greater numbers, and with a better readiness...

And 36 Tu-160's (9 prototypes and 27 serial units) were manufactured in 12 years (1984-1992, 2002, 2008 & 2017) whereas 100 B-1B's (plus 4 B-1A's) was manufactured in 5 years; care to compare which manufacturer is more efficient???
 
AC77X
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:59 pm

Normally things end up with an A vs B battle. I guess things have changed as we are now entering a B vs T battle.

Besides that, I wonder how this would perform. I feel like it may be inferior technology wise to the conceptualized Tu-244, I'm not sure why though.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:04 pm

Really as Westerners, I really don’t see why we give a darn, about the Russians efficiency, marketing, ambitions, or range of their Supersonic Airliner. It is not after all being built for the West.

As long as the Russians are not using slave labor; subsidizing aircraft manufacturing to the detriment of open market aircraft manufacturers sales in the West; acquire patent technology illegally or through espionage; or once built use the proposed SST to transfer WMD to terrorist sorts...

I see no problem with what the leaders of an autonomous nation-state like Russia do allocating it’s resources in terms of pursuing supersonic travel. It’s not as if the Russians helped to get a certain President in the West elected as some believe, so let that sickness and mental derangement end there.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:13 pm

I stand by my comment from two years ago, if you're rich you won't risk your life in a Tupolev.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
NickWebb
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:10 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:14 pm

If the Russians can't build and support the SuperJet, then how can they build another SST??
[photoid][/photoid]/Users/nickwebb/Desktop/FullSizeRender.jpg
 
AC77X
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:35 pm

Tupolev is a good company, I don't see why they are considered unsafe by so many people just because of the manufacturer.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Speaking of the Superjet...are they seeing any technical flaws with the landing gear, wing interface, fuel tank layout?

Everything has gone really Soviet style quiet since the tragic accident I have noticed. Just a realistic none rose colored glasses observation at the same time with my praise of the Russian Supersonic Airliner ambitions.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:34 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Speaking of the Superjet...are they seeing any technical flaws with the landing gear, wing interface, fuel tank layout?


Well, since the second bounce during that crash landing in SVO occured at +5,85G and the aircraft structure failed only during the third bounce, that even exceeded the measurability, I would say that there aren't necessarily technical flaws with the Superjets gear, wings or tanks.
Happy Landings
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:49 pm

trijetsonly wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Speaking of the Superjet...are they seeing any technical flaws with the landing gear, wing interface, fuel tank layout?


Well, since the second bounce during that crash landing in SVO occured at +5,85G and the aircraft structure failed only during the third bounce, that even exceeded the measurability, I would say that there aren't necessarily technical flaws with the Superjets gear, wings or tanks.


Yes + 5.85 g impact on any McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, or Airbus plane would probably leave the aircraft a flaming heap of wreckage in a landing gear failure.

Makes me want to go read up on the World Airways DC10 Freedom Bird Hard landing, or the L1011 aborted takeoff to see him many Gs these aircraft experienced.

Obviously no where near 5 g+
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
snasteve
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:04 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off. Nothing but another failed attempt that will A-Be DOA, or B- sell 2-3 frames to Aeroflot that will fly a year or two before being inefficient, unreliable, grounded and then mothballed.


Soviet engineers were very much against building the Buran space shuttle. They had already had explored the idea of doing a space shuttle and worked out all of the cost considerations including our own shuttle and they concluded the project was poor use of resources.

They predicted our own shuttles eventual cost overruns and they knew the shuttle would need to be constantly retiled after each mission. Simply put, both the Buran and our SS weren’t as reusable as claimed.

What happen was the Soviet leadership feared the US space shuttle had a dual military purpose. They could not think of any practical reasons why we would build such an elaborate resource intensive program just to get people and cargo into space. This made them question what else were we doing with SS program. When they realize that the shuttle program were building out support infrastructure in California. They were very concerned as It just so happens that when you let launch out of California it conveniently places into orbit right above Moscow.

