Talk:Tupolev Tu-144/Archive 1

Conversation
Anyone here know why the tu-144 failed in "commercial" operation? (In as far you can talk of commercial operation in a communist planned economy that is). I mean 48 flights in total... that isn't a lot? I don't know if aeroflot was supposed to make money on this, but in a country the size of the USSR it isn't difficult to think of obvious advantages. Maybe technical issues?

As far as I know, there were actually two issues with the TU-144. Beside the fact that it is/was considered the better airplane compared with the Concorde, the Russians had major problems with the reliability of the chosen engines and their pride forbid to choose western engines. Though the engines delivered the required thrust the biggest problem (technically as well as commercially) was the fuel consumption. The possible range flying supersonic speeds was so dramatically reduced that any commercial efforts would have failed.


 * The real issue is but one: the computer engine control syetem. In short, human control is too crude and wasteful, especially when using afterburning (reheat; injecting fuel into the engine axhaust to augment thrust by up to 50%), which both the Tu-144 and Concorde do; automatic control is needed. Since the late 1980s, such controld (FADEC -- fully automatic digital engine control) have entered widespread service. In the 1960s, the Soviets were behind in computing (Stalin had declared cybernetics a dark capitalist art...) and made a basic error in specifying analogue computers for the Tu-144. When they realised their mistake (early 1970s), they repeatedly tried to purchase digital engine control systems from Britain's Lucas, with any and all deals blocked by Nato's Cocom. The last efforts coincided with the end of detente in the early Carter presidency, which is also when the Tu-144 went belly upwards. No range: it's all as simple as that.

Agreed - the Concorde could supercruise, whereas the TU-144 required the use of afterburner to go supersonic and sustain it. That restricted the TU-144's range to 500 miles or so. 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)raryel


 * A second factor, and hugely important in the Soviet context, was that the Tupolev design office had lost its political leverage. Old man Tupolev was a wily and astute sod who had got onto the inside track to Khrushchev's favour, but once K. was out of power, Tu just kept losing and losing and losing. Old man Tu died in late 1972 and, as opposed to the abrasive and results-minded fiend of a father, Tu Jr. was a wimp who squandered what was left. Ilyushin picked up the Tupolev silver, largely. Devoid of friends, the Tu-144 would have died of pneumonia after the slightest cold, and it didn't help matters at all that it 1. crashed in Paris, of all places, for all the world to see; 2. crashed again, killing a test pilot. Spent propaganda got short shrift in Soviet times.


 * Other than that, the Tu-144 was the better design. It had some 10% better lift/drag ratio than the Concorde, flew an appreciable tad faster, and lifted a usefully larger (by 20-40%) payload. The Americans are no fools, and NASA picked the winner for its work. Just consider that there were at least two Concordes lying idle that could have been had in 1997, and either of them would have flown right away, compared to the major work (including new engines!) the Tu-144 needed.


 * It's not self-evident that the lift-drag thing indicates any superiority, in fact I would argue the contrary. It's not like the Concorde had the simpler wing. Concorde was deliberately designed to have low landing speeds, and this helped it stop. So they deliberately co-optimised Concorde's wing for that feature. The Tupolev used a parachute; and canard didn't help enough. The parachute certainly didn't help it win any sales.WolfKeeper 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One other notable difference between Concorde and the TU-144 is Tupolev's reliance on a cooling system for the fuselage vs. the Concorde's reliance on the fuel itself as a coolant. I will look up a specific reference I have to that and then write a sentence or two about that. 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)raryel


 * That spying thing is really tiresome. Goebels would have been impressed; it is bound to be accepted as true history within a generation. More's the pity! The French were fond of accusing all and sundry of copying the Caravelle, but frankly, would anyone condemn Douglas for copying the BAC One-Eleven or Caravelle, or Boeing of copying the Trident, or Douglas again of copying the 707? And would any designer worth his salt not be interested in "the blueprints" of his rivals' work? Just to set the record straight, in the 1960s the average set of airliner drawings and documentation (one is useless without the other) came to 2 tonnes or two library rooms, or one library hall. Just the one set of 1960s flight crew manuals comes to two solid briefcases' worth of bumf. Now, that sort of bulk would have been noticed by customs... Microfilm hidden in someone's lipstick case/underpants/walking stick? No good for anything other than 1. a vague idea of where the other side is headed; 2. a spy movie of the naive kind. And don't be so sanguine as to imagine the Brits and Frenchies were all terribly gentlemanly and left the Russkies get on with it in peace!..Livedvalid 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the entire Aeroplane, but my cousin was involved with the British designed front landing gear. During a conversation on the topic, he stated that the company he worked for were extremely annoyed to find out that the French had not taken sufficient precautions with their blueprints. Several unique features of that very difficult design were later found on the Tupolev Tu-144. No evidence of industrial espionage was ever uncovered at the British design office, but who knows? --203.212.136.134 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on stolen information ... is there proof for this??? maybe we should re-word the sentence? -- WojPob

The spying stuff makes no sense. Yes, there was espionage, but Tupolev did not need any help designing what is, essentially, a double-delta. His double-delta was a bit cruder in shape than the Concorde, but the use of canards near the nose helped the TU-144 handle much better at low speed. I have references for this which I have to look up. For now, I will add a sentence discussing the double-delta and discounting the effect of espionage. There is no reason not to. Raryel 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel


 * Yeah, right. If they didn't need it, why did they do it? people went to prison and everything. The Tupolev may have handled better than Concorde at low speed, but nevertheless and more importantly the landing speed was higher, which helped mean that the Russians had problems with tyres, and they needed a parachute. And a Russian agent was caught with plans for Concorde's braking system in his possession BTW, so I guess the Russians never got that bit, and it shows. It's the grown up equivalent of cribbing off your neighbour at school, at best, and don't forget they were supposedly market competitors (or they would have been if the Tupolev hadn't bought it in Paris.)WolfKeeper 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard it was the other way round - that the British and French stole the design from the Russians. I will delete the reference to this controversy altogether.  GrahamN 16:43 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * The accusations of industrial espionage on the part of the Tu-144 designers is out there; a Google search on "Tu-144 Concorde industrial espionage" will turn some of them up. Some of the references are questionable, but the PBS series "Nova" was willing to state the accusations exist. I think it's definitely safe to say there were allegations of industrial espionage. As far as accusations of the French and British stealing from the Soviets, I've never heard that one. Dave Farquhar 19:06 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Er, no, on reflection you are right. I got confused with the space shuttle.  I heard a radio programme some time ago about the Soviet version of the shuttle, now mouldering away in a half-collapsed hanger somewhere.  There was  an allegation that the Soviets thought of it first and the Americans pinched the idea, and possibly also the design.  No idea how much truth there was in that. GrahamN 14:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Interesting part of history I had forgotten about. Anyone know if any of the Tu-144's are still around?


 * Latest info available at http://www.moninoaviation.com/tu144llupdate.html


 * If you are interested, it seems you can buy it from these guys: http://www.tejavia.com/


 * -- Egil 17:39 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * There are a number of Tu-144s in museums and sitting outside of airports in Russia. As I recall, the last flyable one--the Tu-144LL that NASA used--was sold in 2002 and is now in a museum in Germany. Dave Farquhar 19:06 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

...

Noise
On British TV many moons ago it was claimed that the Tu-144 was more noisy, to uncomfortable levels, inside the passenger cabin. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why it was use more for freight?

Specs
from

HISTORY: First Flight    31 December 1968 Service Entry

26 December 1975 (mail service) 22 February 1977 (passenger service)

CREW:    3 flight crew

PASSENGERS:    98 in two classes 120-140 in one class

ESTIMATED COST:

unknown

AIRFOIL SECTIONS: Wing Root    unknown Wing Tip

unknown

DIMENSIONS: Length    215.54 ft (65.70 m) Wingspan     94.48 ft (28.80 m) Height     34.42 ft (10.50 m) Wing Area     4,714.75 ft2 (438.0 m2) Canard Area

unknown

WEIGHTS: Empty    187,395 lb (85,000 kg) Typical Load    unknown Max Takeoff    396,830 lb (180,000 kg) Fuel Capacity    internal: 154,325 lb (70,000 kg) external: not applicable Max Payload

unknown

PROPULSION: Powerplant    four Kuznetsov NK-144 turbofans Thrust    176,368 lb (784.56 kN)

PERFORMANCE: Max Level Speed    at altitude: 1,555 mph (2,500 km/h), Mach 2.35 at sea level: unknown cruise speed: 1,430 mph (2,300 km/h) Initial Climb Rate    unknown Service Ceiling    59,055 ft (18,000 m) Range     3,510 nm (6,500 km) g-Limits    unknown

KNOWN VARIANTS: Tu-144    Prototype Tu-144S    First production model; about 14 built Tu-144D    Improved model, possibly with more fuel efficient engines, and used primarily for high-speed research Tu-144LL    Refurbished Tu-144D fitted with more powerful engines, updated avionics, and various test equipment and operated jointly by Russia and NASA for high-speed research

KNOWN OPERATORS:

Aeroflot NASA

Tu-144LL flight restrictions
What about this statement in the article?!: For the last research flights, the Testbed 144LL reg 77114 and the last remaining Tu-144D reg 77115 were under restriction not to exceed Mach 1.

Actually this cannot be true. NASA describes in TM209850, 2000 the Mach 2 missions their pilots have flown in September 1998.

MS

No Tupolev Tu-142LL article?
Where's the Tu-142LL? Does it not have an article? Here's a picture.. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Russia---Air/1320653 --Ragemanchoo (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

77116
Aircraft number 77116 was complete as there are videos of it flying on rutube.ru website  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.161.134 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concordski
Is it worth mentioning that the aircraft was often referred to as "Concordski" in the West. --JonRB (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly - done. Apart from anything else, it should come up as a search term for the page.--128.240.229.7 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the lead as it gives undo prominence to what was just a name use by the Western press. It could be seen as derogatory and certainly would not have been used by the Russians. Although I dont have a problem with it being mentioned in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid creating a new section, and it's useful as a way of identifying the aircraft. IMO, more people would recognize 'Concordski' than 'Tu-144', and certainly more than 'Charger'.  Still, I take your point.  I'm open to suggestions as to where the mention should go.--128.240.229.3 (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw. -- this press-name is not very educated. -ski is a Polish name ending, not a Russian one. The Russian names often end in -ov/-ev or -in, so it should be called Concordyev, Concordov or Concordin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.231.11.11 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Educated enough. Albeit originally Polish name, there are probably more people in Russia with last names ending in ский\ская sky(ski), than in Poland itself. Besides, this point is irrelevant to the subject of the article. 104.129.196.79 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)AK68

1973 Paris Air Show Crash
There's an interesting quote about the 1973 Paris Air Show crash in a book I am currently reading. The quote itself is from Memories of Military Test Flying and Life with the Kremlin's Elite by Stepan Anastasovitch Mikoyan, p.354

