🤡✈You got SO many things wrong in this video. 7:20: For example, obviously Tupolev himself was NOT required to inspect the plane before every flight as that would have meant that he would travel with the aircraft on every single flight. The Koncordski (note the correct spelling) was NOT first since Concorde was the first to carry paying passengers, and it hardly matter which one was test flown first. You also COMPLETELY ignored the fact that Soviet spies sent back nearly complete blueprints for Concorde making Tupolev's job a relatively simple one. You really should leave aviation to those who have a clue about it. 🤡✈
@@Great-Documentaries”” “Koncordski” 🤣 Ok, room temperature IQ, you need to follow your own advice and stick to uploading dusty episodes of Antique Road Show because you clearly don’t have a clue about aviation🤣
Now is a good time as any to promote the Technik Museum in Sinsheim, Germany. It's the only museum outside of the former Soviet Union to have one on display, and the only museum in the world to have it on display alongside a Concorde.
Also one of the best aircraft museums in the world to reach for public. Next to the A6 Autobahn and a railway station just across the road. Great museum to visit and a must-do-once for everyone who is interested in aviation.
I visited the museum a few weeks ago and it was the best museum for aviation enthusiasts. Being able to walk on board this plane and the Concorde was incredible.
Been there at least four times (and its sibling museum in Speyer three times) during my 3-year stationing in Kaiserslautern, which took effect 11 years ago. Easy shot on A-6 from Kaiserslautern...that is, after you manage to worm your way out of the perpetual road destruction they've been doing to A-6 *through* Kaiserslautern since before I got there.
@@mikehunt4986 Standard procedure for soft/rough terrain or otherwise terrain that your aircraft wasn't designed for. If you bounce (Which you'll do on rough terrain), you can end up doing a number of awful things with landing gear - Shoving it up into the body of the aircraft, ripping it off because it got caught on a rock, and so on. Any of those can cause problems like hydraulic leaks, electrical problems, and best yet - fire. There's actually a few airliner incidents where a hard landing cause the landing gear to go into the landing gear bay too far, which basically made everything worse because something important was broken by the landing gear being where it shouldn't. If you do a belly landing, sure, your belly is going to be trashed. But it's smooth and generally the most structurally sound thing, so it's not likely to break easy. And when it comes to evacuations, modern aircraft have slides (I don't know about this one). The higher up the airplane is, the steeper the angle the slide is at. If it's at a steeper angle, there's more chance of injuries. If the body is on the ground, then the angle is significantly less and in some cases the slides aren't even needed. So it's easier to evacuate, faster to evacuate, and there's a lower chance of injuries during an evacuation. If you're curious about planes, I highly recommend Mentour Pilot's channel. He goes over aircraft incidents and the whys and hows and all sorts of things like this.
The engines, analogue dials and space for an engineer definitely make it look dated. I say the engines cause with fuel prices being what they are don't google what a take off cost.
I'd always thought that the Tu 144 had never entered service after the Paris Airshow crash in 1973. After seeing this, and how flawed the aircraft was, I was surprised how long it was in service, even after 2 fatal accidents
It flew on a quite limited basis. It was horribly noisy inside the cabin primarily because it had to keep the afterburners going to maintain supersonic speed (unlike Concorde that used them for acceleration).
@@arturoaguilar6002Neverending laughs. The upside down compass because they forgot it i the design, so they had to put it in the attic of the pilot, with a rearview mirror to see it. Let’s elongate it: MD-11. No need to pass any type rating guys, pilots won’t ever slam it to the ground due to its length… will they? Oh it lost the piece that the Concorde stepped upon when it pierced its tanks, causing the famous crash. What a chance that Mcdonnell Douglas doesn’t exist anymore.
It was not merely referred to as Concordski because of appearance but because of espionage. One of the more comical episodes in this was the French intelligence service intentionally leaking a formula to produce the tires, which were at that time beyond the materials science of the Soviets to produce, which was intended to turn into a gum-like material when heated. This didn't result in anyone hurt or anything but slowed the "Concordski" project a bit and confounded the Soviets.
It was actually the BAC plant at Filton who leaked the tyre-rubber formula: it was obvious who the KGB " mole" in the factory was. The only employee who habitually bought the Morning Star into work every morning!
You have to wait till Tuesday night to watch FH? Poor thing. I get to see it on Tuesday morning. Lol. Time is such bullshit. It's 745am in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. Out of curiosity at what part of our wonderful planet are you standing Presently?
Twice a day; pictures rattling, pets hiding, car alarms going off. The fact it was allowed to fly in the UK was an obscenity. But hey, the rich could get to NYC quickly and that was all that mattered.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066Oh well at least you're not bitter about it right? I couldn't afford Concorde tickets either but I'm still glad it existed.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066 On it's final approach back to Heathrow, Concorde flew over central London and followed the path of the Thames to Richmond. As it flew over, businesses came to a standstill. Both meetings and telephone conversations had to stop for about a minute. At first it seemed like great fun, with everyone rushing to look out of the windows, but the novelty soon wore off.
It was never good to be viable as it needed to have its afterburners on all the time to maintain supersonic flight. Consequently its range was less than about a thousand miles. Concorde on the other hand didn’t require afterburners to maintain supersonic flight. Hence it’s much greater range.
Indeed, but it's mostly due to the Bourget and Farnborough being neutral locations in 2 countries with the longest history of aeronautic industry. Interstingly France had a number of others airfields in the premodern years, and likewise UK - they were mostly built at naval stations on the coast, as the Navies were one of the first to be interested in aviation. In France historically the first air salon location was in Buc and Velizy, near Versailles.
8:55 "poor fuel efficiency" That's the understatement of the century. The afterburner provides additional thrust by injecting fuel into the engine exhaust. You'll see it on some aircraft when they are taking off from extremely short runways. Big boost to speed, but at high fuel cost. The only way this aircraft could break the sound barrier was by using the afterburner. No wonder it could only do short-haul routes!
One of the factors that eventually retired the SR-71 as well. The thing was fast but burned fuel at an insanely high rate when the afterburners were engaged. Almost all of the fuselage behind the cockpit and any available space in the wings were used for fuel storage. When running at top speed, it could only fly for an hour before needing to be refueled.
@Kboyer36 It was pretty much always running on afterburner except refueling and satellites were the primary reason for discontinuing it. Completely wrong on refueling time though was over 90 minutes. Remember this isnt flying at 300 knots so missions didn't take as long. It actually flew most efficiently at maximum speed.
This was one of the reasons TU-144 lost out to Concord' (an ostensibly smaller aircraft); TU-144 couldn't truly *Supercruise* . Other points of inferiority were: • Less advanced Wheel Brakes; the reason she needed braking parachutes. • A less well devised Ogival Delta wing. • Far noisier Air Conditioning; one of the reasons the cabin was so loud. • Much more vibration during supersonic flight, due to the placement of the engines; they reduced the issue post-prototype but never fully fixed it. ...and so much more. The TU-144 was an impressive effort for a country as technically backward as the USSR, and did lead to technical advancements on their side... but at the same time showed in stark relief how behind the west they really were, in almost everything that could be measured 🤔 .