The Buran and was not a rip off for the reasons assumed. It was ordered built by the Soviet leadership against a very reticent engineering team that hated doing it. Nevertheless they try to improve on it as much as possible and they created what is arguably a better SS. They only built the thing because they felt they needed their own capability and to do their own testing.
 
stburke
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:17 pm

snasteve wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off. Nothing but another failed attempt that will A-Be DOA, or B- sell 2-3 frames to Aeroflot that will fly a year or two before being inefficient, unreliable, grounded and then mothballed.


Soviet engineers were very much against building the Buran space shuttle. They had already had explored the idea of doing a space shuttle and worked out all of the cost considerations including our own shuttle and they concluded the project was poor use of resources.

They predicted our own shuttles eventual cost overruns and they knew the shuttle would need to be constantly retiled after each mission. Simply put, both the Buran and our SS weren’t as reusable as claimed.

What happen was the Soviet leadership feared the US space shuttle had a dual military purpose. They could not think of any practical reasons why we would build such an elaborate resource intensive program just to get people and cargo into space. This made them question what else were we doing with SS program. When they realize that the shuttle program were building out support infrastructure in California. They were very concerned as It just so happens that when you let launch out of California it conveniently places into orbit right above Moscow.

The Buran and was not a rip off for the reasons assumed. It was ordered built by the Soviet leadership against a very reticent engineering team that hated doing it. Nevertheless they try to improve on it as much as possible and they created what is arguably a better SS. They only built the thing because they felt they needed their own capability and to do their own testing.


How off topic we got but you're spot on :checkmark:
 
nine4nine
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:26 pm

snasteve wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off. Nothing but another failed attempt that will A-Be DOA, or B- sell 2-3 frames to Aeroflot that will fly a year or two before being inefficient, unreliable, grounded and then mothballed.


Soviet engineers were very much against building the Buran space shuttle. They had already had explored the idea of doing a space shuttle and worked out all of the cost considerations including our own shuttle and they concluded the project was poor use of resources.

They predicted our own shuttles eventual cost overruns and they knew the shuttle would need to be constantly retiled after each mission. Simply put, both the Buran and our SS weren’t as reusable as claimed.

What happen was the Soviet leadership feared the US space shuttle had a dual military purpose. They could not think of any practical reasons why we would build such an elaborate resource intensive program just to get people and cargo into space. This made them question what else were we doing with SS program. When they realize that the shuttle program were building out support infrastructure in California. They were very concerned as It just so happens that when you let launch out of California it conveniently places into orbit right above Moscow.

The Buran and was not a rip off for the reasons assumed. It was ordered built by the Soviet leadership against a very reticent engineering team that hated doing it. Nevertheless they try to improve on it as much as possible and they created what is arguably a better SS. They only built the thing because they felt they needed their own capability and to do their own testing.



That’s an interesting tidbit of info. Thanks for sharing :)
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:50 pm

AC77X wrote:
Tupolev is a good company.


I agree.
I know you agree and we agree too.
Until we disagree too that is.

(:
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:24 pm

snasteve wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Pipe dreams of Soviet Grandeur like the first SST and Space Shuttle knock off. Nothing but another failed attempt that will A-Be DOA, or B- sell 2-3 frames to Aeroflot that will fly a year or two before being inefficient, unreliable, grounded and then mothballed.


Soviet engineers were very much against building the Buran space shuttle. They had already had explored the idea of doing a space shuttle and worked out all of the cost considerations including our own shuttle and they concluded the project was poor use of resources.

They predicted our own shuttles eventual cost overruns and they knew the shuttle would need to be constantly retiled after each mission. Simply put, both the Buran and our SS weren’t as reusable as claimed.

What happen was the Soviet leadership feared the US space shuttle had a dual military purpose. They could not think of any practical reasons why we would build such an elaborate resource intensive program just to get people and cargo into space. This made them question what else were we doing with SS program. When they realize that the shuttle program were building out support infrastructure in California. They were very concerned as It just so happens that when you let launch out of California it conveniently places into orbit right above Moscow.

The Buran and was not a rip off for the reasons assumed. It was ordered built by the Soviet leadership against a very reticent engineering team that hated doing it. Nevertheless they try to improve on it as much as possible and they created what is arguably a better SS. They only built the thing because they felt they needed their own capability and to do their own testing.



