WayexTDI
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:39 pm

Ty134A wrote:
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...

Didn't the Tu-144 fly faster that Concorde but with the reheat lit? That's what's always been said.
If true, then that's not an advantage as using reheat all the time drastically increases the fuel consumption.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:56 pm

dcajet wrote:
Oh please. Sounds like propaganda pipe dreams.


We'll see … the air frame is proven and it would seat over 160 passengers with a range of over 7,000 miles.

Regardless, they are years ahead of BOOM or any other entity that is proposing any SST passenger plane.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:03 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Ty134A wrote:
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...

Didn't the Tu-144 fly faster that Concorde but with the reheat lit? That's what's always been said.
If true, then that's not an advantage as using reheat all the time drastically increases the fuel consumption.


TU 144 did fly faster, however it was built to quickly, poor engines, poor fuel system … TUPOLEV and the KREMLIN wanted to beat the CONCORDE into the air first and they did … with an inferior, substandard plane.

TU 160 is built mainly out of titanium … which RUSSIA is awash in.
 
tu204
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:49 pm

Ty134A wrote:
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".


Agree with most tour points.

But how would you fly your toy Supersonic when environmentalists worldwide would only let you do it over water?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:52 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Ty134A wrote:
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...

Didn't the Tu-144 fly faster that Concorde but with the reheat lit? That's what's always been said.
If true, then that's not an advantage as using reheat all the time drastically increases the fuel consumption.


From what I remember, not an issue with the D model with the "36" engines. Only needed on the original NK-144 engines which sucked and led to the poor range and fuel burn.

Correct me if I am wrong.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12194
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:22 pm

BAeRJ100 wrote:
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.

None of that is true.

Design can mitigate, manipulate, and (theoretically) reduce sonic booms to inconsequence at the surface.

That's the whole premise behind proposals such as the QSST, the F-5E, or the "Shaped Sonic Boom" studies/demonstrations by NASA et al.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... -ebook.pdf
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11518
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:38 pm

If money was no object I'd invest in a space plane. Elon Musk goes for the BFR...

If money was no object and I had to use a proven airframe, I'd want a SR-71 Blackbird. Not to fly it all the time, but as a toy.

To travel, a Falcon 8X with a bedroom is all I'd need.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Melbourne
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:17 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:11 am

On a related side note in regards to the Russian SST and US-Russian joint testing on a 2nd Gen SST using the TU-144L at the time.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/his ... index.html
 
tu144d
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:39 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:47 pm

Ty134A wrote:
To the above:
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...


That is just tragic. The RD-36 was such a vast improvement over the NK-144 and had allowed to Tu-144 to fly from Moscow-Khabarovsk. If only Aeroflot had had the enthusiasm in the late 70's/early 80's to continue development who knows. This would've at least allowed Aeroflot to fly a prestige service from Moscow-Havana with only a stop in Gander. I wonder if it would not just be possible to bring back CCCP-77115 into service re-engined with NK-321s like Tu-144LL for special flights. One of the biggest problems I read about the Tu-144 was fatigue crack propagation due to alloy defects from parts being made from huge blocks. Again, with enough resources and enthusiasm I'm sure they could've solved this as well.
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:45 pm

tu144d wrote:
Ty134A wrote:
To the above:
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...


That is just tragic. The RD-36 was such a vast improvement over the NK-144 and had allowed to Tu-144 to fly from Moscow-Khabarovsk. If only Aeroflot had had the enthusiasm in the late 70's/early 80's to continue development who knows. This would've at least allowed Aeroflot to fly a prestige service from Moscow-Havana with only a stop in Gander. I wonder if it would not just be possible to bring back CCCP-77115 into service re-engined with NK-321s like Tu-144LL for special flights. One of the biggest problems I read about the Tu-144 was fatigue crack propagation due to alloy defects from parts being made from huge blocks. Again, with enough resources and enthusiasm I'm sure they could've solved this as well.

It wouldn't have made much sense. It would have been subsonic for at least the first 2 and a half hours or so out of Moscow, until leaving the Norwegian coast, and then again the last 2 hours or so, approaching Havana, when overflying the Bahamas or Florida. And what premium traffic would there have been? Even as vanity or prestige flights go, this would have been a super crazy project.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Just time for a shameless Boom Overture SST plug.