@@Kboyer36 All of that fuel tucked away into every nook and cranny of the airframe was weight. Not to mention ram jets aren't very efficient until they reach Mach 3+. Big trade-offs to go zoom.
@@jimtaylor294 heh, there was another Russian designed long-range passenger plane that also had the noise issue... but in that case it was because only PART of the plane was breaking the sound barrier... the tips of the props. It was an impressive piece of work. Russian turbo props are incredibly advanced. But that model is also incredibly LOUD... not well suited to a passenger aircraft. A plane that can do a round trip from Moscow to DC and back at near supersonic without refueling is amazing though.
Thank you for analyzing the story about the project of our passenger Soviet supersonic aircraft. As for me, the Tu-144 initially had little chance to become a full-fledged passenger aircraft. The rush in production, the desire to become the first, the high cost of production, and most importantly, the complete unprofitability of the aircraft only showed that for ordinary flights this aircraft would not have caught on. Currently, Russia has supersonic Tu-160 aircraft, but they are used only for military purposes.
And the inability of Russia’s aircraft industry to produce aircraft quickly, along with supply chain issues. That’s why Boeing and Airbus (and on the smaller end, Embraer) prosper.
My great uncle, who just passed this April, worked on this plane. I heard the story so many times as a kid. Really great vid, most people who do this story only cover the Paris incident so I really appreciate that you told the whole story!
I got to board a Tu-144 (and a Concorde) recently at a museum. Turns out the Tupolev actually has better interiors, at least if you’re fine with 1970s interior design
You might have come away with a different opinion in flight. The 144 was extremely loud and vibrated quite a bit when in operation, so much so that passengers had to write in notebooks and pass them around to communicate.
As for flying on it - it was a novelty experience mostly. Both my parents were offered a seat for their normal work travels inside USSR, once, as ordinary Soviet people, but my mom declined as something else came up, I think probably her scheduled "queue" for travel (basically, people had queues for everything, interestingly the same way European countries now want to regulate tourism) trip to Canada in 1977, and my dad's practice destination was changed from some place in Central Asia to Sayano-Shushenskaya powerstation construction site. Turns out it stopped flying soon after. Most people who flew on the Tu-144 live in Kirghizstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Turkmenistan, nowadays, really, and it's not the kind of people Westerners would think have flown on a supersonic airliner.
Interesting point, You mentioned that the Concordski was very noisy and this was due to using "military style afterburner jet engines" The Concorde also used the same military afterburning jet engines as the Vulcan Bomber. Yet Concorde was far far quieter in the cabin. The Tu144 was such a rushed project, not alot of thought was put into creature comforts. The Soviets just wanted to be the first, come what may and to hell with all other consequences. It's quite sad really, because they had the expertise to make a really good aircraft, but instead they got a rushed heap of junk.
@@zetectic7968 Ok, From what I've read over the years, both used the Olympus 593 jet engine and the engine was further developed for use in the TSR2 and Concorde. Technically you are correct but we're splitting hairs at this point.
IIRC, the Concorde cost $10K for a round trip NY to London. I wonder how many in the USSR could afford such travel... When I was in grammar school (K-8), they did sonic boom tests over our city. Extremely disruptive (even shook the windows in our school), and SST was curtailed over the US, which pretty much killed any faster-than-sound transport...
It was a novelty experience mostly. Both my parents were offered a seat for their normal work travels inside USSR, once, as ordinary Soviet people, but my mom declined as something else came up, I think probably her scheduled "queue" for travel (basically, people had queues for everything, interestingly the same way European countries now want to regulate tourism) trip to Canada in 1977, and my dad's practice destination was changed from some place in Central Asia to Sayano-Shushenskaya powerstation construction site. Turns out it stopped flying soon after. Most people who flew on the Tu-144 live in Kirghizstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Turkmenistan, nowadays, really, and it's not the kind of people Westerners would think have flown on a supersonic airliner.
@@xzytqweo3538 difference beeing that it was more capable than the american shuttle lol, including ejector seats for all the passengers, fully autonomous flight, and even a little larger carry capacity
In case you're wondering, I made a video all about Concorde as well. Like this supersonic project, it also ended in disaster. Here's a link: ruclips.net/video/g2keyz6-4HQ/видео.html
I... spit out a bite of my breakfast over the "Concordski". This stuff happened when I was an embryo, and that bit of cold war humor was new to me. Lmao.... That era seems.... so funny now. It was dead serious at the time but... looking back it can all seem pretty funny.... like everyone was playing "cold war!"...
Another comment says that the Soviets stole a decent amount of development info from the French, including the formula for the rubber for the tires... not knowing that the French were deliberately leaking a flawed formula that would turn to glue under heat. Apparently it did no harm except to briefly delay the Soviet program and confuse them as to why the best Western engineers would come up with a product like that.
I made a lot of jokes about glorious Soviet technology back then, but people were not amused because I was a Soviet imm¡grant (from Sverdlovsk). I knew that it would never be an actual war but most people were terrified and still have PTSD about it. If you've seen Star Trek IV, Chekov asking about the nuc|ear wessels was very much my idea of fun in the '70s. The NYPD was very annoyed with me and my stack of Soviet spy accusation paperwork.
@@sturmovik1274 It's a good film. That is also my birth year! I am well aware of the 'nice' meme, being 69 years young this year. The younger folks get a kick out of it so I bring it up extra often. I'd claim to be hip, but I'd rather not break mine.
It's a shame that the Tu-144 never worked out. Granted, the Soviets clearly nabbed plans of Concorde and tweaked them a little bit, but it would've been good to have another option for supersonic flight
it's not just building it, it's the support, parts supply chain, reliability, airports infrastructure, training the maintenance crew. The post sales support prohibits a lot of buyers to even consider an option. These purchases last 20-30 years, even longer. What if the company no longer in business after 5 years?
In grad school, I wrote a research paper about the failure of the US supersonic airliner projects. There were a lot of reasons for it, but the biggest one was simply that once cooler heads prevailed after the initial surge of hype and someone sat down and ran realistic numbers, the whole concept made zero economic sense.
If I recall correctly one of the issues of the Tu 144 was that it needed continuous afterburner to maintain supersonic flight whereas the Concorde did not.
Never clicked so fast in my life. I know this story so well. What must’ve been going on in that cockpit in those last few minutes doesn’t bear thinking about.
I've always found it sad that the Concorde didn't turn out viable, let alone be an inspiration for more similarly designed aircraft... after learning about the Soviet space shuttle, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised a Soviet Concorde was a thing! But equally forgotten... a sad legacy to leave a bunch of technology behind, ahead of its time, and not fully understood, it's surprising this even made a commercial stint despite never quite being more than an experiment! Hopefully one day we'll go back to supersonic flights.
