Like many early jets, like the B-47 and B-58, the pilots would often take the handbook landing speed, and add 5 knots for the wife and 3 for each child.
Wow!...you learn something new everyday. On the TUPOLEV TU 22 Blinder A Bomber, Iraqi Airforce pilots would augment the autopilot by tying the fighter type control column with bungee cords!
Great video! Thank you Just some details here: all soviet passenger's pilots those days were former army pilots. And this is very important detail about why engineers couldn't understand why such situations happen with the plane. And why they were blamed by Tupolev for incidents and crashes. That planes had blackboxes but very basic; every time on inspection after crash there were no any voice recording. So black box constructors were blamed for failed device as well. But again, nothing was wrong with black box: just pilots when they fought for the plane they did it in total silence. Like they tought and did in the army. So that heroic captain (Garold Dmitrievich Kuznetsov) did was completely uncomon. He commented every step and result. He fought with his crew for the plane til the end. His last words before crash on black box recording were "..we are dying! Goodbye!"
I'm sorry I was enraptured and felt so bad reading this and want to salute these men, but the last sentence slapped me in the fucking face. It just reads like "Ohp, I'm die. Thank you forever." and I just lost it.
@@DiggerDeeper01not sure if i understood it in the right way. But if you’re skeptical about last words - you can find confirmation on wiki en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Aeroflot_Tu-104_Kanash_crash or related videos with recorded audio from the box. Google voice translate can help with russian audio
The 707, briefly mentioned here, was the real advance in jetliners. It was the first aircraft to have flexible wings, which avoided the need for massive reinforcements at the junction of wing and fuselage.
The 707 is basically a modern aircraft. All changes since then have been refinements, such as more efficient and quieter engines, more modern avionics, and so on, but the overall design is mostly the same. Losing the flight engineer was perhaps the most notable change since then.
One of the worst accidents of TU-104 is the Soviet Navy СССР-42332 in the 80s. It carried on board 50 admirals and high ranking officers of the Soviet Pacific fleet. All passengers were killed. Nearly reduced the whole command line of the Soviet Pacific fleet to nil.
I love how much the CG renders have evolved over time on this channel. They were always nice looking, even with the models on the desk aesthetic of the older videos, but seeing the fully rendered vehicles in an outdoor and realistic looking setting I'm surprised I'm still watching a series on RUclips sometimes.
haha wow you just reminded me of the old model on table thing they used to do it's what made me fall in love with the channel but over time i forgot that their tenders weren't always this great
HMS Dreadnought was supposedly a very safe posting to be on, since all she accomplished in the war was the sinking of a U-Boat. First all-big guns warship with the new prototype steam turbine engines redefined what it was to be a Battleship and rendered any pre-dreadnoughts before it obsolete.
The only Soviet airliner that wasn't furnished like your Grandma's house was the Tu144. Most had Cadillac upholstery, deep carpets, curtains and library standard reading lights. You might die in a field, but you would be comfortable till the thump.
@@gedgjoumk5449In the 70s, a flight from Moscow to Central Asia would cost 30 Roubles. Moscow to Khabarovsk was 40. Moscow to Vladivostok was 50. Hideously underpriced to some eyes, but the overriding priorities in the Soviet Union were national connectivity and accessibility.Even Solzhenitsyn, no fan of the Soviets, remarked on the cheap availability of air transport. Subsidized to Hell and back, but Whoop de Doo, so's Amtrak.
My dad flew on board of TU-104 several times in 60s. He told me that the airliner was really comfortable and the catering was great with black caviar and cognac
That's fantastic! What an experience that must have been! The Soviet era was so fascinating from both an engineering and social history standpoint. с уважением кому папа (я учу русский excuse me if my Russian is wrong)
I've been watching Mustard for years now, and every time I see a new video I'm blown away by every aspect of it. Honestly, from the intriguing topic, to the life-like 3-D models, to the smooth narration, you guys just amaze me. Seriously the most underrated channel on YT. Thank you for providing this content, and yes I've joined Nebula I just can't comment on there!
My parents and I flew on a Comet from New York to London 1959. First Jet airliner for us. It was really a great experience. We went on to a different flight to Paris. We heard that the same plane (Comet) went on to Stockholm and exploded in the air. Something to do with the cabin pressure system. Our next flights were on the DC8 and 707.
By 1958 the on service Comet fleet were replaced by Comet 4 which was modified to prevent the pressure hull structural failures that affect the earlier versions.
@notNajimi It's not OK, the Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history and a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.
I can imagine these flights, where the plane stalled, to be one of the most horrible things one can experience... this must have been absolutely terrifying.
Just like the 737Max... or the original 737 before they redesigned the rudder servo valve. We have our colossal failures in aviation, just as the Russians and British do.
A stall doesn't feel that scary. For an average passenger, it would probably just feel like some bad turbulence, not realizing they're going down until the very end. Different story for the pilots, who were acutely aware of the entire situation as it was unfolding. Terrible tragedy... the rules of aviation, both written and unwritten, are in blood. Source: I'm a private pilot.
I flew on one in 1976, from then-Leningrad to Moscow. No individual air outlets, loud engine moan, and I watched in fascination on approach as the flaps wound out on long, long exposed jackscrews. As well, at Leningrad were a flock of recently-retired TU-114s on the tarmac, all those multiple layers of props glinting in the sun...good memories!
I flew on one the same year, can't remember which route (we went to Moscow, then-Leningrad, Kiev and Yalta), but going by what you've said it may have been the same.
I love the almost photorealistic graphics in between, the choice of music, the type of information you provide and how you provide it coupled with real pictures an videos, as well as simple graphics, superb!
As an aerospace(aeronautical) engineering student I confess that I did shorten the wings of a G550 in order to turn it into a EMB-145, albeit just on the sim ofc. If I were to test it, surely it will stall.
It's amazing that the Tu-104 and the Tu-114 and -116 are based of of Soviet bombers yet have had such importance to aviation in so many regards.. well done Mustard!
@@hurri7720 not really only the jet engine came from bombers its just that most company that made plane where making civilian and Military plane the same why lockheed martin make missile for the air force and booster (and a lot of other stuff but you get the idea) for the nasa
@@shaider1982 Landing fields in the Soviet Union were often just that: fields. The navigator/ co- pilot would have to assess ground conditions before okaying a landing attrmpt. ANT was just keeping up the practise of his youth.
I watched Russian TV film about this aircraft where they mentioned that pilots reported many times weak responsiveness of the elevators and official reports after the first crash, which mentioned this dangerous tendency to pitch-up, but Tupolev himself ignored pilot's complains and the report and said that pilots just don't know how to fly. Probably because this aircraft was a favourite one of Krushchev and authorities just didn't want to take responsibility to ground this airplane - direct results of autocracy and totalitarianism. If they haven't ignored pilot's reports, they would have avoided future catastrophes and deaths. Another issue for this plane was it's challenging landing, pilots should descend in steps rather than smoothly following glissade. All in all Tu-104 scored the worst reliable Soviet airliner with 37 airplanes lost out of 201 produced. The last catastrophe happened in 1981 (being dismissed from Aeroflot, Tu-104 still has been in use for army). In this catastrophe high-ranking Soviet military personnel of Pacific fleet had died.
@tacticalmoonstone9468 He also noted that the cause of the accident was unsecured rolls of printing paper that were being, in essence, internally smuggled to the Far East, each weighing half a metric tonne. When the plane pitched up to take off, the paper rolls rolled to the back of the (tail) cargo compartment, destroying the plane's balance irrecoverably. No pilot on this earth or the next could have saved it. The irony that the cream of Soviet Naval Defense had died because of their bourgeois (and possibly capitalist) greed seems to have evaporated from the official report.
They certainly had some interesting, if impractical, designs. Corruption, overreaching ideas, poor research and development, political interference all combined to dilute all of them.
I remember plane spotting at Heathrow as a kid in the 60s, when ATC change from the two main runways to one of the shorter, no longer existing, cross runways. An Aeroflot TU104 came in fast and had to deploy parachutes to stop. A very unusual sight at Heathrow.
I absolutely adore these videos. I’m studying media and IT and just rendering out a simple animation took my (really good) computer over a night. I can’t imagine the amount of time that goes into these, including the research, scripting, planning, editing and so on. I’m incredibly flabbergasted at how you can keep making these and I watch every single one. So good.
I'm from a post Soviet county and I've actually heard some people using phrase going to the TU 104 as an euphemism for going to toilet, so I guess it didn't have all that great reputation here as well 😂
The Canadians have a term when we mess up, "screwing the pooch." As attractive as that may sound to some, for the majority of us it means we messed up because we meant to make sweet love to our partners instead, unless, of course, your partner is a pooch. I guess then that is good for that microminority.