''I would like to say a few words about one of the air disasters of the century - the fatal accident of the Soviet supersonic liner Tu-144 at the Bourges Salon in 1972. (sic - it was 1973) There are two or three aspects of that accident which I will mention here. The main cause of the crash was the pull-up manoeuvre which the pilots attempted to do in imitation of their foreign colleagues. This manoeuvre had never been performed in the Tu-144 before. The pilot himself, Mikhail Kozlov, was not experienced in it either; if he had ever done it at all, it would have been only as a student, for he was a bomber pilot and would not do any aerobatics in his normal job. On finding himself in an unusual position with the horizon hidden behind the nose of his machine, Kozlov must have pushed the wheel too hastily and too far, overshooting in pitch. The Tu-144 was tailless aeroplane and as such would be extremely sensitive to pushing the control column forward. It reacted to Kozlov's aggressive push on the column by rotating sharply from a climb to a vertical dive. And then another factor came into play. As was seen from the video footage, the pilot delayed the pull-out from the dive by a couple of seconds. It has been assumed that the delay was caused by the video camera that was dropped by the cameraman (he was sitting between the two pilots) and landed between the pilot's seat and the control column, It could be so, but I believe there is a more plausible explanation. The negative G load which accompanied the sharp vertical dive would have tossed the pilot up from his seat - it has been said that Kozlov was not properly strapped in - and at this moment he would have unconsciously have pressed on the wheel thus pushing it further forward instead of pulling it. Even with the other pilot's help he would have lost one or two seconds to settle back in and start pulling the control column.''

''Finally, one last thing. When you are diving downwards, the ground always seems to be closer than it really is, even if you are a fighter pilot who is used to such manoeuvres. To someone like Mikhail Kozlov, who would have seen the ground from such an attitude for the first time, it must have seemed even closer. As soon as he had recovered his seat he might have pulled the column back with too much force and exceeded the design G-load limit of his machine. His wing disintegrated as a result, whereas if he had pulled more gently, just balancing the G-load limit, but not exceeding it, he might have had a chance to recover, even though he was indeed very near the ground.''

Quoted in; Severne, J. (2007). Silvered Wings - The Memoirs of Air Vice-Marshall Sir John Severne. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84415-559-0 p143.


 * The Paris Air Show crash is in the article twice & as its so long I suggest deleting entirely the second one Steve Bowen (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Tu-144 largely a copy of Concorde?
I can see the debate's been had here a little bit already, but I can scarcely believe that the article doesn't mention anywhere that large proportions of the designs were allegedly stolen - even though it's obvious to the most untrained observer that these planes are closely related. If anything, it gives the impression that it was the other way around, and that Concorde was the follower rather than the leader.

I'm not interested in debating which was the better plane, or whether Soviet management structures hobbled their very talented designers and engineers; I just want to get the facts straight about whether or not there really was a major level of cribbing going on in either direction. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Josh


 * Probably a bit in both directions, mostly from Concorde though. But even the American SSTs began to look more and more like scaled-up Concordes, it doesn't look like there's very many ways to skin this cat, and a double delta wing was state of the art at the time. Given that wing shape, they all are going to end up looking very similar.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I asked a bad question; I have my own opinion as to the provenance of the designs, which is irrelevant here. Shouldn't the allegations of theft be at least mentioned in the article here, though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find a source, but IIRC, some of the key issues with the Tu-144 came from the fact that it was a poor copy of the Concorde. The Concorde's leading edge shape is carefully designed to utilize leading edge vortex lift at high angles of attack (allowing it to land). When the Soviet's saw the design, they didn't realize that the complex shape was for that reason. They simplified the wing shape to make it easier to manufacture, which had the unexpected consequence of ruining the vortex lift. That is one of the reasons that they added the canards in order to improve low speed performance. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've actually heard different version of this story from Tupolev designers. It was Concorde which went through multiple stages of simplification of airframe shapes because of high cost of production. First versions of Tu-144 were based on a bomber with very simple wing. While in development Tu-144 wing became actually much more complicated consisting of about 10 simple shapes and 100+ corrections and complicated connections between shapes. Concorde instead became less more complicated. Also Russian TSAGI had much more advanced technologies and more powerful wind tunnel, so they could improve and build arguably better quality airframe. Leading canards were a big surprise for French. They did not realize benefits of such solution. If Concorde had them, it would improve aircraft performance at low speed to great extend. Those canards were one of the reasons of airshow crash of Tu-144 in Paris when Mirage was spying on Tu-144, came too close to it and forced pilots to overstear the plane. Answering the question. Tu-144 was not a copy. Both planes used the same configuration. But it was tested and researched long before actual design of 144 and Concorde started. French did their best to misinform public about Russians stealing their design because Tu-144 flew first and could potentially kill commercial sales of Concorde. By the way US version of supersonic had very similar look and configuration was basically the same. Also first public information about it appeared in media before Concorde and Tu. I believe both sides were heavily spying on each other and could "derive" many decisions from each other designs.

98.210.248.73 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Russian TSAGI had much more advanced technologies and more powerful wind tunnel, so they could improve and build arguably better quality airframe. Leading canards were a big surprise for French. They did not realize benefits of such solution. If Concorde had them, it would improve aircraft performance at low speed to great extend. - that must be why the Tu-144 was such a success then. I wouldn't know as I've never seen one. Concorde however, used to fly over my home in London twice a day on the approach to London Heathrow Airport so I've seen that loads of times. In fact, it came over so often that I didn't even bother to look out of the window - well sometimes I didn't. You could always tell it was a Concorde because it was much louder than other aircraft, but it went over much quicker, so the noise wasn't that annoying. Never saw a Tu-144 though.