Boom Aviation is hoping to bring back supersonic air travel. Sounds like they're doing fairly well with a recent test flight of their smaller prototype. They claim they could be selling the final product to airlines by 2030.
It was the Oil Crisis of 1972 that made it uneconomic plus the USA banning it from flying across the US to LA, the other countries followed suit thus the routes were confined to over sea to coastal cities.
I need to ask why the map of the USSR at 0:48 leaves out everything east of Lake Baikal. The people of Vladivostok might be surprised to hear that they weren't Soviet citizens in the 1960s.
And sadly, it has returned to being unthinkable that we would work with the Ruzzians on almost anything. It is sad that the hope I felt when I was 14 was gone by the time I was 30. 12:28
The Buran, unlike the Tu-144, would have been an improvement compared to its western counterpart like being capable of unmanned, automatic flight and not having to completely replace the engine after each flight. It really was an upgraded space shuttle. Shame it was never properly used.
I grew up in the Cold War and it was really funny. They would brag and brag about some new thing that was extremely superior to the US product when it was laughably obvious that it was a copy. And if anyone pointed it out, they got very angry. The NorKs have them beat. They don't bother to make bad copies of cars, they take cars from other countries and re-badge them and claim that they built them themselves.
Surprised you didn’t mention the subterfuge that led to the TU being first in the air. It was definitely built off the hard work of their European counterparts.
Soviet/Russian design principles, was always the same thing: cut corners to make it first to the finish line. The Tu-144 was such a cobbled together second rate aircraft, that was pushed fast to claim the First title, but it was never even close to the advanced technology of the Concorde. We saw this principle of cutting corners to make it first, again recently, in the developments of the Covid-19 vaccines, that the Russians pushed out to claim to be the first in developing one, yet it was the American and British companies of Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca that had mass successes despite not being first, while the Russian vaccine was considered third rate and not nearly as effective, and never even close to the sheer mass production numbers that Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca were able to produce.
hahahhahahnahahaha effective, yeah at inflating their stock prices. They touted out and mandated the people take it to "stop the spread" but oh wait forgot to test for that. Then the government forgot to check that? Looks like it had missed their "misinformation" efforts somehow. Kind of like ivermectin which is now prescribed that they called horse dewormer and made fun of people even thinking about it.
Yup and Pfizer, maderna etc.. verwions don't really meet the definition of a vaccine. it's more just a therapeutic. That thing we mandated it for transmission looks like we never checked it to be effective. So we finally did now and looks like its about as effective at that as wearing a watch. Sorry we made you take it or get fired, our bad..@@tamahagane1700
The received wisdom amongst the technical staff at BAC (British Aircraft Corporation), was that they knew the Soviets were indulging in industrial espionage on the Concorde project, So they were allowed to steal deliberately corrupted details.
Concorde: lets take a passenger jet and make it fast Concordeski: lets take a fighter jet and make it massive 'Your ears appear to be bleeding, comrade'
I was looking for someone to mention Sinsheim. Many of the photos in this video seem to be of that particular aircraft. I've also been inside it, and the Concorde they have displayed with it! Fantastic museum for anyone interested in vehicles of any kind. I regret I couldn't make it to their sister location in Speyer where the Buran space shuttle is kept.
I checked my photos of when I visited Sinsheim back in 2017 and you are correct, it is this one shown! I was weekended in my truck at the Autohof just a short walk down the road. It's an incredible place to visit!
The other issue with the Tu-144 was that there was always the question of who exactly in the USSR was supposed to fly aboard it? In the West, the Concorde only lasted as long as it did by marketing itself as a high class, first rate experience for the rich and famous, and even then it was still considered a commercial failure. The USSR, being communist and all, didn't really have any rich people(or at least not that many) to fill that same niche, so the Tu-144 could never be marketed that way. They weren’t even allowed to charge extra for tickets, and the prices weren't much different from a regular flight, so it could never break even, much less turn a profit. So having something like this in a communist economy was never going to work, and at best was only good as a propaganda tool and a prestige project.
Considering Concorde's financial success is debatable, even with it flying between New York and London/Paris, this thing must have been a serious money-loser flying between Moscow and Almaty. While I've never been to the latter, I'm going to venture it's not exactly one of the great financial centers of the world. Another terrific overview, thank you much FH!
You gotta love Soviet logic. "Because this plane is full of all kinds of international journalists it would be embarassing to the Soviet Union if we cancelled this flight. So let's risk being way more embarassed and a GREAT DEAL of diplomatic fallout by officially giving this flight a go ahead and letting this definitely malfunctioning plane gamble on crashing and killing everyone aboard." Yup. Flawless Soviet logic. With priorities and thinking like that it's no wonder the Soviet Union has survived all this time to the present da- oh, wait.
The cause of the crash has been definitely known since it occurred. One of the options listed in the video was the actual cause. When the Soviet SST went up in the air, the French had a fighter shadow it from above (without informing the SST) to photograph details of the Russian SST in flight, particularly the small canards in the nose. It was cloudy and the French fighter got too close and almost hit the Russian SST. The SST pilot saw he was about to hit the French fighter plane and did a quick nose down to avoid it, which killed the engines. The Russian SST pilot then put the plane into a severe nose dive, forcing air to rush through the engines to restart them. It worked, but the nosedive of SST brought it too close to the ground causing the pilot to severely pull up, but with the speed of the plane coming down the severe pulling of the nose up caused the SST to break apart just above ground level with the engines were running. I saw a video on the story. A group of personnel involved had a discussion with the filmmaker, and when it became apparent the focus of the story was on the French fighter plane involved, the French Air Force official angrily walked out of the meeting. If questioned about it today the French will not confirm it and will not deny it. They will just end the conversation and walk away.
Basically "Work fast, break shit".... Look, this thing was "Rushed to market" to beat the Concorde which they obviously knew about before it was ready. Imagine development time was a LOT shorter than the Concorde.
This aircraft had a brief revival with NASA sometime in the 90’s (iirc) for some supersonic passenger research they did. I’m not sure how serious it was or if it was a let’s come together with the former USSR and show that the past is behind us kind of thing.
Yes--you can be the first government to fly a supersonic airliner, if you do it by producing an absolute dog of a design that never had the slightest chance of operational success, an aircraft aboard which passengers couldn't converse due to the deafening noise in the cabin, an aircraft that needed specialists aboard to keep up with the constant system failures. A stretch of the word 'achievement.' It was a disaster.
Concorde had both mechanics and parts flying on it constantly as most of its systems had no operational reserve - any broken part would immediately mean grounding the airplane and losing a revenue flight. In geneal - I don't know a out BEA/BA but Air France only stopped flying mechanics on its regularly scheduled flights well into the 1990ies - I'm not talking about crew engineers - no, actual mechanics for plane maintenance, which I guess will surprise you.