Comparing to comet, there were twice as many 104s built. 25 serious accidents happened to the comet, 37 - with 104 which actually makes 104 a more reliable aircraft in terms of serious accidents per airplane
Out of the 25 Comet crashes, 13 were fatal and most of them were caused by pilot error. Only 3 were as a result of metal fatigue or the structural problems. Tu-104 fatalities were significantly higher than those of the comet. Also the Soviets did not ground the aircraft unlike the British with the Comet. Instead the Soviets kept them in service and thus sent many innocent passengers to needless deaths. So much for claiming to be for the people, the Soviets didn't care about safety.
What the hell does accident rate per airplane have to do with the overall reliability and danger of an aircraft beyond being a mere statistic? The DC-10 had a lower hull loss rate than the Tu-104, yet was just as dangerous as a Tu-104, as both had major design flaws. It really does seem that logical fallacies (and especially whataboutism) are as natural to Russians as vodka.
The Paper Skies video about the Soviet Navy's Tu-104 accident was excellent, and it's great to see an overview of the plane in general. Great video as always!
Not that great, it's a very weak video with bad explanation. In reality those crashes were caused by stalls on wingtips (so called "Saber dance"). Planes of that era didn't have a special twist. New planes do have it. So now if a stall is occurred, it starts not on wingtips. But Tu-104 developed stalls on the wingtips, and as wings are very much sweped back, wing loses the lifting force closer to a back of the plane, so the center of lift shifts to the nose of the aircraft. And of course it has nothing to do with being a former bomber aircraft
The first airplane I ever flew was the Tu-124 - a scaled-down and reengined 104. It was 1975 or 76, I was 8 years old and the main impression was - just how small the thing was, especially inside. Much smaller than a regular city bus. And, in retrospect, it wasn't much safer than the 104 - the 124s were grounded and written off along with the remaining 104s, in 1979-1980.
There is actually one of them placed near my house in my town as a local landmark. Its feels great to finally know the story of this plane after walking by it almost everyday since childhood.
I always look forward to your Videos Mustard. I work in the aviation industry and I always get excited when you post more informative content like this. Great Job ! its such a breathe of fresh air on RUclips.
These graphics in combination with this quality and style of video is an absolute masterpiece every single time. Very impressive, I wish I could watch one every week
Nice song, we sang it in the 60s. However, I had to fly the Tu-104 Lelingrad-Moscow several times in the mid-70s. This is considered a short route and was served by this aircraft. It has already been removed from long-distance routes. The plane seemed rather archaic to me until I had to fly from Moscow to Central Asia on an IL-18. This was a real vibration stand, although it had the most comfortable seats of anything I had to fly on.
The Comet was no safer in its early years. Have to note the "bomber nose" which was a Soviet "thing' The Soviets were famous for flying routes over other countries that, well, might have included flying over militarily sensitive areas - and taking pictures . By the way, the Tu-104 was the first airliner in history to engage an engine airstart. Props to those CSA pilots!
...although I too don't like Soviet era Russian history usually- I'm easily certain that the cold fact was, the heavily unsafe, original version(s) of the Comet actually was a load worse for killing more people a lot faster than the TU-104. The 104's original version robustness out the factory doors easily had to of played a role in it being a safer, practically still bad Soviet version Comet. 😬🤨🤮🤢☠
Oh, *that* De Havilland Comet in which structural fatigue due to an incredibly stupid oversight (improper riveting and square windows) killed 426? Yeah, that one.
@@joshgellis3292 YES! The only thing the Russians did wrong was not take the airline out of commission while they investigated the problems. But honestly, we need a companion video called "You wouldn't have wanted to fly in the first British jets".
The Tu-104 RD-3 turbojet engines were designed in the 1940's, engine thrust reversers only appeared on Soviet aircraft in the 1960's. The engine nacelles on the Tu-104 could not be modified for those(or was too much of a headache). Using a parachute shortened the landing from around 3,000 meters to around 1,600 meters without stressing the air brakes and landing gear brakes. It was also safer in some weather conditions and short runways.
I love how he starts his videos with get access to thousands of high quality shows and series. My man doesn't realize that the content he provides is the reason I signed up for curiosity stream. Keep it up.
I remember taking a trip in the Soviet Union in 1984 from St.Petersburg ( Leningrad back then ) to Moscow to Kiev and then Odessa... The one thing that struck me were the planes we flew on between cities : They were loud, not very comfortable and they all had glass noses which I found unique to say the least... Great video 🙂🙂🙂
@@Sergei-wf1jp Not only. It was a rement from TU-4 the soviet copy of the B-29 that crashed in USSR during the war. They really liked the idea of it. On the airliner it had a secondary function during the cold war. The soivets tended to fly airliners over restricted areas and the navigator doubled as photographer. I think it caused a few political incidents in the early 70ties.
@KD10Conqueror *Not at all, it's got nothing to do with the 492 people who were killed because de Havilland never actually did any stress calculations for the fuselage sections that reputured in catastrophic in-flight structural failures due to incompetence and criminal negligence.*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 We feel we can shed some light on some common myths & misunderstandings repeated in many comments. Although the TU-104 was a later design aircraft it was not safer than the DH Comet. It is indeed correct that there were plenty of aircraft that were more dangerous than the De Havilland Comet before & after the Comet. Obviously It's not valid to compare a Bow-wing ( see B-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents for details) jet airliner designed & first built as late 6 decades after the Comet, with the fabulous De Havilland Comet, the world's first high altitude jet powered airliner. Vast improvements in commercial aviation infrastructure & pilot familiarity with jet airliners alone being a significant factor in improvements in air travel safety safety over more than half a century. Of course Bow-wing having 50 years more design, build & operation experience than De Havilland didn't prevent the horrendous Bow-wing Max incidents, there can obviously be no excuses for that. That's correct of course, at the time the Comet wasn't particularly dangerous. Agreed, that is indeed the case of course, The DH Comet was definitely not the worst engineering failure in commercial airliner history. Losses comparisons How things were in those days. DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all mks 17% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 . 20% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Convair CV-880 (ff 1959) 27% Convair CV-990 (ff 1961) 33% Tupolev TU-104 (ff 1955) 16% Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft & thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland. Yes, that's true, De Havilland carried out full stress analysis & engaged in a comprehensive & protracted testing program which is why key De Havilland people were happy to be aboard flying DH Comet aircraft. The Comet was the first airliner where stress due to pressurisation significantly exceeded flying load stress for a full length passenger cabin fyselage. We agree, that's correct, the DH Comet was the first passenger airliner with full length fuselage pressurisation at 8psi pressure differential. Handley Page built the world's first all metal construction airliner during the 1920s. In many cases earlier pressurised aircraft were larger, needed thicker fuselage skins due to flying stresses alone & had much lower pressurisation differential pressure. Of course ripstop provision was provided. The skin alloy used became unavailable at the time due to R & D at the manufacturers which resulted in the original alloy being discontinued. Later alloys had very similar properties. The skin thickness used for the Comet was used for similar size later aircraft. Frame spacing was not found to be too large & frame width was not found to be too small. Without doubt De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, used up to date knowledge for the design & construction & no evidence of negligence or criminal negligence was ever produced in relation to the DH Comet. Obviously the DH Comet had no effect on the course of the aerospace industry in the UK. The UK now has the world's largest combined nuclear, aerospace & defence sectors per capita activity. That's correct, the investigation committee did not find hundreds of fatal flaws or evidence of design defects, structural defects, defective materials or shoddy workmanship. Indeed it is the case that ripstop provision was included. Claimed incidents did not involve cracks starting from passenger window corners. Pretty much all changes were just in case changes or were planned development modifications & improvements that were scheduled regardless of incidents. Obviously De Havilland designers knew all there was to know about metal fatigue at the time they designed the DH Comet. It is in fact true to say that the way airliners were built changed everywhere including in the US after the Comet incidents. We hope this helps, obviously. Cheers indeed of course 👍. . . .... .. . .... . .. ... .. ......... .. ... . . ... ..... ..... .... ... .......
My family hosted a Russian exchange student in the 1990s, and his dad had a fairly lofty position in Aeroflot. He brought us some gifts, including some literature from Aeroflot boasting of their new navigation system that had an instrument in the aircraft pointing to the location of a radio beacon on the ground. Well, my dad's a pilot, and he chuckled that the Russians were praising their equivalent of an automatic direction finder (ADF), which was a fairly old technology in the U.S.A. by the 1990s.
At that time they've been using VOR, DME and RSBN (Soviet short range navigation system). And INS which was synchronized with RSBN. And of course ADF as you've stated earlier. ADF was the only navigation tool probably on some really small aircrafts.