Would love to see this design with advanced swing wing technology similar to the TU-160.

Maybe the Russian design will evolve some, or perhaps they might like to share ideas or collaborate with Boom much like the POTUS did which sane people don’t believe for a moment.

If we cannot accurately describe Spirit passenger on here, I think all this Russian and Russian aircraft bashing can stop now.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:43 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Just time for a shameless Boom Overture SST plug.

Would love to see this design with advanced swing wing technology similar to the TU-160.

Maybe the Russian design will evolve some, or perhaps they might like to share ideas or collaborate with Boom much like the POTUS did which sane people don’t believe for a moment.

If we cannot accurately describe Spirit passenger on here, I think all this Russian and Russian aircraft bashing can stop now.



From what I've read it will be the exact same plane ... obviously without the military equipment inside, bombay doors etc

The want to have a mock up at the 2020 FARNBOROUGH show to gauge interest.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:47 pm

Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:07 pm

OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.


pay attention

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

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... ights.html

TUPOLEV is already working on it
 
AC77X
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:02 pm

OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.

Keep in mind, the 344 was supposed to be a 22M in a passenger configuration. It would hold 3 per row. I don't think it ended up flying, but it does show that they could at least come up with a passenger cabin.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11518
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:25 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Just time for a shameless Boom Overture SST plug.

Would love to see this design with advanced swing wing technology similar to the TU-160.

Maybe the Russian design will evolve some, or perhaps they might like to share ideas or collaborate with Boom much like the POTUS did which sane people don’t believe for a moment.

If we cannot accurately describe Spirit passenger on here, I think all this Russian and Russian aircraft bashing can stop now.


From what I've read it will be the exact same plane ... obviously without the military equipment inside, bombay doors etc

The want to have a mock up at the 2020 FARNBOROUGH show to gauge interest.


Well converting a bomber with only the tip pressurized, to a passenger aircraft with a big cabin instead of 2 bomb bays, is a very significant modification, especially for an aircraft that needs to fly at Mach 2 for long periods of time.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:30 pm

Aesma wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Just time for a shameless Boom Overture SST plug.

Would love to see this design with advanced swing wing technology similar to the TU-160.

Maybe the Russian design will evolve some, or perhaps they might like to share ideas or collaborate with Boom much like the POTUS did which sane people don’t believe for a moment.

If we cannot accurately describe Spirit passenger on here, I think all this Russian and Russian aircraft bashing can stop now.


From what I've read it will be the exact same plane ... obviously without the military equipment inside, bombay doors etc

The want to have a mock up at the 2020 FARNBOROUGH show to gauge interest.


Well converting a bomber with only the tip pressurized, to a passenger aircraft with a big cabin instead of 2 bomb bays, is a very significant modification, especially for an aircraft that needs to fly at Mach 2 for long periods of time.


I concur in your assessment ... however the airframe is a known proven enitity ... they are years ahead of BOOM or any other concept at this point
 
tu144d
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:39 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:51 pm

MalevTU134 wrote:
tu144d wrote:
Ty134A wrote:
To the above:
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...


That is just tragic. The RD-36 was such a vast improvement over the NK-144 and had allowed to Tu-144 to fly from Moscow-Khabarovsk. If only Aeroflot had had the enthusiasm in the late 70's/early 80's to continue development who knows. This would've at least allowed Aeroflot to fly a prestige service from Moscow-Havana with only a stop in Gander. I wonder if it would not just be possible to bring back CCCP-77115 into service re-engined with NK-321s like Tu-144LL for special flights. One of the biggest problems I read about the Tu-144 was fatigue crack propagation due to alloy defects from parts being made from huge blocks. Again, with enough resources and enthusiasm I'm sure they could've solved this as well.

It wouldn't have made much sense. It would have been subsonic for at least the first 2 and a half hours or so out of Moscow, until leaving the Norwegian coast, and then again the last 2 hours or so, approaching Havana, when overflying the Bahamas or Florida. And what premium traffic would there have been? Even as vanity or prestige flights go, this would have been a super crazy project.


Not necessarily. 2 hrs subsonic at Mach .98 is close to 1320 miles and at no point would that need to cover that much subsonically. Maybe they could have negotiated a more northerly route over sparsely populated parts of relatively neutral Scandinavia. If not, a special Tu-144D could fly North over Murmansk over the Barents sea avoiding Norwegian territory and then make a gradual turn overflying Greenland and then reaching Gander and even allowing for a gradual turn at Mach 2 this would 450 mi to the trip distance so it would be more or less 4150 miles. Doable for a D model with reduced payload (50 seats maybe extra tanks similar to what was done with the Tu-114 to fly nonstop from Murmansk to Havana during the early 60s) This would add 25 mins. and maybe not much time relative to Concorde on transatlantic routes. Remember, Concorde out of Heathrow had to fly subsonic until over the Bristol Channel and then only accelerate. The Tu-144 would have been able to accelerate to Mach 2.0 from the outset. As for Gander-Havana leg, they would have the decelerate and be subsonic 60nm before Bahamian airspace. Assuming a similar deceleration profile to Concorde this would put them at 500nm from Havana before TOD. Considering Concorde hit TOD 350nm before its destination, not bad either. Again, total trip time added by these deviations about 30 minutes and even including a 1 hour layover at Gander would be far shorter than a subsonic hop.

Hey if Braniff/BA/AF could do subsonic money losing routes on Concorde between DFW-IAD at the time I see no reason why Aeroflot could not have done something a little similar to tout as Cold War victory
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:26 am

tu144d wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
tu144d wrote:

That is just tragic. The RD-36 was such a vast improvement over the NK-144 and had allowed to Tu-144 to fly from Moscow-Khabarovsk. If only Aeroflot had had the enthusiasm in the late 70's/early 80's to continue development who knows. This would've at least allowed Aeroflot to fly a prestige service from Moscow-Havana with only a stop in Gander. I wonder if it would not just be possible to bring back CCCP-77115 into service re-engined with NK-321s like Tu-144LL for special flights. One of the biggest problems I read about the Tu-144 was fatigue crack propagation due to alloy defects from parts being made from huge blocks. Again, with enough resources and enthusiasm I'm sure they could've solved this as well.

It wouldn't have made much sense. It would have been subsonic for at least the first 2 and a half hours or so out of Moscow, until leaving the Norwegian coast, and then again the last 2 hours or so, approaching Havana, when overflying the Bahamas or Florida. And what premium traffic would there have been? Even as vanity or prestige flights go, this would have been a super crazy project.


Not necessarily. 2 hrs subsonic at Mach .98 is close to 1320 miles and at no point would that need to cover that much subsonically. Maybe they could have negotiated a more northerly route over sparsely populated parts of relatively neutral Scandinavia. If not, a special Tu-144D could fly North over Murmansk over the Barents sea avoiding Norwegian territory and then make a gradual turn overflying Greenland and then reaching Gander and even allowing for a gradual turn at Mach 2 this would 450 mi to the trip distance so it would be more or less 4150 miles. Doable for a D model with reduced payload (50 seats maybe extra tanks similar to what was done with the Tu-114 to fly nonstop from Murmansk to Havana during the early 60s) This would add 25 mins. and maybe not much time relative to Concorde on transatlantic routes. Remember, Concorde out of Heathrow had to fly subsonic until over the Bristol Channel and then only accelerate. The Tu-144 would have been able to accelerate to Mach 2.0 from the outset. As for Gander-Havana leg, they would have the decelerate and be subsonic 60nm before Bahamian airspace. Assuming a similar deceleration profile to Concorde this would put them at 500nm from Havana before TOD. Considering Concorde hit TOD 350nm before its destination, not bad either. Again, total trip time added by these deviations about 30 minutes and even including a 1 hour layover at Gander would be far shorter than a subsonic hop.

Hey if Braniff/BA/AF could do subsonic money losing routes on Concorde between DFW-IAD at the time I see no reason why Aeroflot could not have done something a little similar to tout as Cold War victory

No way. Flying at Mach .98 burns maaaassssive amounts of fuel. And what "neutral Scandinavia"? When was Norway neutral? It is all hypothetical of course :) but I can tell you as a Swede that there is no way in h*ll that supersonic flight would gave been allowed over Sweden. Northern Scandinavia is not completely deserted wasteland. There are (and were) lots of towns there, even big ones. I doubt even Denmark would have allowed overflying Greenland supersonic. And to compare the distance of Heathrow- Bristol to that of Moscow-Trondheim/Bodø (or wherever they would have left Norway)...you are kidding yourself. Interesting idea, but as I said, too nutty even for a prestige flight, methinks.

EDIT: Checked gcmap.com. Your idea maybe isn't that unfeasable after all. First of all, if they fly out over the Barents Sea at or around Murmansk, the Great Circle route is between Greenland and Iceland, all over the ocean. And distances are not that bad. I am not sure the mileage you quoted was statute or nautical miles. But here goes (nm):

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=svo-mmk-yqx&MS=wls&DU=nm

Add maybe 200 nm to avoid the eastern tip of Norway. Question is, I guess no flight corridors go that route over the Atlantic. Would they have been allowed to fly the straight route?
Last edited by MalevTU134 on Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:26 am

crjflyboy wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.


pay attention

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

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... ights.html

TUPOLEV is already working on it


Yeah and do you really think they're going to come up with a serious design? Even under pressure from the government they'd be better off starting from scratch than using a narrow-ass bomber as a baseline

AC77X wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.

Keep in mind, the 344 was supposed to be a 22M in a passenger configuration. It would hold 3 per row. I don't think it ended up flying, but it does show that they could at least come up with a passenger cabin.


Precisely my point. 3 per row is nothing. Plus keep in mind that bombers aren't exactly designed to have the most fuel-efficient design and, mainly, engines. I'm not familiar with the 160 and fuel consumption but I'm willing to bet it's not commerically viable. How will they fit engines that make supersonic travel viable onto a bomber design?
A350/CSeries = bae
 
AC77X
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:39 am

OA940 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.


pay attention

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

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2 ... ights.html

TUPOLEV is already working on it


Yeah and do you really think they're going to come up with a serious design? Even under pressure from the government they'd be better off starting from scratch than using a narrow-ass bomber as a baseline

AC77X wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Leaving aside some mebers' desire to kickstart a mini cold war 2 on these forums, this is just not gonna happen. It's not 1960. We don't need to impress everyone with unique planes anymore. The TU-160 was designed, as someone already said, to fly subsonic. And it certainly wasn't designed with passenger safety and comfort in mind. I can't see how they'll be able to make a passenger jet out of this, and I assume they've come to the same conclusion.

Keep in mind, the 344 was supposed to be a 22M in a passenger configuration. It would hold 3 per row. I don't think it ended up flying, but it does show that they could at least come up with a passenger cabin.


Precisely my point. 3 per row is nothing. Plus keep in mind that bombers aren't exactly designed to have the most fuel-efficient design and, mainly, engines. I'm not familiar with the 160 and fuel consumption but I'm willing to bet it's not commerically viable. How will they fit engines that make supersonic travel viable onto a bomber design?

Agreed. I have absolutely no idea why they are basing it off of the 160, except development costs maybe. Perhaps basing it off of an existing plane makes it more likely to fly than a completely new concept?
 
tu144d
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:39 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:23 am

MalevTU134 wrote:
tu144d wrote:
MalevTU134 wrote:
It wouldn't have made much sense. It would have been subsonic for at least the first 2 and a half hours or so out of Moscow, until leaving the Norwegian coast, and then again the last 2 hours or so, approaching Havana, when overflying the Bahamas or Florida. And what premium traffic would there have been? Even as vanity or prestige flights go, this would have been a super crazy project.


Not necessarily. 2 hrs subsonic at Mach .98 is close to 1320 miles and at no point would that need to cover that much subsonically. Maybe they could have negotiated a more northerly route over sparsely populated parts of relatively neutral Scandinavia. If not, a special Tu-144D could fly North over Murmansk over the Barents sea avoiding Norwegian territory and then make a gradual turn overflying Greenland and then reaching Gander and even allowing for a gradual turn at Mach 2 this would 450 mi to the trip distance so it would be more or less 4150 miles. Doable for a D model with reduced payload (50 seats maybe extra tanks similar to what was done with the Tu-114 to fly nonstop from Murmansk to Havana during the early 60s) This would add 25 mins. and maybe not much time relative to Concorde on transatlantic routes. Remember, Concorde out of Heathrow had to fly subsonic until over the Bristol Channel and then only accelerate. The Tu-144 would have been able to accelerate to Mach 2.0 from the outset. As for Gander-Havana leg, they would have the decelerate and be subsonic 60nm before Bahamian airspace. Assuming a similar deceleration profile to Concorde this would put them at 500nm from Havana before TOD. Considering Concorde hit TOD 350nm before its destination, not bad either. Again, total trip time added by these deviations about 30 minutes and even including a 1 hour layover at Gander would be far shorter than a subsonic hop.

Hey if Braniff/BA/AF could do subsonic money losing routes on Concorde between DFW-IAD at the time I see no reason why Aeroflot could not have done something a little similar to tout as Cold War victory

No way. Flying at Mach .98 burns maaaassssive amounts of fuel. And what "neutral Scandinavia"? When was Norway neutral? It is all hypothetical of course :) but I can tell you as a Swede that there is no way in h*ll that supersonic flight would gave been allowed over Sweden. Northern Scandinavia is not completely deserted wasteland. There are (and were) lots of towns there, even big ones. I doubt even Denmark would have allowed overflying Greenland supersonic. And to compare the distance of Heathrow- Bristol to that of Moscow-Trondheim/Bodø (or wherever they would have left Norway)...you are kidding yourself. Interesting idea, but as I said, too nutty even for a prestige flight, methinks.

EDIT: Checked gcmap.com. Your idea maybe isn't that unfeasable after all. First of all, if they fly out over the Barents Sea at or around Murmansk, the Great Circle route is between Greenland and Iceland, all over the ocean. And distances are not that bad. I am not sure the mileage you quoted was statute or nautical miles. But here goes (nm):

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=svo-mmk-yqx&MS=wls&DU=nm

Add maybe 200 nm to avoid the eastern tip of Norway. Question is, I guess no flight corridors go that route over the Atlantic. Would they have been allowed to fly the straight route?


I think i used mix units but mostly nm. I arrived at a similar number of about 4150 statute miles allowing for completely avoiding Norway and tip of Sweden. Would have been an interesting route. In the 60's when Aeroflot flew Murmansk-Havana with the Tu-114 they did not have overfly rights but the routing would have taken them similarly between Greenland and Iceland and just east of Gander to avoid US and Canadian airspace so I think it could have been done in the 70s.
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:38 am

Wasn't their last SST nicknamed Concordsky?
Last edited by 9Patch on Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:42 am

9Patch wrote:
Wasn't their last SST program nicknamed Concordsky?


yes .. it was
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:45 am

crjflyboy wrote:
How many RUSSIAN cosmonauts lost in the last 35 years ? ZERO

How do we really know?
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:54 am

9Patch wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
How many RUSSIAN cosmonauts lost in the last 35 years ? ZERO

How do we really know?


prove otherwise then
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:05 am

crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
How many RUSSIAN cosmonauts lost in the last 35 years ? ZERO

How do we really know?


prove otherwise then

You said it was ZERO.
The burden of proof is on you.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:15 am

9Patch wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
How do we really know?


prove otherwise then

You said it was ZERO.
The burden of proof is on you.


NO ... the burden is on you … you are challenging that it is ZERO in the last 35 years
 
seat1a
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:27 am

crjflyboy wrote:
seat1a wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

Funny, NASA uses Russian garbage to get their Astronauts to the Space Station

How many RUSSIAN cosmonauts lost in the last 35 years ? ZERO

How about NASA in that same time period ?


We're talking about an SST not theirs (or our) space program. If that SST were so fantastic it would be a commercial success, not in Western countries, but in their own. It's a POS. It's OK to say so.


It doesn't exist yet EINSTEIN and nobody has claimed it's fantastic … just pointing out what they are up to ...


Even if doesn't exist, it will still be a Russian POS, they simply don't do commercial aviation very well. Broad generalizations is my specialty!!!
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:35 am

seat1a wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
seat1a wrote:

We're talking about an SST not theirs (or our) space program. If that SST were so fantastic it would be a commercial success, not in Western countries, but in their own. It's a POS. It's OK to say so.


It doesn't exist yet EINSTEIN and nobody has claimed it's fantastic … just pointing out what they are up to ...


Even if doesn't exist, it will still be a Russian POS, they simply don't do commercial aviation very well. Broad generalizations is my specialty!!!


What do you think of the 737 MAX then ? The swan diver ...
 
User avatar
vanguard737
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 7:02 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:54 am

Grandstanding: to seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.

Russian: показных

Putin's favorite hobby.
319 320 717 722 732 733 735 737 738 739 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 773 788 DC9 DC10 MD80 B1900 S340 E120 E145 E170 E175 CRJ CR7
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:59 am

vanguard737 wrote:
Grandstanding: to seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.

Russian: показных

Putin's favorite hobby.


Then he is just like every other politician then ... is he not
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:03 am

vanguard737 wrote:
Grandstanding: to seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.

Russian: показных

Putin's favorite hobby.

oh dear...

first, the word is показуха

second, no, Putin's favorite hobby is looting and embezzlement

grandstanding is a very distant second, maybe even an uncomfortable second, to enable embezzlement
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
 
User avatar
laxtrii
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:56 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:12 am

Well if would be interesting. But the odds of it being built are slim. The odds of it enjoying any sort of success if it were actually built is infinitesimally tiny.
 
seat1a
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:32 am

crjflyboy wrote:
seat1a wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

It doesn't exist yet EINSTEIN and nobody has claimed it's fantastic … just pointing out what they are up to ...


Even if doesn't exist, it will still be a Russian POS, they simply don't do commercial aviation very well. Broad generalizations is my specialty!!!


What do you think of the 737 MAX then ? The swan diver ...


I think the MAX has a big problem to solve, including who will speak to the country and the world about it's safety and reliability. POTUS? Elaine Chao? The FAA? The Boeing CEO? None of them are credible. I suspect it will be the European agency and/or a panel of pilots willing to put their prestige on the line. But the MAX, the Boeing 737, Boeing and American aviation in general have historical credibility and goodwill to fall back on (at least I presume so). Russian commercial aviation, not so much.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:47 am

seat1a wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
seat1a wrote:

Even if doesn't exist, it will still be a Russian POS, they simply don't do commercial aviation very well. Broad generalizations is my specialty!!!


What do you think of the 737 MAX then ? The swan diver ...


I think the MAX has a big problem to solve, including who will speak to the country and the world about it's safety and reliability. POTUS? Elaine Chao? The FAA? The Boeing CEO? None of them are credible. I suspect it will be the European agency and/or a panel of pilots willing to put their prestige on the line. But the MAX, the Boeing 737, Boeing and American aviation in general have historical credibility and goodwill to fall back on (at least I presume so). Russian commercial aviation, not so much.


While Americans were flying in CONNIES and DC 7'S the soviets were flying the skies with this bird ... well before the 707 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_T ... y_1972.jpg
 
seat1a
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:09 am

crjflyboy wrote:
seat1a wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

What do you think of the 737 MAX then ? The swan diver ...


I think the MAX has a big problem to solve, including who will speak to the country and the world about it's safety and reliability. POTUS? Elaine Chao? The FAA? The Boeing CEO? None of them are credible. I suspect it will be the European agency and/or a panel of pilots willing to put their prestige on the line. But the MAX, the Boeing 737, Boeing and American aviation in general have historical credibility and goodwill to fall back on (at least I presume so). Russian commercial aviation, not so much.


While Americans were flying in CONNIES and DC 7'S the soviets were flying the skies with this bird ... well before the 707 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_T ... y_1972.jpg


Very cool and sexy jet, indeed.
 
9Patch
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:16 am

crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Wasn't their last SST program nicknamed Concordsky?


yes .. it was


Why was that?
 
Pavlakakos
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:51 am

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:30 am

Ty134A wrote:
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".


Well, a vip A380 does not break the windows below when flying, which is an argument many (if not all countries) will use to ban the vip Tu-160. As arrogant as some billionaires may be, they'd never spend money on something that they can fly only over water or deserts.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:22 am

crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

prove otherwise then

You said it was ZERO.
The burden of proof is on you.


NO ... the burden is on you … you are challenging that it is ZERO in the last 35 years

Given how closely launches are followed, I think it is safe to say that we would know if there had been fatalities.

That said, there have been some launch failures in the Soyuz programme which required emergency escape mechanisms to be activated:

  • Soyuz 18a, April 5 1975
  • Soyuz T-10-1, September 26 1983
  • Soyuz MS-10, October 11 2018

All that said, I’m not sure I quite see the relevance of an o-ring failure in a solid rocket motor, damage to ceramic thermal protection tiles by a foam chunk, a couple of failures of a booster separation mechanism, or a rocket motor turbopump running away to the viability of a commercial SST. We may as well discuss Ladas, Trabants, and Zils vs Fords, Chevys and Cadillacs.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
tu204
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:26 am

9Patch wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
How do we really know?


prove otherwise then

You said it was ZERO.
The burden of proof is on you.


I don't think anyone other than some nutjobs are arguing any lost cosmonauts along the way...

Same like nobody is arguing (other than nutjubs) that people landed on the moon.

It was the cold war and both parties had the means and the will to see if it wasn't the case.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: New Russian SST

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:29 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
9Patch wrote:
You said it was ZERO.
The burden of proof is on you.


NO ... the burden is on you … you are challenging that it is ZERO in the last 35 years

Given how closely launches are followed, I think it is safe to say that we would know if there had been fatalities.

That said, there have been some launch failures in the Soyuz programme which required emergency escape mechanisms to be activated:

  • Soyuz 18a, April 5 1975
  • Soyuz T-10-1, September 26 1983
  • Soyuz MS-10, October 11 2018

All that said, I’m not sure I quite see the relevance of an o-ring failure in a solid rocket motor, damage to ceramic thermal protection tiles by a foam chunk, a couple of failures of a booster separation mechanism, or a rocket motor turbopump running away to the viability of a commercial SST. We may as well discuss Ladas, Trabants, and Zils vs Fords, Chevys and Cadillacs.

V/F


Where the escape algorithms performed as advertised, I might add...
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
alfa164
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: New Russian SST

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 am

crjflyboy wrote:
While Americans were flying in CONNIES and DC 7'S the soviets were flying the skies with this bird ... well before the 707 ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_T ... y_1972.jpg


I am not sure I would be bragging about an aircraft that racked-up 16 crashes and 37 write-offs - resulting in at least 1,140 fatalities - out of a total of 201 frames built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-104 (your same source!)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2059
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:08 pm

alfa164 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
While Americans were flying in CONNIES and DC 7'S the soviets were flying the skies with this bird ... well before the 707 ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_T ... y_1972.jpg


I am not sure I would be bragging about an aircraft that racked-up 16 crashes and 37 write-offs - resulting in at least 1,140 fatalities - out of a total of 201 frames built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-104 (your same source!)

Those numbers were not off the chart for that era. You cannot seriously be comparing to today's aircraft. Also, many, if not most, of those losses and deaths were due to hijackings, bombs, accidental shoot-downs, pilot error (landing short of the runway, hitting radio tower et cetera). The info is in the very source you quoted. But leaving this detail out maybe better suits your agenda?
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: New Russian SST

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:37 pm

pls rename topic to more appropriate "wanna more anti-russian propaganda". Just do it fair, don hide after "fantasy about russian SST".

Tu-144 from bomber, slave labor, etc

thanks again, each time i think westerns are common people and dont just want to bring negative you show me how i am wrong
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11518
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: New Russian SST

Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:17 pm

Putin is doing the propaganda, in this case. Probably without giving even 1 ruble to Tupolev to actually achieve the result he's talking about.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
AC77X
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:12 am

Re: New Russian SST

Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:42 pm

Considering how they are using an existing plane instead of making a new one, I think this could work. That being said, I doubt a passenger 160 will be as efficient as a new plane. Development costs must go down from this, right?
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: New Russian SST

Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:36 pm

AC77X wrote:
Considering how they are using an existing plane instead of making a new one, I think this could work. That being said, I doubt a passenger 160 will be as efficient as a new plane. Development costs must go down from this, right?


It would take a hell of a redesign. Of course bomber to airliner has happened before with the Avro Lancastrian and the B-29 to Stratocruiser (which itself was quite a redesign), but they were not supersonic jet aircraft, they were 'just' slow pistons.

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