As a professional pilot; I can’t accept that it wasn’t a bad design when a wing comes off during stall recovery. I’ll need to read a 3rd party report and probably take away my own opinion with a grain of salt. That’s the problem with accidents like this, they become very political
Kyra Dempsey, Admiral Cloudberg, has a long form article about this. Unfrotunately you won't find more that that, and privately I can tell you that Concorde wasn't a much better plane to operate. My comments got deleted there, probably because few people can believe some people have nothing else to do but watch youtube videos and comment on them. But yeah, we do, we make history sometimes, but it's mostly just because we have no friends and the state trusts us to never talk to anyone, mostly because of the friends and strangeness factors (we're too strange for normal people to believe us).
I easily could’ve missed this but did you go into how the USSR actually stole the Concorde’s blueprints. That’s why they could build it so fast, and also why it had issues. They weren’t finalized blueprints (so there were flaws) and Rolls Royce was making the engines, not Concorde’s company. So not only did the plane have issues, it also had the engines designed I believe from scratch. The Concorde could do Mach 2 (1,534 mph or 2,470 kph), but land at 170 mph (274 kph). It could even be flown at speeds under Mach 1 if they didn’t want to do a sonic boom, where as the engines for the Tu-144 came with parachutes.
It was a pleasure to help you out with this video and other ones!
He’ll definitely know it’s you since you just created your channel today! Probably to write this comment. Loser.
Must be true if he pinned it lol prpbly just never had a account
@@coleh591 that is half true; I have another account here but this new one is for future professional works
🤡✈You got SO many things wrong in this video. 7:20: For example, obviously Tupolev himself was NOT required to inspect the plane before every flight as that would have meant that he would travel with the aircraft on every single flight. The Koncordski (note the correct spelling) was NOT first since Concorde was the first to carry paying passengers, and it hardly matter which one was test flown first. You also COMPLETELY ignored the fact that Soviet spies sent back nearly complete blueprints for Concorde making Tupolev's job a relatively simple one. You really should leave aviation to those who have a clue about it. 🤡✈
@@Great-Documentaries”” “Koncordski” 🤣 Ok, room temperature IQ, you need to follow your own advice and stick to uploading dusty episodes of Antique Road Show because you clearly don’t have a clue about aviation🤣
Now is a good time as any to promote the Technik Museum in Sinsheim, Germany. It's the only museum outside of the former Soviet Union to have one on display, and the only museum in the world to have it on display alongside a Concorde.
Also one of the best aircraft museums in the world to reach for public. Next to the A6 Autobahn and a railway station just across the road. Great museum to visit and a must-do-once for everyone who is interested in aviation.
I visited the museum a few weeks ago and it was the best museum for aviation enthusiasts. Being able to walk on board this plane and the Concorde was incredible.
Been there at least four times (and its sibling museum in Speyer three times) during my 3-year stationing in Kaiserslautern, which took effect 11 years ago. Easy shot on A-6 from Kaiserslautern...that is, after you manage to worm your way out of the perpetual road destruction they've been doing to A-6 *through* Kaiserslautern since before I got there.
Sounds dope. The USAF museum is the best I've visited so far, but I'd love to see more as a warbird fan.
6:21 That interior is the true fascinating horror.
And then there is the in-flight meal, so very scary interesting. :)
I love the kitsch of it all.
It sounds like the aircraft itself was just plainly difficult.
😂😂😂
It certainly doesn't seem very comfortable
The fact that they were able to put it down in a field with minimal loss of life speaks to the skills of those pilots.
They are test pilots, after all they should be amongst the best pilots you can find in a country.
Yes but how come they landed with their landing gear retracted?
@@mikehunt4986 If the surface isn't flat enough, lowering landing gears might get them stuck and flip the plan over.
@@mikehunt4986 Standard procedure for soft/rough terrain or otherwise terrain that your aircraft wasn't designed for. If you bounce (Which you'll do on rough terrain), you can end up doing a number of awful things with landing gear - Shoving it up into the body of the aircraft, ripping it off because it got caught on a rock, and so on. Any of those can cause problems like hydraulic leaks, electrical problems, and best yet - fire. There's actually a few airliner incidents where a hard landing cause the landing gear to go into the landing gear bay too far, which basically made everything worse because something important was broken by the landing gear being where it shouldn't.
If you do a belly landing, sure, your belly is going to be trashed. But it's smooth and generally the most structurally sound thing, so it's not likely to break easy.
And when it comes to evacuations, modern aircraft have slides (I don't know about this one). The higher up the airplane is, the steeper the angle the slide is at. If it's at a steeper angle, there's more chance of injuries. If the body is on the ground, then the angle is significantly less and in some cases the slides aren't even needed. So it's easier to evacuate, faster to evacuate, and there's a lower chance of injuries during an evacuation.
If you're curious about planes, I highly recommend Mentour Pilot's channel. He goes over aircraft incidents and the whys and hows and all sorts of things like this.
@@andon_RT Apropos for this channel, but that was fascinating, thank you!
"Just wait until you see us fly. Then you'll see something." Ominous last words...
He forgot it was an airliner not a stunt plane.
It really was something, clearly 😳
Well, he wasn't wrong....
Kinda like “this ship is unsinkable!”
@@GrumpyMeow-Meow Right? "God himself could not sink this ship!" BAM Iceberg!
Even today the Concorde looks like something decades in the future so it must have been incredibly revolutionary for its time
I always used to bend the nose of my paper airplanes to make it look like concord
@@insertgenericusernamehere2402 Hahah, same!
@@insertgenericusernamehere2402 it makes it go faster
The engines, analogue dials and space for an engineer definitely make it look dated. I say the engines cause with fuel prices being what they are don't google what a take off cost.
It looks it’s age internally. But externally it’s still got the wow factor.
I'd always thought that the Tu 144 had never entered service after the Paris Airshow crash in 1973. After seeing this, and how flawed the aircraft was, I was surprised how long it was in service, even after 2 fatal accidents
"the state never makes mistakes" might have had something to do with it.
sorry...."the Party never makes mistakes"*
It flew on a quite limited basis. It was horribly noisy inside the cabin primarily because it had to keep the afterburners going to maintain supersonic speed (unlike Concorde that used them for acceleration).
Yeah, imagine how crazy would be to have a fundamentally flawed aircraft model on regular service.
* causally stares at the DC-10
@@arturoaguilar6002Neverending laughs. The upside down compass because they forgot it i the design, so they had to put it in the attic of the pilot, with a rearview mirror to see it. Let’s elongate it: MD-11. No need to pass any type rating guys, pilots won’t ever slam it to the ground due to its length… will they? Oh it lost the piece that the Concorde stepped upon when it pierced its tanks, causing the famous crash.
What a chance that Mcdonnell Douglas doesn’t exist anymore.
It was not merely referred to as Concordski because of appearance but because of espionage. One of the more comical episodes in this was the French intelligence service intentionally leaking a formula to produce the tires, which were at that time beyond the materials science of the Soviets to produce, which was intended to turn into a gum-like material when heated. This didn't result in anyone hurt or anything but slowed the "Concordski" project a bit and confounded the Soviets.
So the formula was deliberately bad, or were the Soviets confused at the absurd requirements possible in a Capitalist system?
That's awesome ! The two planes look nearly identical. The soviet's obviously copied the French craft.
@@ZKP314I would expect it to be the former
It was actually the BAC plant at Filton who leaked the tyre-rubber formula: it was obvious who the KGB " mole" in the factory was. The only employee who habitually bought the Morning Star into work every morning!
I always thought both aircraft looked a bit "Thunderbirds".
Watching Fascinating Horror is a Tuesday evening routine for me. Covering aviation disasters makes it even better.
You have to wait till Tuesday night to watch FH? Poor thing.
I get to see it on Tuesday morning. Lol. Time is such bullshit. It's 745am in the
Great Lakes region of the U.S.
Out of curiosity at what part of our wonderful planet are you standing Presently?
Morning in England!
@@thisperson5294from Oceania I see! Fellow Aussie and this is my Tuesday evening pleasure watch.
All of this ☝️☝️☝️☝️❤❤
it doesn't matter, they don't have customers. It's a joke to steal something that cannot be sold. Waste of their time.
Goes to show how well designed and built Concorde was before its one and only fatal crash.
How about this m
In fact, it was so well designed and built, that it never achieved success as designed.
@@DanKoning777 Hmm... sounds intriguing, do tell!
@@reachandler3655 // 👍 Fascinating Horror beat me to it. 😂
@@DanKoning777 Found the American.
0:21 saw this and immediately went "OH MY GOD IS THAT THE DROOP SNOOT???"
the snoot would droop!!!
I lived near Heathrow when Concorde was still flying. Never heard any other plane taking off. It was f*cking LOUD.
Twice a day; pictures rattling, pets hiding, car alarms going off. The fact it was allowed to fly in the UK was an obscenity. But hey, the rich could get to NYC quickly and that was all that mattered.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066I remember car alarms going off as it flew into Heathrow.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066Oh well at least you're not bitter about it right? I couldn't afford Concorde tickets either but I'm still glad it existed.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066 On it's final approach back to Heathrow, Concorde flew over central London and followed the path of the Thames to Richmond.
As it flew over, businesses came to a standstill. Both meetings and telephone conversations had to stop for about a minute.
At first it seemed like great fun, with everyone rushing to look out of the windows, but the novelty soon wore off.
@@pescetarianomnitarian9066 jog on 🤦♂️ why do you live under a flight path? Because its cheap, don't be surprised there are aircraft.
The fact that it lasted another 10 years is amazing.
It was never good to be viable as it needed to have its afterburners on all the time to maintain supersonic flight. Consequently its range was less than about a thousand miles. Concorde on the other hand didn’t require afterburners to maintain supersonic flight. Hence it’s much greater range.
Actually, it was over 1,500 miles. Tu-144D boosted that to just over 3,300 miles.
The sadness that both the Concorde and TU-144 both crashed for the first time in France, a weird occurance
Indeed, but it's mostly due to the Bourget and Farnborough being neutral locations in 2 countries with the longest history of aeronautic industry. Interstingly France had a number of others airfields in the premodern years, and likewise UK - they were mostly built at naval stations on the coast, as the Navies were one of the first to be interested in aviation. In France historically the first air salon location was in Buc and Velizy, near Versailles.
@@torchy33 its even worse when you realize that both aircraft crash sites are pretty close to each other (despite leaving different airports)
8:55 "poor fuel efficiency"
That's the understatement of the century. The afterburner provides additional thrust by injecting fuel into the engine exhaust. You'll see it on some aircraft when they are taking off from extremely short runways. Big boost to speed, but at high fuel cost.
The only way this aircraft could break the sound barrier was by using the afterburner. No wonder it could only do short-haul routes!
One of the factors that eventually retired the SR-71 as well. The thing was fast but burned fuel at an insanely high rate when the afterburners were engaged. Almost all of the fuselage behind the cockpit and any available space in the wings were used for fuel storage. When running at top speed, it could only fly for an hour before needing to be refueled.
@Kboyer36 It was pretty much always running on afterburner except refueling and satellites were the primary reason for discontinuing it. Completely wrong on refueling time though was over 90 minutes. Remember this isnt flying at 300 knots so missions didn't take as long. It actually flew most efficiently at maximum speed.
This was one of the reasons TU-144 lost out to Concord' (an ostensibly smaller aircraft); TU-144 couldn't truly *Supercruise* .
Other points of inferiority were:
• Less advanced Wheel Brakes; the reason she needed braking parachutes.
• A less well devised Ogival Delta wing.
• Far noisier Air Conditioning; one of the reasons the cabin was so loud.
• Much more vibration during supersonic flight, due to the placement of the engines; they reduced the issue post-prototype but never fully fixed it.
...and so much more.
The TU-144 was an impressive effort for a country as technically backward as the USSR, and did lead to technical advancements on their side... but at the same time showed in stark relief how behind the west they really were, in almost everything that could be measured 🤔 .
@@Kboyer36 All of that fuel tucked away into every nook and cranny of the airframe was weight. Not to mention ram jets aren't very efficient until they reach Mach 3+. Big trade-offs to go zoom.
@@jimtaylor294 heh, there was another Russian designed long-range passenger plane that also had the noise issue... but in that case it was because only PART of the plane was breaking the sound barrier... the tips of the props. It was an impressive piece of work. Russian turbo props are incredibly advanced. But that model is also incredibly LOUD... not well suited to a passenger aircraft. A plane that can do a round trip from Moscow to DC and back at near supersonic without refueling is amazing though.
I love your intro and outro music! Please never change it! ❤
Those little winglets look like dog ears flapping in the wind, and no one can tell me otherwise.
That helps with the control
I fully agree. Looks like a cartoon dog.
@@reachandler3655I believe there was a cartoon of a flying beagle. Don’t recall the name, it may have been a Disney short.
Underdog@@sophierobinson2738
@@sophierobinson2738Snoopy? I think I’ve seen Snoopy wearing aviator goggles and some kind of leather cap.
On a video on the failure of Concordski, I get an ad for cheap flights! Thanks Algorithm-chan!
Google knows everything you are doing and saying, even when your phone is turned off
@@DaleDixfr
Damn bro, get premium already
@@DigitalDiamonds24 fr
@@DigitalDiamonds24 or ublock
Nothing like waking up at 5:00 am (Los Angeles time) to a Fascinating Horror video. God I love Tuesday mornings.
Fuel gauges not being calibrated should be top priority….in anything
Absolutely!! 😮😮😮
Emergency landing that in a field is wildly impressive.
Thank you for analyzing the story about the project of our passenger Soviet supersonic aircraft.
As for me, the Tu-144 initially had little chance to become a full-fledged passenger aircraft. The rush in production, the desire to become the first, the high cost of production, and most importantly, the complete unprofitability of the aircraft only showed that for ordinary flights this aircraft would not have caught on.
Currently, Russia has supersonic Tu-160 aircraft, but they are used only for military purposes.
And the inability of Russia’s aircraft industry to produce aircraft quickly, along with supply chain issues. That’s why Boeing and Airbus (and on the smaller end, Embraer) prosper.
@@AEMoreira81Russia ≠ USSR
My great uncle, who just passed this April, worked on this plane. I heard the story so many times as a kid.
Really great vid, most people who do this story only cover the Paris incident so I really appreciate that you told the whole story!
Tupolev actually did use some earlier stolen Concorde blueprints when designing the Tu 144.
ofcourse, Russia and its superior Intelligence always has the capability to meddle in US elections, steal prototype blueprints...you name it
Not surprising to learn, really!
hahahaha superior soviet Intel always medling in US elections, always stealing protoype blueprints 😂😂😂
@@1greenMitsiI think each of us sneak the other’s stuff. 😊
@@1greenMitsi inferior internet intel still believing in Russian meddling in US elections 😂😂😂
"fire alarms started sounding throughout the aircraft!"
"Ok, who brought a pillow?" ~ the flight engineer, possibly😉
What
8:31 Ah now I get it lol
We used to have a model of it at home, one my dad made when he was young. Unfortunately it broke during moving.
So it was an accurate representation in all regards
Just like the real one then. 😆
@@Groovy-Train Well, ours lasted for 20 years and had only this one problem :D
Better record than the real one
@@Shannon-f8w Yeah but ended the same in the end :D
Sigh, RUclips didn't bother to tell me there was a new video for you. I'm glad I still found it.
I got to board a Tu-144 (and a Concorde) recently at a museum. Turns out the Tupolev actually has better interiors, at least if you’re fine with 1970s interior design
Duxford has Concorde prototype and it was tiny inside. I felt so claustrophobic 😀
@sockjim9016
Can you specify what was so great about it in comparison?
You might have come away with a different opinion in flight. The 144 was extremely loud and vibrated quite a bit when in operation, so much so that passengers had to write in notebooks and pass them around to communicate.
Another upload from Fascinating Horror, and I am all for it.
Every Tuesday morning tradition for years watching this
5:30 a.m., Glass Pond plays, queue Fascinating Horror.
10:30pm for me. I think I am luckier. Perfectly for bed time
As for flying on it - it was a novelty experience mostly.
Both my parents were offered a seat for their normal work travels inside USSR, once, as ordinary Soviet people, but my mom declined as something else came up, I think probably her scheduled "queue" for travel (basically, people had queues for everything, interestingly the same way European countries now want to regulate tourism) trip to Canada in 1977, and my dad's practice destination was changed from some place in Central Asia to Sayano-Shushenskaya powerstation construction site.
Turns out it stopped flying soon after.
Most people who flew on the Tu-144 live in Kirghizstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Turkmenistan, nowadays, really, and it's not the kind of people Westerners would think have flown on a supersonic airliner.
Interesting point, You mentioned that the Concordski was very noisy and this was due to using "military style afterburner jet engines"
The Concorde also used the same military afterburning jet engines as the Vulcan Bomber.
Yet Concorde was far far quieter in the cabin.
The Tu144 was such a rushed project, not alot of thought was put into creature comforts. The Soviets just wanted to be the first, come what may and to hell with all other consequences.
It's quite sad really, because they had the expertise to make a really good aircraft, but instead they got a rushed heap of junk.
Concorde didn't use the same engines as the Vulcan, it used the modified engines design for the scrapped TSR-2
@@zetectic7968 Ok, From what I've read over the years, both used the Olympus 593 jet engine and the engine was further developed for use in the TSR2 and Concorde. Technically you are correct but we're splitting hairs at this point.
to be fair, aeroflot has just an awful safety record even when they're not running state of the art supersonic experimental jets.
Nothing like waking up to a Fascinating Horror vid
Highlight of my Tuesday morning
The transition at 11:13
“Broski, let me copy your homework” “Dah comrade, just don’t make it obvious” and that’s how we got the Concordski
"...plagarize, plagarize, plagarize.....but be sure to call it always, please, research.:"
--Tom Lehrer
IIRC, the Concorde cost $10K for a round trip NY to London. I wonder how many in the USSR could afford such travel...
When I was in grammar school (K-8), they did sonic boom tests over our city. Extremely disruptive (even shook the windows in our school), and SST was curtailed over the US, which pretty much killed any faster-than-sound transport...
It was a novelty experience mostly.
Both my parents were offered a seat for their normal work travels inside USSR, once, as ordinary Soviet people, but my mom declined as something else came up, I think probably her scheduled "queue" for travel (basically, people had queues for everything, interestingly the same way European countries now want to regulate tourism) trip to Canada in 1977, and my dad's practice destination was changed from some place in Central Asia to Sayano-Shushenskaya powerstation construction site.
Turns out it stopped flying soon after.
Most people who flew on the Tu-144 live in Kirghizstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Turkmenistan, nowadays, really, and it's not the kind of people Westerners would think have flown on a supersonic airliner.
Great video FH. RIP to the souls lost in the accidents and condolences to their families.
Tracing paper, the Soviet union's greatest commodity.
That made me laugh out loud ! Thank you !
Potato skins are never waisted.
@@joanfrellburg4901Wouldn't that be onion skins?
Outstanding 😂😂😂
@davidjernigan8161 it's a vodka joke. Lol
Wow. I didn't even know there was a different kind of Concord, let alone a Soviet one.
Let's find out why I never knew about it!
Algorithm - hold my beer
Did you know that the Soviets had a space shuttle,too? But like the TU 144....
@@xzytqweo3538 difference beeing that it was more capable than the american shuttle lol, including ejector seats for all the passengers, fully autonomous flight, and even a little larger carry capacity
@@Helperbot-2000 I don't care
@@Helperbot-2000 🤓☝️
In case you're wondering, I made a video all about Concorde as well. Like this supersonic project, it also ended in disaster. Here's a link: ruclips.net/video/g2keyz6-4HQ/видео.html
Thanks!
Thank you!
Imagine during a test flight, NOT trusting your gauges!!!
Yuri! Where's my Sledgehammer?
And flying by the seat of your pants is not something you want to do in a jet, much less a supersonic one!
Got to go inside a Concorde in NYC at the Intrepid Museum. It's tight in there. I wasn't a fan, but it's a fascinating part of aviation history.
I... spit out a bite of my breakfast over the "Concordski". This stuff happened when I was an embryo, and that bit of cold war humor was new to me. Lmao.... That era seems.... so funny now. It was dead serious at the time but... looking back it can all seem pretty funny.... like everyone was playing "cold war!"...
Another comment says that the Soviets stole a decent amount of development info from the French, including the formula for the rubber for the tires... not knowing that the French were deliberately leaking a flawed formula that would turn to glue under heat. Apparently it did no harm except to briefly delay the Soviet program and confuse them as to why the best Western engineers would come up with a product like that.
I made a lot of jokes about glorious Soviet technology back then, but people were not amused because I was a Soviet imm¡grant (from Sverdlovsk). I knew that it would never be an actual war but most people were terrified and still have PTSD about it.
If you've seen Star Trek IV, Chekov asking about the nuc|ear wessels was very much my idea of fun in the '70s. The NYPD was very annoyed with me and my stack of Soviet spy accusation paperwork.
@@SAOS451316 My father was born in 1955, and he still can't watch that scene without laughing.
@@sturmovik1274 It's a good film.
That is also my birth year! I am well aware of the 'nice' meme, being 69 years young this year. The younger folks get a kick out of it so I bring it up extra often. I'd claim to be hip, but I'd rather not break mine.
It's a shame that the Tu-144 never worked out. Granted, the Soviets clearly nabbed plans of Concorde and tweaked them a little bit, but it would've been good to have another option for supersonic flight
it's not just building it, it's the support, parts supply chain, reliability, airports infrastructure, training the maintenance crew. The post sales support prohibits a lot of buyers to even consider an option. These purchases last 20-30 years, even longer. What if the company no longer in business after 5 years?
Well, they obviously did nab the plans but engineers clearly had a lot less development time to beat the Concorde to market by mandate by higher ups
In grad school, I wrote a research paper about the failure of the US supersonic airliner projects. There were a lot of reasons for it, but the biggest one was simply that once cooler heads prevailed after the initial surge of hype and someone sat down and ran realistic numbers, the whole concept made zero economic sense.
@@ZGryphon yeah. Money talks in capitalism countries. In communist systems, face/ego first and that's why they are no good doing business.
@@jarkkehhh213 They can steal but no customers. Maybe low end consumer items like fake Rolex, LV..etc.
The KHL (ice hockey league) could have really used the Concordski. One of the road trips was almost 7000 miles.
They were ahead off time, too much ahead. Great video again thnx.
Wow. It feels illegal to be THIS early
If I recall correctly one of the issues of the Tu 144 was that it needed continuous afterburner to maintain supersonic flight whereas the Concorde did not.
These moments in history keep getting more interesting. What else you got FH?
Never clicked so fast in my life. I know this story so well.
What must’ve been going on in that cockpit in those last few minutes doesn’t bear thinking about.
1:12 looks like a figure from a nightmare
“The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Concorde” is so on the nose.
I've always found it sad that the Concorde didn't turn out viable, let alone be an inspiration for more similarly designed aircraft... after learning about the Soviet space shuttle, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised a Soviet Concorde was a thing! But equally forgotten... a sad legacy to leave a bunch of technology behind, ahead of its time, and not fully understood, it's surprising this even made a commercial stint despite never quite being more than an experiment! Hopefully one day we'll go back to supersonic flights.
Boom Aviation is hoping to bring back supersonic air travel. Sounds like they're doing fairly well with a recent test flight of their smaller prototype.
They claim they could be selling the final product to airlines by 2030.
It was the Oil Crisis of 1972 that made it uneconomic plus the USA banning it from flying across the US to LA, the other countries followed suit thus the routes were confined to over sea to coastal cities.
Thanks for this video. I'd never even heard of the TU-144 until now!
Excellent video with history notes that almost no one knows about. Great channel!
I need to ask why the map of the USSR at 0:48 leaves out everything east of Lake Baikal. The people of Vladivostok might be surprised to hear that they weren't Soviet citizens in the 1960s.
always feels like christmas morning when i see a new upload from FH
1:15 Tell me that isn't a horrific looking cockpit.
Looks like a skull 💀
@@JS60SIX Exactly lol
And sadly, it has returned to being unthinkable that we would work with the Ruzzians on almost anything. It is sad that the hope I felt when I was 14 was gone by the time I was 30. 12:28
We're still rockin out together on the space station... for now at least!
Much like the Buran shuttle, there was no coincidence. Before China made bad copies, there were Soviet bad copies.
The Buran, unlike the Tu-144, would have been an improvement compared to its western counterpart like being capable of unmanned, automatic flight and not having to completely replace the engine after each flight. It really was an upgraded space shuttle. Shame it was never properly used.
I grew up in the Cold War and it was really funny. They would brag and brag about some new thing that was extremely superior to the US product when it was laughably obvious that it was a copy. And if anyone pointed it out, they got very angry.
The NorKs have them beat. They don't bother to make bad copies of cars, they take cars from other countries and re-badge them and claim that they built them themselves.
Surprised you didn’t mention the subterfuge that led to the TU being first in the air. It was definitely built off the hard work of their European counterparts.
Soviet/Russian design principles, was always the same thing: cut corners to make it first to the finish line. The Tu-144 was such a cobbled together second rate aircraft, that was pushed fast to claim the First title, but it was never even close to the advanced technology of the Concorde.
We saw this principle of cutting corners to make it first, again recently, in the developments of the Covid-19 vaccines, that the Russians pushed out to claim to be the first in developing one, yet it was the American and British companies of Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca that had mass successes despite not being first, while the Russian vaccine was considered third rate and not nearly as effective, and never even close to the sheer mass production numbers that Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca were able to produce.
Man an comment about vaccines made over two hours ago with out the crazies jumping on it
If that was success, then I'd hate to see failure.
Talking about superior Western vaccines and crap Russki medicine we have first to pay respect to 1.22 million COVID fatalities in the US alone
hahahhahahnahahaha effective, yeah at inflating their stock prices. They touted out and mandated the people take it to "stop the spread" but oh wait forgot to test for that. Then the government forgot to check that? Looks like it had missed their "misinformation" efforts somehow. Kind of like ivermectin which is now prescribed that they called horse dewormer and made fun of people even thinking about it.
Yup and Pfizer, maderna etc.. verwions don't really meet the definition of a vaccine. it's more just a therapeutic. That thing we mandated it for transmission looks like we never checked it to be effective. So we finally did now and looks like its about as effective at that as wearing a watch. Sorry we made you take it or get fired, our bad..@@tamahagane1700
Fantastic video, I hadn’t heard of these accidents. The fact that it had to be inspected prior to every flight is wild.
Let’s be honest, there were not a lot of Soviet inventions that didn’t have any fatal flaws.
A masterclass in recklessness. Stuff a sock into the alarm speaker just to pretend my knob is bigger than yours.
The received wisdom amongst the technical staff at BAC (British Aircraft Corporation), was that they knew the Soviets were indulging in industrial espionage on the Concorde project, So they were allowed to steal deliberately corrupted details.
Concorde: lets take a passenger jet and make it fast
Concordeski: lets take a fighter jet and make it massive
'Your ears appear to be bleeding, comrade'
I was inside of it in Sinsheim, Germany. (I think its shown in this video standing on a roof)
I was looking for someone to mention Sinsheim. Many of the photos in this video seem to be of that particular aircraft. I've also been inside it, and the Concorde they have displayed with it! Fantastic museum for anyone interested in vehicles of any kind. I regret I couldn't make it to their sister location in Speyer where the Buran space shuttle is kept.
I checked my photos of when I visited Sinsheim back in 2017 and you are correct, it is this one shown! I was weekended in my truck at the Autohof just a short walk down the road. It's an incredible place to visit!
Such beautiful aircraft. Put me in mind of Canada's Avro Arrow, that we sadly abandoned. Thanks, FH.
I know the rest of the video won't make me laugh but god in those first few shots the plane looks like a really messed up goose 😂
I'd love to hear about someone's experience flying on either the Concorde or Concordski.
It may have been very flawed but it was really beautiful to look at.
Always great content never disappoints!❤
The Concorde was such a beautiful aircraft. It’s a real shame that it didn’t work out.
Also, it should be noted that Soviet spies stole the Concord designs to make the advances they did. Perhaps this is a kind of karma?
it’s crazy how much they talked about this aircraft being ahead of its time and technologically advanced yet nothing actually worked.
Very interesting. This my favorite channel by far.
The other issue with the Tu-144 was that there was always the question of who exactly in the USSR was supposed to fly aboard it? In the West, the Concorde only lasted as long as it did by marketing itself as a high class, first rate experience for the rich and famous, and even then it was still considered a commercial failure. The USSR, being communist and all, didn't really have any rich people(or at least not that many) to fill that same niche, so the Tu-144 could never be marketed that way. They weren’t even allowed to charge extra for tickets, and the prices weren't much different from a regular flight, so it could never break even, much less turn a profit. So having something like this in a communist economy was never going to work, and at best was only good as a propaganda tool and a prestige project.
Considering Concorde's financial success is debatable, even with it flying between New York and London/Paris, this thing must have been a serious money-loser flying between Moscow and Almaty. While I've never been to the latter, I'm going to venture it's not exactly one of the great financial centers of the world. Another terrific overview, thank you much FH!
You gotta love Soviet logic.
"Because this plane is full of all kinds of international journalists it would be embarassing to the Soviet Union if we cancelled this flight. So let's risk being way more embarassed and a GREAT DEAL of diplomatic fallout by officially giving this flight a go ahead and letting this definitely malfunctioning plane gamble on crashing and killing everyone aboard."
Yup. Flawless Soviet logic. With priorities and thinking like that it's no wonder the Soviet Union has survived all this time to the present da- oh, wait.
The cause of the crash has been definitely known since it occurred. One of the options listed in the video was the actual cause.
When the Soviet SST went up in the air, the French had a fighter shadow it from above (without informing the SST) to photograph details of the Russian SST in flight, particularly the small canards in the nose.
It was cloudy and the French fighter got too close and almost hit the Russian SST. The SST pilot saw he was about to hit the French fighter plane and did a quick nose down to avoid it, which killed the engines. The Russian SST pilot then put the plane into a severe nose dive, forcing air to rush through the engines to restart them. It worked, but the nosedive of SST brought it too close to the ground causing the pilot to severely pull up, but with the speed of the plane coming down the severe pulling of the nose up caused the SST to break apart just above ground level with the engines were running.
I saw a video on the story. A group of personnel involved had a discussion with the filmmaker, and when it became apparent the focus of the story was on the French fighter plane involved, the French Air Force official angrily walked out of the meeting. If questioned about it today the French will not confirm it and will not deny it. They will just end the conversation and walk away.
Is video on yt?
@@DJunclepaul2nd there's a description of the case by Admiral Cloudberg (Kyra Dempsey) out on Medium and IMGUR, she has the links to it as well.
@@DJunclepaul2nd I have a copy of the documentary
“Wait til you see us fly, then you’ll see something.” Yup, we sure did.
3:40 famous last words
7:20 that is a picture of Andrei Tupolev not Aleksey. Father and son duo, but wrong picture.
I saw the Concorde coming in for a landing in the late 1980s in New Jersey. It looked very sci-fi!
I've never liked being early to class
Till now 😂
Basically "Work fast, break shit".... Look, this thing was "Rushed to market" to beat the Concorde which they obviously knew about before it was ready. Imagine development time was a LOT shorter than the Concorde.
This aircraft had a brief revival with NASA sometime in the 90’s (iirc) for some supersonic passenger research they did. I’m not sure how serious it was or if it was a let’s come together with the former USSR and show that the past is behind us kind of thing.
Always reminds me of the XB-70 Valkyrie.
Oh boy can't wait to see a video on the recent disaster in Brazil
Soviet? Concorde? This can’t be good
Especially when it's a story on a disaster channel. 😆
Yep a bit like USSR and nuclear power stations!!!
Yes--you can be the first government to fly a supersonic airliner, if you do it by producing an absolute dog of a design that never had the slightest chance of operational success, an aircraft aboard which passengers couldn't converse due to the deafening noise in the cabin, an aircraft that needed specialists aboard to keep up with the constant system failures. A stretch of the word 'achievement.' It was a disaster.
Concorde had both mechanics and parts flying on it constantly as most of its systems had no operational reserve - any broken part would immediately mean grounding the airplane and losing a revenue flight.
In geneal - I don't know a out BEA/BA but Air France only stopped flying mechanics on its regularly scheduled flights well into the 1990ies - I'm not talking about crew engineers - no, actual mechanics for plane maintenance, which I guess will surprise you.
Thank you I've been waiting for a video on the concorde
As a professional pilot; I can’t accept that it wasn’t a bad design when a wing comes off during stall recovery. I’ll need to read a 3rd party report and probably take away my own opinion with a grain of salt. That’s the problem with accidents like this, they become very political
Kyra Dempsey, Admiral Cloudberg, has a long form article about this. Unfrotunately you won't find more that that, and privately I can tell you that Concorde wasn't a much better plane to operate. My comments got deleted there, probably because few people can believe some people have nothing else to do but watch youtube videos and comment on them. But yeah, we do, we make history sometimes, but it's mostly just because we have no friends and the state trusts us to never talk to anyone, mostly because of the friends and strangeness factors (we're too strange for normal people to believe us).
I easily could’ve missed this but did you go into how the USSR actually stole the Concorde’s blueprints. That’s why they could build it so fast, and also why it had issues. They weren’t finalized blueprints (so there were flaws) and Rolls Royce was making the engines, not Concorde’s company.
So not only did the plane have issues, it also had the engines designed I believe from scratch. The Concorde could do Mach 2 (1,534 mph or 2,470 kph), but land at 170 mph (274 kph). It could even be flown at speeds under Mach 1 if they didn’t want to do a sonic boom, where as the engines for the Tu-144 came with parachutes.
That’s wild I only knew a fraction of this bird, amazing video!