@@DrWhom “they’ve would have been”? If you’re going to correct someone (who’s first language isn’t English) at least get it right. “They would have been” Smug twat.
I used to work in SW Asia and travelled back to the east coast of the US every few months. To save money, I travelled on a Aerflot flight to NYC through Prague. I'm not sure of the model of Tupulev passenger jet but when we finally landed in NY the plane broke out in applause and high fives. After looking at this video now I know why everyone was so happy we landed safely!
I.iot, the same biased shit could be said towards any aircraft, especially any Boeing or DC-10. If we take unbiased look to safety records we will see the following: Tu-104 total number built - 205, 37 of them were lost in different accidents including hijacking; Boeing 707 number built - 865, 174 of them were lost in accidents. If you have any knowledge in simple arithmetic you will see that the safety record of Tu-104 even higher than its competitor.
@@tubeescort That's the Russian " we did it first and better' training they beat into all of you. Very little Russian tech is of their own self created inspiration. Russia through out the Cold War and ever since is a history of stolen plans, tech and other such nefarious deeds. Then they guessed at metallurgy and other strategic support points. Often they guessed WRONG and that was a big reason their stuff was literally suicidal self killers. the Russian penchant for theft could sometimes work to US advantage by making 'doctored' plans available and they literally killed themselves with it. Still their theft of plans, erroneous reverse engineering and actual Russkie tech was their own worst enemy.😄 P.S: Why does almost everything they've built look like a direct copy of something U.S. built?
love aeroflot, last time i flew with one they had the absolute nicest brand new plane's with the best service and food, plus they gave you an actual metal fork haha love it. oh and the pilot was absolute world class, no heavy touchdown or anything when landing. smooth as butter.
Mustard releasing a new video is just a good day. I am ao glad we can have this quality content here on RUclips. Thank you for a fun and detailed history on the first Tupolev passenger jetliner! (:
they had a million jokes about communism too. For instance this one, shortened. Two men talking - We've just opened a cabaret and we've managed to employ a superb dancer! -So, what's her qualifications? -She has had a party book for forty years! And another. Two people had died and met in front of the gate to hell. One was a communist, the other a capitalist. Before them they saw two doors, one marked communist hell, and the other, capitalist hell. What shall we do? said the capitalist. After a moment, the communist said, let's go to the communist hell. Either the furnace doesn't work, or they're out of fuel --- or if perchance the furnace works and fuel is available, they'll have run out of matches!
Fascinating glimpse into the strategic innovation of using existing technology to propel Soviet civil aviation into the jet age. A brilliant move by Tupolev, with both risks and rewards that shaped aviation history.
I flew on Aeroflot Airlines back in 1986. I was a teenager back then. For in-flight meal they served us cold baked potatoes with raisins. Yes. That. Not a typo. The only free available beverage was carbonated water. If you wanted vodka, you had to pay for it with cash. (US dollars strongly preferred) Dear Lord! It was an experience of a lifetime. *Not a particularly good one.
Did you go to Poland or pull a Bernie Sanders and honeymoon in the USSR when they were still an enemy of the USA? I guess there were some cheap flights on their risky panes to Asian countries from International airports too. Interesting you flew them in that era.... crazy stuff.
I flew on Aeroflot Airlines many times within Russia and service was pretty good. Cold baked potatoes with raisins ? Most likely caviar on rye bread with batter .
Reminds me of transiting in Moscow (sorry, Moskva!) in 1978. A fine restaurant in a main street had a long, good menu - but only two or three dishes were actually available. And the food was okayish, but not especially good. And in a bank I was surprised to find sloping, high desks for writing (standing, of course), equipped with wads of thick, brown, coarse paper - and steel tipped pens in ink pots! Sorry Moskva, I enjoyed my brief visit. There was a good, friendly atmospere, and a few people willing to talk a little. Perhaps secret police. The police had picked me up at the station (arriving from Helsinki), and would bring me to the departure railway station (for Teheran) - but they never turned up and I had to take a taxi or I would have missed the train. Arriving at the border (from Helsinki) they told me that my hunting knife was not permitted - and put it back and let me keep it! The brand new shopping centre was surprisingly small, but the marvellous Church on the Red Square (St. Basil's Cathedral) was something very special inside, with a deep warm feeling of God's presence. The train journey to Teheran took seven days, instead of the scheduled six, but it was a nice time too, with friendly people, peaceful and quiet.
Sounds surrealistic. When I fly inside the europe I miss russian airlines service and very tasty onboard food... The meals are always delicious and every time I cant wait to taste it again sitting by the window and filling like a child ))
Well about re-designing, Tu-134 is actually seriously re-designed Tu-104 (actuly it's redesign of redesign - Tu-104 was converted into Tu-124 (less capacity and already safer) which was converted into Tu-134). And Tu-134 is hella good.
The story of The Comet is sad, so innovative in many ways, but is was the 707 "Water Wagon" that won the day. I think the West adapted military designs too. If you were to travel on a V-Bomber to New York with Joan Collins and David Frost strapped in next to you then you were basically replicating the Concorde experience (in essentials, anyway)
04:04.....that's right, ready-made structural solutions from the Tu16 were used in the civilian Tu104/106 aircraft. But in addition, civilian pilots could immediately transfer to the military Tu16 in case of war. In general, it was a program in USSR that allowed not to train military pilots separately! This is how the Military An26 and the civilian An-24 appeared. An12 and civilian An10. Tu-95 and civilian Tu-114.
Fantastic work - very informative! I love learning about the early jet airliners - those who designed and flew them were pioneers in many ways. Just a quick note - on the map of the Tu-104's first transatlantic voyage to the United States, you have Gander, Newfoundland, mislabeled as Goose Bay AB (also in the province of Newfoundland in Labrador, but on the mainland portion, called Labrador, some 600 kilometers away). Cheers!
Fantastic video about a plane I didn't know of from a channel I hadn't seen before. Brilliantly put together video of a really high quality. Well done.
There are numerous fantastic Russian aircrafts built. Most of them I've flown in. Especially the Yak 40, which was very spacious and strong. A malfunctioning de-icing unit at Sheremetyevo caused the nose wheel to get stuck in a non-aligned position and when the plane landed it shot right off the runway into the snow mountain next to the strip. My company refused to fly that particular charter plane unless it was recertified by a Canadian inspection team. They couldn't find anything wrong or damaged so it stayed in service. Mind you, that snow was what was buldozered off the landing strip and rather compact and the speed the plane dove into it was over 80 miles per hour. Only the part behind the wings remained visible. No problem, the exit is in the rear end of the plane and the air crew didn't blink an eye, business as usual.
I bet those first jetliner passengers said "Never again in my life will I board a jet or anything to do with Tupolev", "Cant get me near one of those things ever again!"
As usual an incredible video of a very interesting topic. A cool topic I thought of would be the tu-22 a very interesting bomber (like the tu144 of the air force) The last 2 videos I’ve gotten a like from Mr. Mustard going for 3!
Actually it is a very safe aircraft compared to the British de Havilland Comet... The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics, 1 out of every 3 Comets built crashed or were destroyed in accidents.
Truly the days of Scareoflot. That said, the Ilyushin Il-86 was one of the coolest airliners I've ever flown on, and the in-flight glass cockpit tour reminds one of why the Soyuz capsule remains the best and most reliable spacecraft ever built.
Very interesting video. The Tu-104 was just like the Comet: the lessons learned when design flaws turned the planes into flying deathtraps helped teach other aircraft manufacturers valuable lessons that turned passenger jets into a safe, efficient method of travel. People can make fun of DeHavilland and Tupolev all they want but you do have to admire the risks they took to try to push air travel into the future and they've earned their places in history.
The Tu-104 had its problems but you cannot compare it to the unmitigated failure and disaster of the de Havilland Comet. The Comet Disaster was a tragedy that could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standard for building pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. The Comet remains the worst example of engineering incompetence in commercial aviation history and a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British history.
The only lesson learned by the Comet Disaster is that manufacturers could not longer be trusted to conduct their own aircraft crash investigations. The first successful airworthy jet airliner is the Boeing 707 series which flew on July 15th 1954, before anyone (including de Havilland) knew why the Comet exploded in mid-air.
Maybe they had taken notice of the British attempts to reboot the Lancaster - in particular - as a transatlantic passenger plane, with dismal results. Stalin was terrified of flying and the only time he was recorded as having flown any distance was in a Pe- 8 to the Tehran conference.The plane hadn't been modified, and he sat strapped into the radio operator's office all the way. Sunderlands had a better return to civilian life, but they began as empire flying boats. If only... Nice thought, though, Pe- 8s landing at Heathrow next to Swedish and Swiss Condors, with Stratocruisers due and Tudors being towed away for scrap.
Despite the many shortcomings this plane is still beautiful. Wonderful video Mustard, it's always a treat when you release content! The quality is always top notch! The accident rate is just atrocious. There has to be such unbelievable disregard for safety for authorities to allow that many hull loss incidents without permanently grounding the fleet.
There was actually an incident where a Soviet TU-104 crashed and killed the 16 admirals who were in charge of the Soviet Pacific fleet at that time. In one incident, with a Soviet jet liner, the Soviet Union lost a good chunk of their military leadership.
@@tihspidtherekciltilc5469 I think you'll find the rest have been equally or more successful in the regard. With that said, Boeing has clearly suffered from the MBA-think cancer which has infected most all U.S. companies.
It wasn't exactly "out of the gate", Boeing (and Douglas) engineers were wise enough to pay attention to much of what was going on with the Comet while they were developing the 707 (and the DC-8). To the point they'd admit that they'd likely make the same mistakes (like the fatal pressurization flaw due the windows) if the Comet didn't had happened first.
@@frylucas , that is a very English centric view and has much nothing to do with reality. Boeing knew where to put the engines, under the wings, like on bombers. And the windows was about rubbish workmanship not just the square size. Even today the front windows tend to be fairly square. It's just a silly English thing to believe it was just the square windows and to believe that the rest of the world would have stopped competing had the Comet been a success. To be honest it's damned childish, but not new. It reminds me of the song - "I would have made it in alright if my buddy hadn't stepped on my hand".
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The pilot reporting all the details before the crash is a hero.
Yes indeed! Max respect to that guy!
He is the superior pilot westoid pilots could never be as good as him
Truly a testament to the dedication, expertise, and skill of Soviet pilots.
@@vangard9725 lol what a dumb vatnik
My other favorite crash heroism from the soviet union is the water landing on the neva.
Mustard is back again with another quality content. Always worth the wait.
Fr
Fr
True!
Indeed it is
YAY MUSTARD IS BACK
The Soviet Union's motto could just be: "Safety is secondary, superiority is priority"
Great comment. Though 'apparent superiority (don't read fact-based reports) is priority' is closer to the truth, sigh.
Da, comrade
Or 'why worry about something thats never going to happen...'
Might aswell be McDonnell Douglas' motto.
@@extremegrieferbible and now Boeing
Like many early jets, like the B-47 and B-58, the pilots would often take the handbook landing speed, and add 5 knots for the wife and 3 for each child.
Wow!...you learn something new everyday. On the TUPOLEV TU 22 Blinder A Bomber, Iraqi Airforce pilots would augment the autopilot by tying the fighter type control column with bungee cords!
@@brianmaitai7685 huh is this for real?!
What if you had like 20 kids 😮
@@brianmaitai7685why?
Might have been a horrible craft, but you’ve gotta admit that it looks incredible. Those integrated jet engines are sleek as hell
Big facts the plane is nice looking
Agreed
One engine explosion or engine fire and the wing is toast.
How big of a pain in the ass was it to do maintenance on those engines?
"this plane is a beautiful coffin" - Soviet pilots, probably
Great video! Thank you
Just some details here:
all soviet passenger's pilots those days were former army pilots. And this is very important detail about why engineers couldn't understand why such situations happen with the plane. And why they were blamed by Tupolev for incidents and crashes. That planes had blackboxes but very basic; every time on inspection after crash there were no any voice recording. So black box constructors were blamed for failed device as well. But again, nothing was wrong with black box: just pilots when they fought for the plane they did it in total silence. Like they tought and did in the army. So that heroic captain (Garold Dmitrievich Kuznetsov) did was completely uncomon. He commented every step and result. He fought with his crew for the plane til the end. His last words before crash on black box recording were "..we are dying! Goodbye!"
omg wow ok thank you for this
I'm sorry I was enraptured and felt so bad reading this and want to salute these men, but the last sentence slapped me in the fucking face. It just reads like "Ohp, I'm die. Thank you forever." and I just lost it.
@@DiggerDeeper01not sure if i understood it in the right way. But if you’re skeptical about last words - you can find confirmation on wiki en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Aeroflot_Tu-104_Kanash_crash
or related videos with recorded audio from the box. Google voice translate can help with russian audio
@@DiggerDeeper01 i wonder how many people reading this are actually going to know who you're referencing here lmao
@@DiggerDeeper01who
The 707, briefly mentioned here, was the real advance in jetliners. It was the first aircraft to have flexible wings, which avoided the need for massive reinforcements at the junction of wing and fuselage.
Agreed it did have some flaws but it was a safe aircraft with advanced technology at the time
The 707 is basically a modern aircraft. All changes since then have been refinements, such as more efficient and quieter engines, more modern avionics, and so on, but the overall design is mostly the same. Losing the flight engineer was perhaps the most notable change since then.
The 707 series is still flying and is expected to remain flying until 2040
Typical americunts. Think you created everything !!!
707 was a terrific plane.
One of the worst accidents of TU-104 is the Soviet Navy СССР-42332 in the 80s. It carried on board 50 admirals and high ranking officers of the Soviet Pacific fleet. All passengers were killed. Nearly reduced the whole command line of the Soviet Pacific fleet to nil.
dumbest airfly ever.. such a high ranking commanders should never meet together, even on parades
Ouch
At pushkin
That one Admiral who didnt board
Hehehehaw
That crash was sure hubris.
I love how much the CG renders have evolved over time on this channel. They were always nice looking, even with the models on the desk aesthetic of the older videos, but seeing the fully rendered vehicles in an outdoor and realistic looking setting I'm surprised I'm still watching a series on RUclips sometimes.
haha wow you just reminded me of the old model on table thing they used to do it's what made me fall in love with the channel but over time i forgot that their tenders weren't always this great
Not to mention that they are rendered with a real-time engine (Unreal Engine) so one day we might have interactive versions. That would be so cool!
I was about to say something like this. CG looks amazing
szfhdg
are they blender animations or what softwares does he use ?
Who doesn’t love trying out the first prototype of the first generation of anything
I do clinical trials and am a member of the Windows insider program so I do that quite a lot lmao
It's exciting.
HMS Dreadnought was supposedly a very safe posting to be on, since all she accomplished in the war was the sinking of a U-Boat. First all-big guns warship with the new prototype steam turbine engines redefined what it was to be a Battleship and rendered any pre-dreadnoughts before it obsolete.
Not me.
You take the leap, either you land or you don't.
When I was 4 years old I flew by TU-104 from Moskow to Sverdlovsk. From the comfort point of view it was very fine journey.
Your family must be rich
@@gedgjoumk5449 Not at all) Flights in USSR were cheap. One of rare good things in that undead state.
@@leonidpopkov7623 how much usd in today's value I wonder...
The only Soviet airliner that wasn't furnished like your Grandma's house was the Tu144. Most had Cadillac upholstery, deep carpets, curtains and library standard reading lights. You might die in a field, but you would be comfortable till the thump.
@@gedgjoumk5449In the 70s, a flight from Moscow to Central Asia would cost 30 Roubles. Moscow to Khabarovsk was 40. Moscow to Vladivostok was 50. Hideously underpriced to some eyes, but the overriding priorities in the Soviet Union were national connectivity and accessibility.Even Solzhenitsyn, no fan of the Soviets, remarked on the cheap availability of air transport. Subsidized to Hell and back, but Whoop de Doo, so's Amtrak.
Something i just feel so lucky to be born in a era where aviation is much more safe & mature
Boeing: are you sure about that?
(737 max walks in)
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
You have DEI Boeing 😮
As long as you are flying in an Airbus you are fine.
My dad flew on board of TU-104 several times in 60s. He told me that the airliner was really comfortable and the catering was great with black caviar and cognac
That's fantastic! What an experience that must have been! The Soviet era was so fascinating from both an engineering and social history standpoint. с уважением кому папа (я учу русский excuse me if my Russian is wrong)
it's a shame airlines don't bring back the caviar and COG' nac
I wonder if the Soviet Govt kept the crashes a secret from the flying public.
@Константин Родчанин большой спасибо 🙏
@@restojon1 flying in 50s-60s was really something special on both sides either East and West.
I've been watching Mustard for years now, and every time I see a new video I'm blown away by every aspect of it. Honestly, from the intriguing topic, to the life-like 3-D models, to the smooth narration, you guys just amaze me. Seriously the most underrated channel on YT. Thank you for providing this content, and yes I've joined Nebula I just can't comment on there!
Thank you! I know it's cliche to say, but I'm so glad there's an audience out there that appreciates it :)
From all of us who have seen your videos there is indeed an audience
@Poorschedriver I couldn't have said it better
The audio is clear and he has a great voice.
My parents and I flew on a Comet from New York to London 1959. First Jet airliner for us. It was really a great experience. We went on to a different flight to Paris. We heard that the same plane (Comet) went on to Stockholm and exploded in the air. Something to do with the cabin pressure system. Our next flights were on the DC8 and 707.
Hmmm, I can't find any such accidents in the Aviation Safety Network database. Neither in 1959, not enroute to Stockholm.
@@kjetilkjernsmo8499 ooh
By 1958 the on service Comet fleet were replaced by Comet 4 which was modified to prevent the pressure hull structural failures that affect the earlier versions.
I think it was coming from Rome.
@pa.d5688 Ah, OK, I thought it was a Comet we were talking about, not a Tu-104.
''The TU-104 is the best aircraft in the world. In 5 minutes it will bring you to your grave'' really got me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The de Havilland Comet has the worst loss rate of any jet airliner in history
Those square windows@@sandervanderkammen9230
@@sandervanderkammen9230…ok?
@notNajimi It's not OK, the Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history and a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history.
@@sandervanderkammen9230I mean it was one of the first jet airliners so... kind of expected?
I can imagine these flights, where the plane stalled, to be one of the most horrible things one can experience... this must have been absolutely terrifying.
Just like the 737Max... or the original 737 before they redesigned the rudder servo valve.
We have our colossal failures in aviation, just as the Russians and British do.
whats the first song name
@@jeelsvealnerve1163 and you understand that, but unfortunately others don't and just keep saying that Russia is unsafe
A stall doesn't feel that scary. For an average passenger, it would probably just feel like some bad turbulence, not realizing they're going down until the very end. Different story for the pilots, who were acutely aware of the entire situation as it was unfolding. Terrible tragedy... the rules of aviation, both written and unwritten, are in blood.
Source: I'm a private pilot.
People were built differently back then, it was almost normal that disasters happen from time to time and airplanes crash
This should deserve to be on television 10 times more then any other documentry I really love your content!
"Why you wouldn't want to fly the new Boeing 737-Max. Did I say 737-Max? I meant a 'Soviet' airliner...yeah..."
@@williamyoung9401 *Boeing moves head office to Moscow*
The pilot reporting all the details before the crash is a hero.. Mustard is back again with another quality content. Always worth the wait..
Excellent video and content, as always. Thank you for such consistently high quality of content. I remember these aeroplanes! Cheers from England.
Thanks!
I flew on one in 1976, from then-Leningrad to Moscow. No individual air outlets, loud engine moan, and I watched in fascination on approach as the flaps wound out on long, long exposed jackscrews. As well, at Leningrad were a flock of recently-retired TU-114s on the tarmac, all those multiple layers of props glinting in the sun...good memories!
Exposed jackscrews on the flaps reminds me of the DC-10... sitting in the right spot, you can see the jackscrews working. :-)
I flew on one the same year, can't remember which route (we went to Moscow, then-Leningrad, Kiev and Yalta), but going by what you've said it may have been the same.
whats the first song name
a beautiful plane that probably should have stayed in an aviation museum from the moment it was first built
Much better plane than the de Havilland Comet
The is way better that any aircraft ever like the f15 doesn’t even have as many kills
@@Robonoob_perTrue, true 😆👌 .
It is a hella gorgeous aircraft for sure regardless of it's reputation
Soviet designs were so awesome
...and that's why aircraft are referred to as "she "
So true.
That is like saying "what a beautiful gravestone." 😄
@@pal6636 boats
Every few months the world becomes a better place due to your videos.
Yeah I think that's negated by all the, well... *Gestures at the world*
I love the almost photorealistic graphics in between, the choice of music, the type of information you provide and how you provide it coupled with real pictures an videos, as well as simple graphics, superb!
whats the first song name
Very well presented.
Often in the summer, the family flew Tu-104 from Vladivostok to Khabarovsk and then to Moscow on Il-62. Comfort corresponded to that era.
As an aerospace(aeronautical) engineering student I confess that I did shorten the wings of a G550 in order to turn it into a EMB-145, albeit just on the sim ofc. If I were to test it, surely it will stall.
best engineering type
It's amazing that the Tu-104 and the Tu-114 and -116 are based of of Soviet bombers yet have had such importance to aviation in so many regards.. well done Mustard!
All civilian aviation with jet engines was based on bombers. Perhaps not the British but they failed perhaps due to that.
@@hurri7720 not really only the jet engine came from bombers its just that most company that made plane where making civilian and Military plane the same why lockheed martin make missile for the air force and booster (and a lot of other stuff but you get the idea) for the nasa
I;d love to see a passenger jet based on the TU-22
hi
@@aoki6332 the boeing 707 was designed from a bomber.
I love the B-29 Navigation/Bombadier window on that beast. Beautiful aircraft.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was deliberate: Tupolev had the job of reverse engineering B29's that landed in the USSR
Theses became the Tu4 Bull
Soviets liked having the navigator in the nose, a tradition they kept for a long time.
@@SMGJohn he was probably having to shoot the stars and other stuff
@@shaider1982 Landing fields in the Soviet Union were often just that: fields. The navigator/ co- pilot would have to assess ground conditions before okaying a landing attrmpt. ANT was just keeping up the practise of his youth.
The TU104 carried over 90 million passengers in it's career.
Mustard needs his own documentary special on one of the major streaming services. Each episode is so well done, informative and entertaining to watch.
I think the 'execs' would meddle in the creative process. They would probably find his dedication to making his videos so visually appealing wasteful
No.
Yeah if he released videos that are exclusive. Still waiting on the B-2 video that was supposed to release two months ago
@@MONARCH1985 Did you note the point made at the end of this video about the Spirit video?
@@BR69843 no I didn’t watch it
I watched Russian TV film about this aircraft where they mentioned that pilots reported many times weak responsiveness of the elevators and official reports after the first crash, which mentioned this dangerous tendency to pitch-up, but Tupolev himself ignored pilot's complains and the report and said that pilots just don't know how to fly. Probably because this aircraft was a favourite one of Krushchev and authorities just didn't want to take responsibility to ground this airplane - direct results of autocracy and totalitarianism. If they haven't ignored pilot's reports, they would have avoided future catastrophes and deaths. Another issue for this plane was it's challenging landing, pilots should descend in steps rather than smoothly following glissade. All in all Tu-104 scored the worst reliable Soviet airliner with 37 airplanes lost out of 201 produced. The last catastrophe happened in 1981 (being dismissed from Aeroflot, Tu-104 still has been in use for army). In this catastrophe high-ranking Soviet military personnel of Pacific fleet had died.
@TacticalMoonstone Thank you for letting me know.
@tacticalmoonstone9468 He also noted that the cause of the accident was unsecured rolls of printing paper that were being, in essence, internally smuggled to the Far East, each weighing half a metric tonne. When the plane pitched up to take off, the paper rolls rolled to the back of the (tail) cargo compartment, destroying the plane's balance irrecoverably. No pilot on this earth or the next could have saved it. The irony that the cream of Soviet Naval Defense had died because of their bourgeois (and possibly capitalist) greed seems to have evaporated from the official report.
@@angusclark8330 Interesting info. Capitalism doesn't have anything more to do with greed than Socialism does. One can be greedy in either system.
"direct results of autocracy and totalitarianism. " I guess communist are responsible for boeing 737max ? ;-)
@@matthewmosier8439 Indeed. Boeing 737 Max, anyone?
Safe or unsafe , Soviet engineering always fascinates me.
agreed
It's kind of like "Here's the bare minimum of money and resources, build something that'll at least look good for a year or two."
@@ikr9358 And last for 50.
They certainly had some interesting, if impractical, designs. Corruption, overreaching ideas, poor research and development, political interference all combined to dilute all of them.
Oh yes just ask the Polish!
5:20.
As a former resident and born Spokanite, the inclusion of the spokesman review headline is awesome!
I remember plane spotting at Heathrow as a kid in the 60s, when ATC change from the two main runways to one of the shorter, no longer existing, cross runways. An Aeroflot TU104 came in fast and had to deploy parachutes to stop. A very unusual sight at Heathrow.
I absolutely adore these videos. I’m studying media and IT and just rendering out a simple animation took my (really good) computer over a night. I can’t imagine the amount of time that goes into these, including the research, scripting, planning, editing and so on.
I’m incredibly flabbergasted at how you can keep making these and I watch every single one. So good.
What's a Really good Computer? In Different Parts of the World, It Still Means a Different Thing.
Do your Raytracing on your GPU Cores either through cuda or through Frag or pixel shaders ...
Another great video. I really enjoy how you mix aviation history with aircraft design. Secondly, you are a great story teller!
Beautiful looking aircraft, especially the Glass nose cone/ cockpit and wing design.
Maintenance must’ve been a pain but wing integrated engines look so sleek like on this and the De Havilland Comet
Still a very bad design as every engine "explosion" would have been more dangerous to the plane, the fuselage. No wonder it's not used.
@@hurri7720 That and you cant really use high bypass turbofans with that design
@@x-ray3443 A key advantage from that embedded design was no engine drag
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 but dont non highbypass turbofans drink fuel?
I absolutely love the graphics and 1950s period style imagery. This is a really high end video. I'm very very impressed!
I'm from a post Soviet county and I've actually heard some people using phrase going to the TU 104 as an euphemism for going to toilet, so I guess it didn't have all that great reputation here as well 😂
where you from?
@@EmWe972 Idk, maybe she/he is from Georgia, just assuming from the end of the last name.
The Canadians have a term when we mess up, "screwing the pooch." As attractive as that may sound to some, for the majority of us it means we messed up because we meant to make sweet love to our partners instead, unless, of course, your partner is a pooch. I guess then that is good for that microminority.
post soviet is a vague term
@@indridcold8433 LOL I forgot about that term! My cousin earned the nickname 'Dogger' because he was always screwing the pooch.
This was very interesting, the pilot who radioed back as he was experiencing that event, I salute him 🫡 !!
Comparing to comet, there were twice as many 104s built. 25 serious accidents happened to the comet, 37 - with 104 which actually makes 104 a more reliable aircraft in terms of serious accidents per airplane
Out of the 25 Comet crashes, 13 were fatal and most of them were caused by pilot error. Only 3 were as a result of metal fatigue or the structural problems.
Tu-104 fatalities were significantly higher than those of the comet.
Also the Soviets did not ground the aircraft unlike the British with the Comet. Instead the Soviets kept them in service and thus sent many innocent passengers to needless deaths. So much for claiming to be for the people, the Soviets didn't care about safety.
@@Frserthegreenengine’Pilot error’
@@Frserthegreenengine😂pilot eror and bad training
What the hell does accident rate per airplane have to do with the overall reliability and danger of an aircraft beyond being a mere statistic? The DC-10 had a lower hull loss rate than the Tu-104, yet was just as dangerous as a Tu-104, as both had major design flaws.
It really does seem that logical fallacies (and especially whataboutism) are as natural to Russians as vodka.
@@Frserthegreenengine. If “numbers killed” is how you like assessing aircraft then the Boing 747 is the most dangerous in history.
The Paper Skies video about the Soviet Navy's Tu-104 accident was excellent, and it's great to see an overview of the plane in general. Great video as always!
10:41 There it is on that list.
@@brianwong7285 good eye
Not that great, it's a very weak video with bad explanation. In reality those crashes were caused by stalls on wingtips (so called "Saber dance"). Planes of that era didn't have a special twist. New planes do have it. So now if a stall is occurred, it starts not on wingtips. But Tu-104 developed stalls on the wingtips, and as wings are very much sweped back, wing loses the lifting force closer to a back of the plane, so the center of lift shifts to the nose of the aircraft.
And of course it has nothing to do with being a former bomber aircraft
The first airplane I ever flew was the Tu-124 - a scaled-down and reengined 104. It was 1975 or 76, I was 8 years old and the main impression was - just how small the thing was, especially inside. Much smaller than a regular city bus. And, in retrospect, it wasn't much safer than the 104 - the 124s were grounded and written off along with the remaining 104s, in 1979-1980.
You were a pilot at 8 years old! No wonder these things crashed a lot
@@DavidAndersonKirk That's why I already considered retiring then...
Imagine we all worked together as HUMANS, sharing our best and brightest.
No jet engines for a start
There is actually one of them placed near my house in my town as a local landmark. Its feels great to finally know the story of this plane after walking by it almost everyday since childhood.
Yaaaaay, you're back with a new one. I always get a little bit excited. Your videos are sooooo good.
I always look forward to your Videos Mustard. I work in the aviation industry and I always get excited when you post more informative content like this. Great Job ! its such a breathe of fresh air on RUclips.
I don't really care much for aviation - but Mustard has a way of making it come alive
Then during the rise of jet airliners, Boeing said "hold my beer" and nailed it on their first try with the Boeing 707
I love those documentaries , the animation and the stories told are always so interesting to follow something you see very rarely in RUclips
These graphics in combination with this quality and style of video is an absolute masterpiece every single time. Very impressive, I wish I could watch one every week
I flew a Tu-104. Huge engines power, comfortable interior and loud noise inside. As it took off, thunder was heard on the ground!
:0
Sure, that happened
Nice song, we sang it in the 60s. However, I had to fly the Tu-104 Lelingrad-Moscow several times in the mid-70s. This is considered a short route and was served by this aircraft. It has already been removed from long-distance routes. The plane seemed rather archaic to me until I had to fly from Moscow to Central Asia on an IL-18. This was a real vibration stand, although it had the most comfortable seats of anything I had to fly on.
The Comet was no safer in its early years. Have to note the "bomber nose" which was a Soviet "thing' The Soviets were famous for flying routes over other countries that, well, might have included flying over militarily sensitive areas - and taking pictures . By the way, the Tu-104 was the first airliner in history to engage an engine airstart. Props to those CSA pilots!
...although I too don't like Soviet era Russian history usually- I'm easily certain that the cold fact was, the heavily unsafe, original version(s) of the Comet actually was a load worse for killing more people a lot faster than the TU-104. The 104's original version robustness out the factory doors easily had to of played a role in it being a safer, practically still bad Soviet version Comet. 😬🤨🤮🤢☠
Oh, *that* De Havilland Comet in which structural fatigue due to an incredibly stupid oversight (improper riveting and square windows) killed 426? Yeah, that one.
@@joshgellis3292 YES! The only thing the Russians did wrong was not take the airline out of commission while they investigated the problems. But honestly, we need a companion video called "You wouldn't have wanted to fly in the first British jets".
Real talk, the Avro C102 was more than likely a safer plane than the comet, and it's a shame it lost to it.
Yeah, I was wondering why they kept the bomber nose. My guess was for navigation.
I remember seeing Aeroflot '104s landing at Gatwick in the 1970s and were the only civilian aircraft I'd seen that used a parachute to slow down.
The 104 is based on a military aircraft; when it was created, reverse to turbines had not yet been mastered. Issue 104 ceased in 1960.
The French built Caravelle had a parachute that could be deployed to slow the aircraft down upon landing.
Russian propaganda planes are never good
The Tu-104 RD-3 turbojet engines were designed in the 1940's, engine thrust reversers only appeared on Soviet aircraft in the 1960's. The engine nacelles on the Tu-104 could not be modified for those(or was too much of a headache). Using a parachute shortened the landing from around 3,000 meters to around 1,600 meters without stressing the air brakes and landing gear brakes. It was also safer in some weather conditions and short runways.
Always immediately click on a new Mustard video whenever I see one. I love the high quality.
I love how he starts his videos with get access to thousands of high quality shows and series. My man doesn't realize that the content he provides is the reason I signed up for curiosity stream. Keep it up.
Another high quality educating video, thanks to you I know more about the history of planes than I could ever imagine!
I remember taking a trip in the Soviet Union in 1984 from St.Petersburg ( Leningrad back then ) to Moscow to Kiev and then Odessa...
The one thing that struck me were the planes we flew on between cities : They were loud, not very comfortable and they all had glass noses which I found unique to say the least...
Great video 🙂🙂🙂
In the glass nose, there was a (comfortable) seat for the navigator, one of the then 4 flight crew members.
@@Sergei-wf1jp I see... Thanks for that explanation 🙂🙂
@@Sergei-wf1jp Not only. It was a rement from TU-4 the soviet copy of the B-29 that crashed in USSR during the war. They really liked the idea of it. On the airliner it had a secondary function during the cold war. The soivets tended to fly airliners over restricted areas and the navigator doubled as photographer. I think it caused a few political incidents in the early 70ties.
@@mowtow90 You mean they photographed restricted zones in USSR ? :)
“Despite the near disasters, Soviet authorities were quick to blame the pilots”. Sounds exactly like Boeing today, except for the “near” part.
No worse example than the de Havilland Comet Disaster... de Havilland tried to blame pilot a for all of the accidents..
@@sandervanderkammen9230...did we hit a nerve there?
@KD10Conqueror *Not at all, it's got nothing to do with the 492 people who were killed because de Havilland never actually did any stress calculations for the fuselage sections that reputured in catastrophic in-flight structural failures due to incompetence and criminal negligence.*
@@sandervanderkammen9230
We feel we can shed some light on some common myths & misunderstandings repeated in many comments.
Although the TU-104 was a later design aircraft it was not safer than the DH Comet.
It is indeed correct that there were plenty of aircraft that were more dangerous than the De Havilland Comet before & after the Comet.
Obviously It's not valid to compare a Bow-wing ( see B-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents for details) jet airliner designed & first built as late 6 decades after the Comet, with the fabulous De Havilland Comet, the world's first high altitude jet powered airliner.
Vast improvements in commercial aviation infrastructure & pilot familiarity with jet airliners alone being a significant factor in improvements in air travel safety safety over more than half a century.
Of course Bow-wing having 50 years more design, build & operation experience than De Havilland didn't prevent the horrendous Bow-wing Max incidents, there can obviously be no excuses for that.
That's correct of course, at the time the Comet wasn't particularly dangerous. Agreed, that is indeed the case of course, The DH Comet was definitely not the worst engineering failure in commercial airliner history.
Losses comparisons
How things were in those days.
DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14%
DeHavilland Comet all mks 17%
Boeing 307 70%
Boeing 247 48%
Boeing 707 . 20%
Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29%
Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46%
Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22%
Convair CV-880 (ff 1959) 27%
Convair CV-990 (ff 1961) 33%
Tupolev TU-104 (ff 1955) 16%
Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft & thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland.
Yes, that's true, De Havilland carried out full stress analysis & engaged in a comprehensive & protracted testing program which is why key De Havilland people were happy to be aboard flying DH Comet aircraft. The Comet was the first airliner where stress due to pressurisation significantly exceeded flying load stress for a full length passenger cabin fyselage.
We agree, that's correct, the DH Comet was the first passenger airliner with full length fuselage pressurisation at 8psi pressure differential. Handley Page built the world's first all metal construction airliner during the 1920s.
In many cases earlier pressurised aircraft were larger, needed thicker fuselage skins due to flying stresses alone & had much lower pressurisation differential pressure.
Of course ripstop provision was provided. The skin alloy used became unavailable at the time due to R & D at the manufacturers which resulted in the original alloy being discontinued. Later alloys had very similar properties. The skin thickness used for the Comet was used for similar size later aircraft. Frame spacing was not found to be too large & frame width was not found to be too small.
Without doubt De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, used up to date knowledge for the design & construction & no evidence of negligence or criminal negligence was ever produced in relation to the DH Comet.
Obviously the DH Comet had no effect on the course of the aerospace industry in the UK. The UK now has the world's largest combined nuclear, aerospace & defence sectors per capita activity.
That's correct, the investigation committee did not find hundreds of fatal flaws or evidence of design defects, structural defects, defective materials or shoddy workmanship. Indeed it is the case that ripstop provision was included. Claimed incidents did not involve cracks starting from passenger window corners.
Pretty much all changes were just in case changes or were planned development modifications & improvements that were scheduled regardless of incidents.
Obviously De Havilland designers knew all there was to know about metal fatigue at the time they designed the DH Comet.
It is in fact true to say that the way airliners were built changed everywhere including in the US after the Comet incidents.
We hope this helps, obviously.
Cheers indeed of course 👍.
. . .... .. . .... . .. ...
.. ......... .. ... . . ...
..... ..... .... ... .......
It's always a good day when Mustard uploads
My family hosted a Russian exchange student in the 1990s, and his dad had a fairly lofty position in Aeroflot. He brought us some gifts, including some literature from Aeroflot boasting of their new navigation system that had an instrument in the aircraft pointing to the location of a radio beacon on the ground. Well, my dad's a pilot, and he chuckled that the Russians were praising their equivalent of an automatic direction finder (ADF), which was a fairly old technology in the U.S.A. by the 1990s.
Our 90s Russian student was a tax free, vodka smuggler 🤣
At that time they've been using VOR, DME and RSBN (Soviet short range navigation system). And INS which was synchronized with RSBN. And of course ADF as you've stated earlier. ADF was the only navigation tool probably on some really small aircrafts.
@@UWKS911 I hope your facts are sturdier than your grammar. "At that time they've been using" - you mean: would have been
@@DrWhom sorry, English is not my native language. My Russian grammar is better)
@@DrWhom “they’ve would have been”?
If you’re going to correct someone (who’s first language isn’t English) at least get it right. “They would have been”
Smug twat.
I used to work in SW Asia and travelled back to the east coast of the US every few months. To save money, I travelled on a Aerflot flight to NYC through Prague. I'm not sure of the model of Tupulev passenger jet but when we finally landed in NY the plane broke out in applause and high fives. After looking at this video now I know why everyone was so happy we landed safely!
I.iot, the same biased shit could be said towards any aircraft, especially any Boeing or DC-10. If we take unbiased look to safety records we will see the following: Tu-104 total number built - 205, 37 of them were lost in different accidents including hijacking; Boeing 707 number built - 865, 174 of them were lost in accidents. If you have any knowledge in simple arithmetic you will see that the safety record of Tu-104 even higher than its competitor.
That is done regularly on Ryanair, to appreciate an on-time arrival.
@@tubeescort Thank you for the refreshing objectivity. Certain people introduce McCarthyism inappropriately into aviation.
That (the applauses) still happens on regular basis in ex-Soviet countries and Eastern Europe...onboard Boeing, AIrbus and Embraer aircraft!
@@tubeescort That's the Russian " we did it first and better' training they beat into all of you. Very little Russian tech is of their own self created inspiration. Russia through out the Cold War and ever since is a history of stolen plans, tech and other such nefarious deeds. Then they guessed at metallurgy and other strategic support points. Often they guessed WRONG and that was a big reason their stuff was literally suicidal self killers. the Russian penchant for theft could sometimes work to US advantage by making 'doctored' plans available and they literally killed themselves with it. Still their theft of plans, erroneous reverse engineering and actual Russkie tech was their own worst enemy.😄 P.S: Why does almost everything they've built look like a direct copy of something U.S. built?
love aeroflot, last time i flew with one they had the absolute nicest brand new plane's with the best service and food, plus they gave you an actual metal fork haha love it. oh and the pilot was absolute world class, no heavy touchdown or anything when landing. smooth as butter.
and the flight attendants were hot
Mustard releasing a new video is just a good day. I am ao glad we can have this quality content here on RUclips. Thank you for a fun and detailed history on the first Tupolev passenger jetliner!
(:
10:58 got me laughing so hard lmao
especially since i speak russian as my parents immigrated from the soviet union to canada
My god, that song almost killed me...of laughter. :) Who said Soviets didn't have sense of humour?
they had a million jokes about communism too.
For instance this one, shortened. Two men talking - We've just opened a cabaret and we've managed to employ a superb dancer! -So, what's her qualifications? -She has had a party book for forty years!
And another. Two people had died and met in front of the gate to hell. One was a communist, the other a capitalist. Before them they saw two doors, one marked communist hell, and the other, capitalist hell. What shall we do? said the capitalist. After a moment, the communist said, let's go to the communist hell. Either the furnace doesn't work, or they're out of fuel --- or if perchance the furnace works and fuel is available, they'll have run out of matches!
Fascinating glimpse into the strategic innovation of using existing technology to propel Soviet civil aviation into the jet age. A brilliant move by Tupolev, with both risks and rewards that shaped aviation history.
The man the myth the legend is back
well he always posts every 2-3 months so..
@@sayfo6141 i mean its a ling time
@@moggsly5669 true
I flew on Aeroflot Airlines back in 1986. I was a teenager back then. For in-flight meal they served us cold baked potatoes with raisins. Yes. That. Not a typo. The only free available beverage was carbonated water. If you wanted vodka, you had to pay for it with cash. (US dollars strongly preferred) Dear Lord! It was an experience of a lifetime. *Not a particularly good one.
Did you go to Poland or pull a Bernie Sanders and honeymoon in the USSR when they were still an enemy of the USA? I guess there were some cheap flights on their risky panes to Asian countries from International airports too. Interesting you flew them in that era.... crazy stuff.
I flew on Aeroflot Airlines many times within Russia and service was pretty good. Cold baked potatoes with raisins ? Most likely caviar on rye bread with batter .
Reminds me of transiting in Moscow (sorry, Moskva!) in 1978. A fine restaurant in a main street had a long, good menu - but only two or three dishes were actually available. And the food was okayish, but not especially good. And in a bank I was surprised to find sloping, high desks for writing (standing, of course), equipped with wads of thick, brown, coarse paper - and steel tipped pens in ink pots!
