Talk:Tupolev Tu-144

What does it mean "Without an afterburner there was no variable nozzle already available."
At the end of Engines it says "The Kolesov RD-36-51 had an unusual variable con-di nozzle for the nozzle pressure ratios at supersonic speeds. Without an afterburner there was no variable nozzle already available. A translating plug nozzle was used.".

And, Did the Tu-144D need afterburner during Mach 2 cruise (as with the NK-144 engines on the Tu-144S) ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Tu-144S Specifications
As far as I can make out, the most important model was the Tu-144S. Nine of these were made and they were the only ones used for commercial passenger services.

However the specifications at the bottom of the article are for the later Tu-144D.

I think it would be interesting to have the Tu-144S specifications, which were quite different. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Failure to acquire western technology
A template I added to "Failure to acquire western technology" was removed by an IP, which was probably a good call. I'd like to preserve the reason from the removed template here as the section could use an improvement if a source with more details about French-Soviet collaboration emerges:

"This section appears to entirely rely on a single Aviation Week article as cited in Moon, 1989. The aircraft designers describe the plans for bi-directional exchange in technology between Tupolev and Aerospatiale, which were never implemented due to both Concorde and Tu-144 production ending. According to them, it was a result of a permanent workgroup set as a part of the technology exchange within the French-Soviet Aviation Industry Group, rather than a one-off request to fix the airplane before the Olympics &#91;as interpreted by Moon&#93;. Aviation Week mentions the existence of the group as well, but unfortunately doesn't offer any more details of its activities overall." PaulT2022 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing absence of spying claims
It has long been claimed that the Tu144 relied heavily on Soviet espionage yet this article presents a very different story, excising the widely-held view in the west that ‘Concordski’ was substantially the result of IP theft. Two spies miles in particular have been posited and in November 2023 the UK’s Channel 4 TV carried a documentary naming Ivor James Gregory as Agent Ace, the spy revealed by Soviet defector to have been stealing secrets from Concorde programme, including complex technical information from the engine manufacturers, Rolls-Royce. Source, The Times, 24 November 2023 176.25.29.186 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The Times article this apparently refers to https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professor-unmasks-russian-spy-who-stole-the-secrets-of-concorde-kdmvgdlb2 --PaulT2022 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I added here. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how someone from BEA (which didn't operate Concorde) got hold of all this information on Concorde and its engines. In addition if the espionage occured in the 1970s, it can have little effect on the Tu-144 design, which flew in 1968. There has always been this sort of lazy assumption that the Tu-144 has to have been designed as a result of espionage, with very little linkage shown between the alledged espionage and actual engineering on the Soviet side.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that the Times article is reporting on a TV documentary by Channel 4 which is yet to be broadcast - apparently it will be shown tomorrow, so it's unsurprising that the Wikipedia article doesn't fully reflect what's in the programme - and given that its a popular TV documentary, there's a decent chance that what's been said so far hasn't been correctly reported or is incorrect. We shouldn't be reporting on things that we haven't seen and haven't been published yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the researcher apparently discovered this in Vasili Mitrokhin archives, probably overblown. The Guardian, in particular, was skeptical about this source: intelligence analysts and some Soviet defectors have warned that the KGB seriously exaggerated the significance and number of its contacts and operations to impress the Soviet leadership – and increase its budget
 * I do note that The Times article I linked above doesn't support that Tu-144 design relied on espionage. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly written in a very biased fashion. The top section gives much weight to the nature of it being first, barely mentioning how rushed it was, resulting in two accidents, overall barely being used with its gigantic problems and as noted omits the tremendous IP theft. This article needs an overhaul. 79.166.53.199 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

TU-144D specifications
I think it is misleading to use the TU-144D specifications as the primary specs. People will inevitably compare passenger TU-144s with Concorde and come away with a false comparison. The TU-144D was a freight only aircraft and only a couple of TU-144D were constructed and were very short-lived. The in-service TU-144S specifications should be used. Completeaerogeek (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)