So very true. Engineers did not get to decide vehicle shape (delta, "as the American one"), size ("slightly larger than the American one") and launch mode (side-strapped to the booster system, "as the American one") of Buran orbiter. They were thrown more or less unlimited funding (that went to contribute to bankruptcy of USSR) and told to deliver within parameters required. For the rest of features, they did try to do their best. They did deliver a good system, and found there were no users -- civilian space program was loathe to pick up such a white elephant (they would be supposed to stay within original funding), and military space had no ready program to integrate Buran into (Energia rocket apparently did, but that is another story). While they deliberated and bargained, USSR ran out of money and then dissolved.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
bob75013
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:19 pm

Bricktop wrote:
At least we will get to see all the Russian bots chime in. Nice of the OP with his long posting record here to start this thread.



DA!
 
User avatar
Flyingdevil737
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:40 pm

cskok8 wrote:
Concordsky NEO?


Concordski MAX? :D
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the very first Fokker airplane built in the world. The Dutch call it the mother Fokker.
 
B764er
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: New Russian SST

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:05 pm

TUPELOV...... somebody must've thought of Elvis
 
tu204
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:45 am

BAeRJ100 wrote:
tu204 wrote:
The main problem with SST's wasn't economics or reliability in my opinion, but ecological impact and the sonic boom throughout the whole flight where you are above Mach 1.

This isn't adressed here.


There's nothing to be addressed in regards to the sonic boom. It's all to do with an object traveling faster than the speed of sound, nothing to do with the design of the object itself. It's physics, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it.


Exactly. Nomatter how efficient you make it, how will you operate it on anything but trans oceanic flights?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:41 pm

To the above:
Tu-144 was in some aspects aeronautically more advanced over concorde. Those aspects did not make up for a useful airplane. Concord was a more or less solid airliner within its role as a pioneer in this field. Tu-144 had some major design errors, more or less resulting from poor project management, the son of great andrej tupolev was not up to the challenge as maybe his father would have been. Also in ussr there was no use for a tu-144 and major desision makers were not supportive of this aircraft. At some stage they even halted development/production of the kolesov rd-36 engines and made the workers of the plant harvest crops during summer... So granted there are always two sides to a story, both concorde and tu-144 were bigtime fails, with the US on the winning edge with 747. concorde was a real aircraft, reliable and flyable. Tu-144 was faster, flew higher, was bigger, had some aerodynamic advantages over concorde, but very many more problems, such as the air intakes, large titanium sections generating static problems due to air friction, fuel burn with nk-144. tu-144 was going to be the next step, further them concorde went. It was two steps to far...

Buran and space shuttle is the same crap all over again. The shuttle was meant to lower the cost of space travel but instead was astronomically more inefficient as anticipated. Engeneers in ussr understood that and therefore designed energiya, the carrier rocket, to transport other payloads as well, not only buran. Tu-144 as well as concorde, space shuttle and buran made use of intelligence information, spying on each other, learning from each other. The similar shape and economical failiour is the only common thing to the two projects.

And for thise claiming the russian planes were stolen designs... Compare the Y-10 to a 707, and guess what: Y-10 was not a copy. Like it or not, it's easier to build an own design than to copy it, so mich need tu understand fundamental things in aviation construction, you can't steal or copy.

Tupolev is not an aircraft manufacturer, it is a design bureau. There is many companies in russia able to build different designs, woronesh built Il86/96, Tu-144 and An-148 for example, samara An-140 and Tu-154. in russia, design and production are not the same company at all.

A tu-160 business jet would make sense after all more than anything else. First off it already flies. Second there are enaugh dummasses with money wnting to show off. A vip a380 is something for losers compared to a private Tu-160. there would be a market for a few i guess. But just think of the modified fuel it burns... There are some things standing in the way.

But again think for yourself: what would you take if money doesn't matter. A lame 748 or an ugly a380 and find yourself on an intelectual ans style level with some arab kings or erdogan... Or fly one hell of a plane that deafens the surrounding sheiks in their "aircraft".
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos