Page 1 of 1

Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2000 6:00 am
by Guest
I have just finished watching a documentary shown on the Discovery channel about the TU-144. Towards the end of the programme it reavealed that Mcdonnell Douglas had revamped a TU-144 and fitted test equipment for the monitoring of supersonic flight, in the hope of producing a more advanced and larger supersonic jet (not hard)  Can anyone tell me where the TU-144 is now based and where the test flights are being performed?

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2000 7:17 am
by Greeneyes53787
Others can give you the details, but NASA is working in congunction with someone else, I believe. This info is available on the internet. Use the SEARCH function.


RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:07 am
by philb
This work was conclude earlier this year after a number of test flights.

The project was suspended due to lack of any prospect of serious funding

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:57 am
by VC-10

So you think it wouldn't be too hard to build a more advanced & larger supersonic airliner. It just shows how little you understand of the problems in building such an aircraft.

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2000 5:25 am
by Guest
thank you VC-10
I do know how hard it would be to build a new supersonic jet, we were brought up with concorde as my farther worked on her and most of our friends did to, I have studied books and videos many a time.
the joke was that it would not be hard to build a better jet than the TU-144. after all it was a bad design poorly taken from stolen blue prints of concorde. Chill out dude  

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2000 6:56 am
by philb
Was it? Certainly the re-design looks, by all the evidence, to have been stolen but that bad?

If so, why did the french go to so much trouble to kill it, and a few human beings at the same time?

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2000 8:19 am
by Starship

For dozens of pics, each of which is available in varying sizes plus a full description of the Tu-144LL test programs, you may want to check out this web-site:

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2000 10:12 am
by DeltaAir
Right now, Tupelov wants Boeing and NASA to help it develop the TU-244. Basically the same aircraft, except a widebody with new hypersonic engines. The only thing making the plane not develop is lack of engine technology, which now is no longer a problem.

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2000 7:47 am
by Greeneyes53787
I am a fan of Tupolev, the father and son. Their designs are wonderful.

The TU-144 is not an instrument of competition for me. This bantering annoys me. The basic shapes of the earlier and final '144 appear good. I like the specs more than those of the Concorde, especially the interior width. The TU is potentially more comfortable. It also is designed for greater terminal velocity than the western model.

I do agree that the basic setback was not the basic design, but the fan engines. At our present technology fanned turbojets can give very high speeds. The F-111 can fly at 2.5 mach with fanned turbojets. But I would rather design an SST with narrow inlet turbojets than fanjets.

Do you think the engines in pairs is better than the Convair B-58 evenly spaced engine placement? It seems to me that efficiency is lost with the paired engine housings close to the wings.

One thing before I go.

It seems to me that neither type (Concorde or TU-144) are particularly stable at landing. Deltas land traditionally as a controlled crash (nearly). This makes neither craft quite ready for the flying public. The Convairs (880) weren't quite ready either. The landings were too hot, and the pilots knew it. As long as all four engines were working well (and hydrolics) the margin of safety was fair.


Ps-the Convairs are still my favorites

RE: Tupolev TU-144

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2000 4:08 am
by mlsrar
About the myths of Tupolev 'stealing' the design for the concorde, this useless prate needs to be cleared up. Tupolev had long envisioned a supersonic airliner, as had France and Britain--and, more from a competitive standpoint than a fiscal or practical one.

If you were to visually examine the exteriors of the two airframes, you would find many similarities. I could do the same for the F-15 and the F-14, and see similar results-angular nacell intakes, canted cockpit, twin-tail design. Regardless of that, the two aircraft have such a large margin of separation. The same goes for the concorde. The 'blueprints' that were stolen? The European Speedbird was more of a conglomerate of ideas scrawled on pub napkins (not an insult to the engineers). Most of the operational hurdles were negotiated far into the production stage (i.e. fuel displacement midflight). It was more of a manner of throwing some drawings over the wall, having the next design team disseminate them, and add their own tweaks and throwing the rolls to the next team. Boeing used to design aircraft in much the same manner.

The tupolev was integrating composites into structural foundations, titanium and hardened steel into the leading edges and flight control surfaces. The amazing part of its design were its hydraulics. The hyrdrostatic regulation systems integrated were