 * From the air traveller's point of view, and strangely enough, for Concorde itself, it's probably a shame that the Tu-144 was never a usable airliner. If it had been then it may have been bought/used by the Eastern Bloc airlines, and perhaps some Western ones, which may well have helped popularised supersonic transport and stimulated competition enough for Sud Aviation/BAC to have developed the Concorde Mk II, which would have been more efficient than the Concorde, which in turn, would have brought fares down. As it is now, if you want to fly the Atlantic it takes six hours. it used to take three. On some journeys, the travelling to the airport took longer than the flight across the Atlantic. The Tu-144 might have helped make that more widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.240 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bit on Concorde's not needing canards in a 1969 Flight article here: - they weren't needed at low speeds due to the vortex sheet remaining attached to the wing right up to and beyond the stall, and at high speed trimming was handled by fuel transfer at CofG shift when going through Mach 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very strange reaction. If we talk about the similarites of Concorde and Tu-144, yes, they are similar. But if we speak about stealing blueprints or anything else, we should look at aerodynamics of all supersonic planes. Let's see Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L-2000. Was their design stolen from Concorde, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartuseviciusj (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Video on YouTube of a BA Concorde 'greasing in' at Kai Tak back in 1996 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Speed needs to be factchecked
The cruise speed and maximum speed given in this article need to be factchecked. When compared to the Concorde, the km/h and mph values are higher for the Tu-144, but the equivalent Mach values given are lower than the Concorde.--Witan (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tu-144 Failure Reasons
Hi Oboguev! Thanks for adding so much to the Tu-144 page! It seems most of your material comes from a single source, which is acceptable. However, when citing from a book like that, you need to include page numbers so other editors can verify your additions. Furthermore, you cite some facts here and there, but much of what you write needs to be cited. For example, specific facts such as "In 1976 during repeat-load and static testing in TsAGI, Tu-144S airframe cracked at 70% of expected flight stress with cracks running many meters both directions from the spot of their origin." need to be cited. It is acceptable to cite at the end of each paragraph, as long as all the facts in that paragraph come from the same source (i.e., you can cite "pp. 67-69, Moon, 1989" for all the content in one paragraph, if that's where it came from. If you can add these citations, your addition will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia! (Note: I am posting this on the user's talk page as well). -SidewinderX (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I will try to provide page numbers, perhaps later today or tomorrow. As for the problems with the airframe robustness, information comes from the article by acad. Fridlyander published in 2002 in the Messenger of Russian Academy of Sciences, which I did provide an online link to.

Oboguev (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. If they come from a different source, you need to cite that too! If you'd like to cite an article more than once, and don't want to clutter the page, I suggest naming the source, as described here. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Test Flight
"Indeed, the Tu-144 №68001 shortly achieved maximum speed of 2,443 km/h (M 2.26) during one of the test flights on 17 May 1968." The article on the Tu-144 has this sentence. The supposed date of the test flight is nonsense, since the maiden flight of 68001 happened on December 31st 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoslav (talk • contribs) 11:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth
The second Tu-144 at the LII aircraft testing facility, Zhukovsky, Russian Federation, is now visible on Google Earth at co-ordinates 55.57174°N, 38.15228°W. It wasn't there a few months ago ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.240.108 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 55.56966°N, 38.15622°W, actually. Two of them even. Nifty! - The Bushranger (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tu-144 at co-ordinates :55.56966°N, 38.15622°W has been there for a while (you can tell this by the state of its wings) and is probably the Tu-144LL (#77114) due to its lack of canards.


 * The other Tu-144 (probably #77115) at 55.57174°N, 38.15228°W has just appeared very recently in aerial photography and looks cleaner than the Tu-144LL; perhaps it has been refurbished?


 * I have mapped all the supersonic airliners in Google Earth, and I am waiting for up-to-date aerial photographs of Sinsheim Auto & Technik Museum 49.23867°N, 8.8967°W to get a clearer image of the Tu-144 (#77112) in Google Earth exhibited there, although it can be seen clearly here.
 * I have now also located a 4th Tu-144 (#77107) at Kazan at co-ordinates 55.8544°N, 49.09847°W.
 * 5th Tu-144 (#77106) at Monino 55.83215°N, 38.18315°W.
 * 6th Tu-144 (#77108) at Samara 53.2404°N, 50.36414°W.
 * 7th Tu-144 (#77110) at Ulyanovsk 54.29029°N, 48.23383°W, is not very clear in Google Earth, but can be see clearly here (you will need to zoom in).

Range
On the specifications it says the Tu-144D could go 3,500 nm. However this is the range for the Tu-144LL (NASA's improved version using Kuznetsov Nk-321 engines). Here is a link to NASA Tupolev Tu-144 page http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.177.139 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Split out section on paris crash
I believe this section could have its own article. Especially since someone evene made a graphic describing what happened. A lot of this is also described in the very lengthy "Reasons for failure and cancellation" section. The "Reasons for failure and cancellation" is too long and hard to read, in my opinion. 130.194.218.171 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

130.194.218.171 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed; will just lead to an AFD. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC).
 * AfD? Hardly, this is a very notable crash. I've created the article using the section in this article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it's at 1973 Paris Air Show crash. I've tagged material in Tupolev Tu-144 as disputed: it discusses the crash, but in an unbalanced way that focusses one theory ("showing off") and using possibly unreliable sources (Russian language websites). Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Что, жаба давит написать в английской версии статьи, что Ту-144 был ПЕРВЫЙ? Как бы то ни было, но первей вашего конкорда, с которым вы всё время сравниваете, что совершенно не к месту. Эта-то статья про Ту, а про конкорд статья отдельная есть. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.1 (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the Concorde
Surely it's just Concorde, please help me on this....Steve Bowen (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Only in Britain! - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then surly it's "The Concorde" (oh & no ! from me) Steve Bowen (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Concorde is known as "Concorde" not "The Concorde." --KJRehberg (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Completed copy-edit
-- The     copyeditor's corner   11:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The whole article is written in a very aggressive, expressly anti-Soviet manner with apparent desire to diminish the whole project. It is especially apparent in the "Cabin noise" section. It only states one source but still claims it was a huge problem. It may have been but the section sure need many more sources. The claims of espionage are also badly substanciated.

The general style of the article is far from the neutral. Nomad (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i concur. The article is also full of original research which is written in such a way, that it presents real pov problems as presented above. I can provide many more sources, many of which are in russian, if anyone is wanting them. The books by gordon and duffy are highly regarded; duffy especially so - one of the few westerners who actually get the industry. If anyone wants a list of resources drop me a line. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it to the contrary very close to a cold war propaganda tone: Look how some assertions are not argumented, such as "aerodynamics of the Soviet aircraft was better." No reference, no proof. Like propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.139.209 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Aerodynamics were superior, why did the TU-144 require massively inefficient reheat in order to cruise supersonically? The Concorde had no problems with supercruise, and reaped efficiency benefits as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.77.7.33 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not relevant. Anyone who wants to make claims of superiority needs to substantiate with references. Anyone who wants to dispute the claims needs to do the same, otherwise it is not encyclopaedic content. Flanker235 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold War ghost, that's what this article is.
It's - by far - the most prejudiced I've ever read in Wikipedia. It's spewing malice and envy. The author might as well left it as a stub:

"The Soviets stole and copied everything yet still got it ALL wrong. Neeh-neeh! See Concorde for details."

It would bear the same gravity (and credibility) as does all that writing. Not a word as to why NASA picked it over the rival for their FL. What were they thinking?!? But then again - how would they know, are they rocket scientists or what... Maybe they should've consulted the author first before making such - apparent - mistake. Please. I don't even want to start with the discrepancies in the article or I'll wind up writing at least that much.

And remember, to its final pedestal it was shipped (NOT, NOT flown), OK? Shipped that is (not flown)! Who wrote it anyways, Ronald Reagan, peace on him? It's a shame, biasing science with politics like that, real shame.

--I completely agree. Neutrality in this article does not exist. We expect a much higher scientific profile, not political propaganda clearly anti-Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.185.180 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has its drawbacks, but the general tone is balanced. I don't have documents, but I had long conversations with one of the designers of the 144. Of course they were stealing whatever they could, and the fact that the 144 had flown before the Concorde doesn't contradict anything -- it was largely a stolen prototype flying. If you are looking for Cold War ghosts, open the Russian version of the article. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Right... You don't have documents, but long conversations... I'm enlightened now. "Of course" they stole it. That's what they did all along - steal. Mig-s were stolen, Su-s were stolen, Yak-s were stolen, Il-s were stolen, spacecrafts were also all stolen... whatever makes you happy, Mr. Kuzmich. In case you didn't notice, this isn't about which one flew first, although it stings you a lot. It's about the article presenting the aircraft as a flying ramshackle. Which it was not. Had it been developed instead of canceled, it could have been a fully decent plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirka80286 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice talking to you, Kirka8026. I happened to participate in other Soviet projects, stealing other western technology, and I happen to know how it was done. I've never said they stole "everything", only "whatever they could". How many times do you need to catch someone stealing to call him a thief? I don't quite see what expertise can you show in support of your views, except that Communists cannot be wrong ever, hard to argue with that. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Kuzmich, I apologize for the tone of my remark which is totally unacceptable. That said, yours only proves my point: On a discussion page about an aircraft (!), the last sentence coined by you had to be about communists. It just had to be. Everyone could see it coming. I'm not surprised, not one bit. That's what I said all along - this article is politically biased to the bone. That's what this is all about, not about technical specs, not about industrial espionage, not even about the plane itself. Well then, please excuse my frustration when questionable authors put for a fact in an encyclopedia - umm, for example - how passengers "two seats apart could not hear each other even when screaming and had to pass hand-written notes instead." which is a plain and sincere lie. My expertise, Mr Kuzmich, is that people should not put plain and sincere lies on engineering matter because of their political beliefs. Would you agree or disagree to that? Thank you. Note: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC) OK first off please don't bend my words backwards. Communists do that. We're not talking just "loud" here. The article states clearly that it was SO loud that verbal communication between adjacent seats was impossible, in favor of written "notes". That is plain and sincere lie and I stick to that to the end. No commercial airplane will go in production with such a noise level. Not even in USSR. What, you reckon the author has been in Tu-144? Really? Or is it just that we turn up the noise a little bit because we hate Commies? No, that's not the way to write an article. Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirka80286 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article could benefit from more references, but one cannot call an entry a lie just because there is no reference. How does Kirka8026 know the entry about the cabin noise "is a plain and sincere lie"? Has he flown in Tu-144? In any supersonic jets? I know from experience that Soviet jets were loud, but I did not measure the dB level; I also don't know how loud western jets were in the 1960-s and 70-s. Also, this discussion section is titled "Cold War ghost", therefore my reference to Communism is relevant. Thank you. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a word as to why NASA picked it over the rival for their FL.  - none of the Concordes were for sale at the time so NASA couldn't have chosen Concorde anyway - they were all still carrying passengers across the Atlantic at Mach 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an Eastern European documentary on the Tu-144 on YouTube here; although it's not in English. It may be in Russian or perhaps Polish but as I'm no linguist you'll have to see for yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A 1972 Soviet promo film on the Tu-144 (in Russian) here:  and a recent documentary (also in Russian) here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Airbus reference
The article states, "However, the Airbus A-380 has large sections of wings and fuselage panels made with computer-controlled milling machines from a solid aluminum slab.[28]" This seems like a strange place to put this sentence. There is no other references to Airbus or the A380 construction anywhere else in the article. This should be removed from this page, or maybe expanded to talk about the similarities in construction. 12.32.89.121 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not an orthographic diagram
The move of the front profile out of position relative to the plan profile makes the diagram non-orthographic. The sense of the word is that every relevant point on plan and each profile should correspond, either vertically or horizontally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.36.205 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anachronisms?
Words like "blueprint" and "co-pilot" are somewhat anachronistic. Could they not be replaced with "plans" or "drawings" and "first officer"? Flanker235 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC video — Concordski: How the Soviet Union lost the supersonic race
The BBC has a video about the Paris crash: Concordski: How the Soviet Union lost the supersonic race. JDAWiseman (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How many crashed ?
How many of these planes actually crashed ? It is not very clear. It appears to be 2, but I am unsure. The section towards the end about "incidents" only mentions one, the Paris crash.Lathamibird (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2 Tu-114 crashed. others scrapped. Source: Autor=Yefim Gordon, Vladimir Rigmant Titel=OKB Tupolev A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft 2005|Seiten=16 ISBN=1-85780-214-4 FFA P-16 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Turbojets unavailable in USSR?
The article claims turbojets were not available in the USSR, thus turbofans were used. I do not believe this is accurate, as turbojets are much simpler in design, and many early Soviet jets were powered by turbojets

Is it possible the author meant ramjets, or was confused about supersonic I let technology and believed it to be part of what makes a turbojet?

Did they perhaps mean turbojets of sufficient power were not available at the time?

Okto8 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the original editor meant, the reference didn't support it - the key point is that the engines that the Tupolev used weren't powerful to allow supersonic flight without reheat.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See latest article edit.Pieter1963 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It almost certainly meant that there were no Soviet turbojets in the thrust/weight class that the projected Tu-144 required. Concorde was lucky in that the Bristol Olympus had been designed earlier for a projected long-range jet bomber (which became the Avro Vulcan) and that engine had been expressly designed for fuel efficiency at high powers.


 * As the Soviets were in a hurry and having to catch up with the rival Concorde there was no time in which to design and test a completely new turbojet engine. They therefore were forced to use an existing turbofan, which was less than ideal, as a turbofan's exhaust gas velocity is too low for efficiency at speeds around Mach 2, being more better suited to speeds of around 600 kt to Mach 1 only. This meant that the Tu-144 was forced to use reheat continuously.


 * BTW, when Concorde first flew in 1969 the basic Olympus engine design was twenty years old, having been designed in 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.113 (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tupolev Tu-144. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928042757/http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/02_01/FRID.HTM to http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/02_01/FRID.HTM
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samolet.co.uk/c1_g3.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120918125526/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=199 to http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=199
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ebay.com/itm/Russian-TU-144-SST-Airliner-/182489803931?hash=item2a7d3d6c9b%3Ag%3AU-0AAOSw241Yk5u2&vxp=mtr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tupolev Tu-144. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920165421/http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=148&Page=2 to http://www.tupolev.ru/english/Show.asp?SectionID=148&Page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019
change "The Tu-144 first in history went supersonic on June 5 1969" to "The Tu-144 first went supersonic on June 5 1969" McLovin McGee (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, Thanks for the request. --Redalert2fan (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020
hello "and cruised at a speed of around 2,000 kilometres per hour" - This is in the first part of the page. >>and cruised at a speed of around 2,400 kilometres per hour - This is the correct number: 2400 km/h! thanx Showowindow (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please provide reliable sources that support this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is here in this Wiki site: "(M2.15 vs. M2.04)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showowindow (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. There is no discussion of cruising speed near the text you're referring to. Also, please indent and sign your messages.  See Help:Talk for more info. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
The summary does not discuss the reason why the aircraft failed. This is discussed later in the article and referenced already.

The aircraft used a new construction technique which lead to large cracks forming. I think this would fit in very well at the following location in the second paragraph, directly before the list of crashes:

The prototype's first flight was made on 31 December 1968, near Moscow[1] from Zhukovsky Airport,[5] two months before the first flight of Concorde. The Tu-144 first went supersonic on 5 June 1969[6] (Concorde first went supersonic on 1 October 1969), and on 26 May 1970 became the world's first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2. The aircraft used a new construction technique which resulted in large unexpected cracks, which resulted in several crashes. A Tu-144 crashed in 1973 at the Paris Air Show, delaying its further development. The aircraft was introduced into commercial service on 26 December 1975. In May 1978, another Tu-144 (an improved version, the Tu-144D) crashed on a test flight while being delivered. The aircraft remained in use as a cargo aircraft until 1983, when the Tu-144 commercial fleet was grounded. The Tu-144 was later used by the Soviet space program to train pilots of the Buran spacecraft, and by NASA for supersonic research until 1999, when the Tu-144 made its last flight (26 June 1999).

207.141.33.19 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Movie Trivia
The Tu-144 appears several times in the 1977 Russian/Georgian film "Mimino", sometimes available on YouTube Santamoly (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary comparisons all over the article…
I can´t see the need of continuous comparisons between the TU114 and the Concorde all over the article. The Concorde has its own article, with its own achievements. This is not a discussion about which was better aircraft; we must let the user decide, please. Guinart (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello people, One more time, the word Concorde is present about 50 times in the Tu144 article!... and almost all times to make unnecessary comparisons that reader can easily made checking the Concorde page as well… I recommend to those which want to establish the superiority of the Concorde over the TU144 to make a page specifically for that content, with a new title. In few months I will try a review of the article to correct that wrong encyclopedic conception. If anyone has an issue with that, please contact me. Guinart (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You are probably correct, however, IIRC, much of the article was originally written in a manner suggesting the writer was not using English as a first language (I know this as I tidied-up some of the original text) and as he/she included considerable detail on the Tu-144 not previously available in the West I assumed he/she was in fact Russian. So the comparisons were not made by Concorde 'fans'.


 * Unfortunately the Tu-144 and Concorde were the only two aircraft of the supersonic transport (SST) category ever built and operated so comparisons between the two are somewhat inevitable, there being no 'generic' supersonic airliner to gauge performance of one or the other by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Tu-144 was developed solely to rival Concorde for political purposes, and it failed, rather badly. It could not even cruise supersonic without afterburner, which invalidated it as a design. It had other rather serious problems too. It made very few scheduled flights and didn't carry passengers on half of them. The comparison with Concorde was one which the Soviets deliberately sought to invoke. The Tu-144 had no other reason to exist. And that comparison unfortunately does not favour the Tu-144. At all. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a specific section (or linked article) reorganizing the comparative aspects of this article. I consider the comparison very relevant, because of the historical and technological context, adding relevant content, if not crucial, to the matter The mixture of the comparative aspects throughout the article is perhaps detrimental to objectivity HM7Me (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Author's Technical Ineptitude
The author of the TU-144 Wikipedia page obviously does not have expertise in aerospace engineering, but does have an obvious bias against the Tupolev 144. The world's first SST to take flight was an experimental aircraft, all of which have deficiencies. Regarding the TU-144's supersonic aerodynamic effficiency, which was superior to Concorde, the figure quoted for the latter is incorrect and may refer to its L/D(max) which is irrelevant to Wikipedia readers. Concorde's supersonic cruise L/D was 7.14, an abysmal figure. Reference for the foregoing is: "Concorde: The Inside Story" by BAC Concorde Chief Test Pilot Brian Trubshaw. Next, the prototype TU-144 and TU-144S were powered by the NK-144 family of afterburning turbofans. Before the 21st century, all supersonic afterburning turbofan powerplants required augmentation, or afterburning, during supersonic cruise! Therefore, the NK-144's employment of afterburning during TU-144's supersonic cruise is not a valid criticism! The NK-144 was in development when the Soviet SST Program was launched and some of that powerplant's deficiencies were known, so therefore an order was issued for the new, non-augmented engine, the RD-36-51A turbojet. It's well to note that the RD-36-51A was modeled on the GE4 and simpler and about 40% more powerful than the Rolls Royce Olympus. The TU-144D's cruise SFC of 1.22-1.26 cannot be compared to Concorde's 1.19 due to the former's longer & wider fuselage, larger wing and other variances, but a primary factor is the engine is producing greater thrust. The Olympus engine was not the wonderful powerplant as reported. According to published figures, Olympus augmented SLST was 38,050 lbs, but Concorde's FAA Type Certificate A45EU reports 37,080 lbs. The engine weight as originally published did not include the complete installation! Concorde required constant, expensive maintenance; the foregoing and low utilization were responsible for the outrageous fares, not fuel cost as often reported. The performance attributed to Concorde in the article is incorrect. The FAA TCDS states maximum certificated operating altitude as 60,000 feet. Concorde was not capable of accommodating the loads for which the TU-144 holds multiple world records, as maximum structural payload was originally 28,000 lbs. The TU-144's maximum cruise speed was Mach 2.35 which was demonstrated in all models. The bottom line is that a fixed-wing SST requires low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio which are features of the Tupolev 144. Concorde was a compromise aircraft for which both of the aforementioned figures of merit were so mediocre that performance was marginal, if not unsafe. Production TU-144 models could takeoff and land without use of their retractable canards. The structural and cooling noise issues could have been been resolved as they involved detail design and manufacturing. The USSR had the world's largest ore deposits used to make titanium, so more of that metal could have been substituted for aluminum if necessary. The final TU-144 aerodynamic configuration of a large, modified double-delta was superior to Concorde and the fuselage seated five abreast, which permitted a greater payload. JTF17A (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The FAA thrust figure for the Olympus 593 is for the engine thrust in reheat at the time the aircraft was certificated in 1976, and thrust was raised to 38,050 with a 103 % Contingency Rating available for emergencies by the time the aircraft entered service or shortly after. In addition supersonic drag of the airframe was reduced by a significant amount after entering service simply by re-profiling the rudder and elevon trailing edges. Concorde may have had an 'abysmal' L/D figure but it remains the only aircraft ever to be able to cruise at Mach 2 for three hours without reheat, which it routinely did for numerous transatlantic flights.


 * Concorde prototypes were flown to 68,000 feet to prove the cabin pressurisation and more importantly to demonstrate the ability to descend rapidly should pressurisation fail or a cabin window break. Maximum Rate-of-Descent using two inner thrust reversers was around 10,000 feet per-minute. The addition of a fourth additional air conditioning pack late in development allowed over-capacity making the cabin pressure sufficient to enable the oxygen from the drop-down oxygen masks to be breathable should a window break at altitude.


 * "... performance was marginal, if not unsafe ... " - Concorde would not have received a Type Certificate if that had been the case, Concorde still being the only commercial SST ever to be awarded one.


 * Concorde's cruising speed was deliberately chosen to be Mach 2 in order to allow the use of conventional aluminium alloys and so keep the cost of manufacturing low enough for airline customers in a free market to be able to afford to buy it. In addition, for the routes chosen, any faster speed required longer periods of acceleration and deceleration to the point that any additional cruising speed was not useful to the airline, as it was, cruising at Mach 2 Concorde more than halved journey times over that of a subsonic airliner.


 * Concorde wasn't designed to break records, it was designed to be a supersonic airliner that normal airlines and airports could operate without any special handling measures and which would make a profit for its operators, and it did. British Airways' 7 Concordes generated 25 % of BA's profits from 1987 until 2003 when it was retired. Most passengers loved it. So did the crews, and so did BA, who were working on a life extension programme to allow operation to 2013 when the decision was made to end operation due to Air France dropping out of the Type maintenance contract with Airbus after the Paris crash.