Sorry Moskva, I enjoyed my brief visit. There was a good, friendly atmospere, and a few people willing to talk a little. Perhaps secret police. The police had picked me up at the station (arriving from Helsinki), and would bring me to the departure railway station (for Teheran) - but they never turned up and I had to take a taxi or I would have missed the train. Arriving at the border (from Helsinki) they told me that my hunting knife was not permitted - and put it back and let me keep it! The brand new shopping centre was surprisingly small, but the marvellous Church on the Red Square (St. Basil's Cathedral) was something very special inside, with a deep warm feeling of God's presence.
The train journey to Teheran took seven days, instead of the scheduled six, but it was a nice time too, with friendly people, peaceful and quiet.
Sounds surrealistic. When I fly inside the europe I miss russian airlines service and very tasty onboard food...
The meals are always delicious and every time I cant wait to taste it again sitting by the window and filling like a child ))
Sounds like a petty healthy meal actually - certainly better than what you get nowadays (if you get anything at all).
Well about re-designing, Tu-134 is actually seriously re-designed Tu-104 (actuly it's redesign of redesign - Tu-104 was converted into Tu-124 (less capacity and already safer) which was converted into Tu-134). And Tu-134 is hella good.
The story of The Comet is sad, so innovative in many ways, but is was the 707 "Water Wagon" that won the day. I think the West adapted military designs too. If you were to travel on a V-Bomber to New York with Joan Collins and David Frost strapped in next to you then you were basically replicating the Concorde experience (in essentials, anyway)
Amazing. I was unaware of this history with the 104. Cool video.
04:04.....that's right, ready-made structural solutions from the Tu16 were used in the civilian Tu104/106 aircraft. But in addition, civilian pilots could immediately transfer to the military Tu16 in case of war. In general, it was a program in USSR that allowed not to train military pilots separately! This is how the Military An26 and the civilian An-24 appeared. An12 and civilian An10. Tu-95 and civilian Tu-114.
Always a beautiful day when Mustard uploads
This channel is the definition of quality over quantity
I wonder if someday Mustard will make a documentary about Airbus Beluga. Another iconic plane alongside the giants An-124 and the late An-225
Fantastic work - very informative! I love learning about the early jet airliners - those who designed and flew them were pioneers in many ways. Just a quick note - on the map of the Tu-104's first transatlantic voyage to the United States, you have Gander, Newfoundland, mislabeled as Goose Bay AB (also in the province of Newfoundland in Labrador, but on the mainland portion, called Labrador, some 600 kilometers away). Cheers!
Fantastic video about a plane I didn't know of from a channel I hadn't seen before. Brilliantly put together video of a really high quality. Well done.
Excellent documentary, no wastage and straight to the point. Thank you.
dude every time you make a video about old Soviet technology its better then the last one Good job on this one!
Finally a video on the Tupolev TU-104 I’ve been waiting for this video ever since the De Havilland Comet and Concorde videos! Yay 😃
There are numerous fantastic Russian aircrafts built. Most of them I've flown in. Especially the Yak 40, which was very spacious and strong. A malfunctioning de-icing unit at Sheremetyevo caused the nose wheel to get stuck in a non-aligned position and when the plane landed it shot right off the runway into the snow mountain next to the strip. My company refused to fly that particular charter plane unless it was recertified by a Canadian inspection team. They couldn't find anything wrong or damaged so it stayed in service. Mind you, that snow was what was buldozered off the landing strip and rather compact and the speed the plane dove into it was over 80 miles per hour. Only the part behind the wings remained visible. No problem, the exit is in the rear end of the plane and the air crew didn't blink an eye, business as usual.
I love the easter egg at 2:42, good work!
The 104 wasn't a bad looking aircraft considering it's origins. Vaguely remember seeing them at London Heathrow airport.
Those first two (crews) pilots sure took the passengers on a hell of a ride
I bet those first jetliner passengers said "Never again in my life will I board a jet or anything to do with Tupolev", "Cant get me near one of those things ever again!"
As usual an incredible video of a very interesting topic. A cool topic I thought of would be the tu-22 a very interesting bomber (like the tu144 of the air force)
The last 2 videos I’ve gotten a like from Mr. Mustard going for 3!
Here you go :)
paper skies has a really good video about the tu22 if you like mustard you will definitely like his channel
It might be the most dangerous, but it's certainly one of the most beautiful.
Actually it is a very safe aircraft compared to the British de Havilland Comet...
The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics, 1 out of every 3 Comets built crashed or were destroyed in accidents.
@@sandervanderkammen9230Soviet bot 💀
@@Crustaceannationrepresentative Just the facts here lad, just the facts.
7:18 "Pilots were so afraid of Stalin--I mean stalling"
Truly the days of Scareoflot.
That said, the Ilyushin Il-86 was one of the coolest airliners I've ever flown on, and the in-flight glass cockpit tour reminds one of why the Soyuz capsule remains the best and most reliable spacecraft ever built.
If the aircraft you were on had a glass cockpit, it must have been an IL-96, not an -86! But I agree with you about the Soyuz!
203 design flaws and you still say that the Soyuz was the best spacecraft ever.
I modeled this plane for the last episode of The Queen's Gambit. It was only on screen for about a few seconds though.
Very interesting video. The Tu-104 was just like the Comet: the lessons learned when design flaws turned the planes into flying deathtraps helped teach other aircraft manufacturers valuable lessons that turned passenger jets into a safe, efficient method of travel. People can make fun of DeHavilland and Tupolev all they want but you do have to admire the risks they took to try to push air travel into the future and they've earned their places in history.
The Tu-104 had its problems but you cannot compare it to the unmitigated failure and disaster of the de Havilland Comet.
The Comet Disaster was a tragedy that could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standard for building pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys.
The Comet remains the worst example of engineering incompetence in commercial aviation history and a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British history.
The only lesson learned by the Comet Disaster is that manufacturers could not longer be trusted to conduct their own aircraft crash investigations.
The first successful airworthy jet airliner is the Boeing 707 series which flew on July 15th 1954, before anyone (including de Havilland) knew why the Comet exploded in mid-air.
2:45 haha, love seeing Tupolev's ID card signed by Comrade Mustard :D
I wonder why the Soviets didn't develop a long range passenger plane from the Pe-8. It seemed capable.
well theyve developed tu114
Irregular emigration. Prevention thereof.
Maybe they had taken notice of the British attempts to reboot the Lancaster - in particular - as a transatlantic passenger plane, with dismal results. Stalin was terrified of flying and the only time he was recorded as having flown any distance was in a Pe- 8 to the Tehran conference.The plane hadn't been modified, and he sat strapped into the radio operator's office all the way. Sunderlands had a better return to civilian life, but they began as empire flying boats. If only... Nice thought, though, Pe- 8s landing at Heathrow next to Swedish and Swiss Condors, with Stratocruisers due and Tudors being towed away for scrap.
Tu 114
@@dren4k Pe-8 available significantly earlier.
Despite the many shortcomings this plane is still beautiful. Wonderful video Mustard, it's always a treat when you release content! The quality is always top notch!
The accident rate is just atrocious. There has to be such unbelievable disregard for safety for authorities to allow that many hull loss incidents without permanently grounding the fleet.
10:48 folk song had next line after 'the grave': "you had to go by train"
There was actually an incident where a Soviet TU-104 crashed and killed the 16 admirals who were in charge of the Soviet Pacific fleet at that time. In one incident, with a Soviet jet liner, the Soviet Union lost a good chunk of their military leadership.
Yup! Paper Skies made a really good video on it.
What always amazes me about the early jet days is how Boeing absolutely nailed the formula we still use today right out of the gate.
Mastered nailing the ground too ironically due to capitalism which I'm a proponent of, just not the crashing part.
@@tihspidtherekciltilc5469 I think you'll find the rest have been equally or more successful in the regard. With that said, Boeing has clearly suffered from the MBA-think cancer which has infected most all U.S. companies.
@@corystansbury You nailed that.
It wasn't exactly "out of the gate", Boeing (and Douglas) engineers were wise enough to pay attention to much of what was going on with the Comet while they were developing the 707 (and the DC-8).
To the point they'd admit that they'd likely make the same mistakes (like the fatal pressurization flaw due the windows) if the Comet didn't had happened first.
@@frylucas , that is a very English centric view and has much nothing to do with reality.
Boeing knew where to put the engines, under the wings, like on bombers. And the windows was about rubbish workmanship not just the square size.
Even today the front windows tend to be fairly square.
It's just a silly English thing to believe it was just the square windows and to believe that the rest of the world would have stopped competing had the Comet been a success.
To be honest it's damned childish, but not new.
It reminds me of the song - "I would have made it in alright if my buddy hadn't stepped on my hand".