 * Concorde was operated successfully by two airlines, BA and AF, for 27 years, BA's 7 Concordes carrying over 2 million passengers, AF's slightly fewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Stolen plans
Why is there no part saying that Russian spies stole blueprints of the Concorde. https://speedbirdconcorde.wixsite.com/speedbirdconcorde/single-post/2016/05/30/Industrial-Espionage-Against-Concorde-2 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-spy-scandal-mitrokhin-archive-how-mi6-stole-details-of-kgb-plots-1118771.html https://www.history.com/news/the-cold-war-race-to-build-the-concorde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:709E:5606:9DFF:1BBF (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should cover whatever is known about any copying which happened between the two planes. Most people will pose such question just looking at pictures. If there are sources we can rely on today, we should try to bisect what is a copy and what is an independent work. Maybe many people come to the article exactly to find this out. --Vaclav.hanzl (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's well documented that Soviet spies stole Concorde plans, the degree to which those plans were actually used in the Tu-144 design is a much tougher nut to crack while maintaining WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. While the cosmetic similarity between the two aircraft is obvious, the two designs are very dissimilar in many respects, and the aerodynamic similarities can be attributed to well-known theories, wind tunnel testing, and publicly available information. Allegations of Soviet "copying" need to be carefully attributed; this is not the Historical Entertainment er History Channel. Carguychris (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Then maybe mentioning stolen plans and providing links to the best available sources (and noting that actual usage of these plans is not well known) would still improve the article, compared to the current state which leaves related googling as an exercise to the reader. But I totally understand that opening this may lead to a very non-constructive edit war and therefore may not be worth it after all. --Vaclav.hanzl (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

comments
in the 144-D specifications the engines are either the turbojet or the turbofan. I suppose that the turbofan should be deleted.

perhaps a comment on the turbofan->turbojet switch is in order, because I feel this unique.

the small range is noted several times, but the data seem referred to different conditions (not only to different versions) and this is confusing. It would be interesting to state the minimum needed for the transatlantic flight. 151.29.59.56 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's confusing and I don't think that eliminating one engine from Specifications would improve the article at all. The Engines section clearly explains that the Kolesov turbojet was developed because the Kuznetsov turbofan could not meet the range target. Regarding transatlantic flights, I'm not sure that quoting an exact distance would improve things either, and it would need to be sourced. The more relevant topics are to what extent the Soviets were serious about conducting transatlantic flights once the aircraft's myriad other problems became apparent, and how this relates to the fact that they seemingly gave up on the Kolesov; both topics are discussed in the Howard book, but I haven't had time to add either to the article. Carguychris (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the first point, I wanted to say that the turbofans were in the 144-S, not on the 144-D to which the specification refers.
 * For the next, It is clear that we have different backgrounds and are therefore our opinions on what improves the article are different.
 * Thanks for your prompt answer. 151.29.59.56 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, only the turbojets were used in the Tu-144D. As such, I've removed the turbofan from the specs, which is generally only for one variant. BilCat (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability
I've made an attempt to verify sourcing where statements diverge from the mainstream coverage (such as these BBC and CNN articles used as references). It appears that the article falls short of modern Wikipedia sourcing requirements.

Much of older material is based on primary sources. Fridlyander memoirs is full of grudges against Tupolev and, more importantly, is a book about aluminum alloys rather than airplanes. Valentin Bliznyuk et al book is likely to be reliable for facts, but, as a book written by the plane designers, it may suffer from the standard limitations of primary sources including a possible self-serving bias. I've also found substantial errors when it's quoted in the article, such as this one or this.

I have most concerns with the usage of the relatively obscure Howard Moon book "Soviet SST". References to it support WP:REDFLAG statements that diverge from conventional sources (such as aforementioned BBC and CNN), most of the material that uses this book as a reference doesn't have page numbers (despite being requested 13 years ago) and, judging by the material cited to it and the book title, the source would be primary with regards to the claims about "techno-politics". If someone has access to it, I think it would be beneficial to add missing page numbers and verify parts of the article referenced to Moon that already have page numbers. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. As a first I added a fact for the Mig-21I in a source that tells it explicitly, although I think all of us know it anyway that the results of a test aircraft, that flies only months before its "to-be-tested" a/c-concept flies, simply cannot have been used for this development.--Anidaat (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have the Howard Moon book, and I've been meaning to add page numbers to this article at some point, but I've had bigger fish to fry. For the most part, the book doesn't drastically contradict other mainstream sources in the article; the apparent contradictions stem mostly from incomplete or poorly placed inline citations and/or poorly written discussion of what the book actually says (which need to be rewritten). FYI the book is quite interesting in that it's primarily about the politics behind the airplane, not technical details of the airplane itself, and it was written before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, I don't feel that it violates WP:PRIMARY, as Moon writes purely from an analytical, historical perspective, he does a good job of explaining his sources, and as far as I can tell, he had no direct personal involvement in the Tu-144 nor the Concorde program. (The book also mostly steers clear of the overly broad, poorly sourced, and arguably speculative Concorde espionage accusations that have crept into mainstream media sources over time; it makes reference to some of the accusations, but Moon is careful not to imply that they're factual.) Carguychris (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This was my impression as well once I discovered the Publishers Weekly review. Leaves an impression that the book is well balanced, unlike the way it's portrayed in the article. I've ordered it in a library and will try to find page numbers and review the way it's discussed in the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I made some changes based on the Howard Moon book. Please feel free to change if there are any errors in my interpretation; it was the first time I read it and I might have missed something due to the book being written in a non-linear fashion.
 * I tend to agree that it's mostly reliable and secondary, although I felt he tends to make rather sweeping statements at times, such as saying that stolen Concorde blueprints were "unintelligible to Soviet scientists" (based on a single interview with an unnamed source), or that the Soviet "shop-floor practice is frequently crude blacksmith work". PaulT2022 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)