Posts about: "Tu-144" [Posts: 35 Page: 1 of 2]¶

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Thomas

As Concorde was in reality the first and only successful SST; a lot of useful information must have been gained during the flight testing phase. Were there any plans to incorporate any updates/modifications based on leasons learnt into later production models(if there of course had been more orders)?

Rather than me waffling and doing cut-and-paste, just look here :
Concorde "B"
Concorde '217' would have been the 'prototype' for the 'B' version. Sadly it never happened.

Quote:

Whilst typing the above I was reminded of something I read many years ago; that MI6 managed to pass slightly doctored "blueprints" to the Russians and that was the reason that "Concordski" was such a failure. I have always assumed that this was an "urban myth".

Like all urban myths, there's some truth in that.
Yes, there was some industrial espionage, and a Russian or two was arrested with microfilms of blueprints and a few components, in the best James Bond style (this was in France, BTW...).

Some "duff gen" may have been passed as well... although the main reason the Concordski failed was that they didn't really get some of the vital stuff sorted, with the subtlety of the wing shape and the intake controls being only a few of the examples.

To my mind, the best story (urban legend or not) was that a Russian got caught scraping tyre deposits off the runway after a few accelerate/stop tests. The sample was duly sent to Russia, mixed with chewing gum and a few other ingredients, and a certain amount of time is reputed to have been wasted tryng to reproduce the 'formula".....

Legend also has it, that the Russians at one point quite seriously inquired if they could buy the license to the intake control system.
Since at the time it would still have had quite significant military use as well, the answer was a very firm "njet" !

CJ

Subjects Intakes  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Lurking SLF
An interesting post Darragh, but with the greatest respect I think that you may have missed the whole point of this thread. As wonderful as the Boeing 747 is (personally I think that the 744 is one of the finest commercial aircraft ever built), I think anyone would agree that there is no comparison at all, as far as technical achievement goes, between the 747 and Concorde. So many boundaries had to be crossed with the Concorde design, and technical problems were overcome that had defeated many of the world's leading designers. I do have a vague idea what I am talking about here; although I was directly involved with Concorde for 30 years, I am also licensed on both the 744 AND the 777, and although I hold Boeings with the greatest respecect and admiration, nothing so far in the realms of commercial aviation can really compare with the technological marvel that was Concorde.
I think that most of the posters here will be sorrry that you felt you wasted 2 hours reading through these pages, I feel most of us have thoroughly enjoyed reading each others posts.
The YouTube links were great though.
atakacs
To the best of my knowledge no. The original TU144 was an extremely crude attempt by the Soviets at commercial supersonic aviation, and the political climate at the time would not have permitted such a thing. The TU144D used in the 1990's as a joint NASA/Russian experiment was a different beast altogether however, with far better engines and systems, but as far as I am aware the only western pilots to fly it were American chaps.

Dude

Subjects Boeing  Boeing 747  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

Having seen some of their other efforts, this one doesn't wonder. Ever fly on an IL96 or see a IL62? Their fighters aren't crude, they are positively agricultural!

This is off-topic, so I ain't going to bang on this subject after this post, but I wouldn't be so quick to denigrate former Soviet technology in all cases. Those "agricultural" fighters can mix it up with the best the west has to offer (until - or if - the F22 comes online) in terms of manoeuvering ability, if not in terms of weapons. Elements of their rocket technology were in advance of what we had at the time, and the solutions they came up with to put the Tu-144 in the air may have been crude, but they were to some degree effective, which can denote an elegant solution in itself.

That said, this thread is about an aircraft which was the result of - unarguably - some of the best engineering in aviation history, and I'd much rather talk about that!

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Super-cruise  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DozyWannabe

Quote:

Well, it was essentially a development airframe pressed into premature service for the sake of beating a western project into the air. One wonders whether the story would have been different if the designers had been allowed to take their time and develop it properly.

Good point I suppose, but you could say that the six Concorde prototypes, Pre-Production and Production Series Test aircraft were also development aircraft, and yet more or less worked just as it said on the tin', where the TU144, in spite of all the facilities of Andrei Tupolev's design bureaux, not to mention more or less unlimited Soviet state funds produced a machine that in my opinion really BELONGED in a tin can. (I know this is all off topic, honest guys, I won't mention this stuff again ).
In reality the Soviets really lacked both propulsion technology as well as the systems expertise required to build an aircraft with even a remote hope of Mach 2 cruise, let alone safe and comfortable enough for fare paying passengers. The original aircraft had all for engines in one giant nacelle, and the landing gear retracted into the engine inlet duct itself, great for an undistorted flow path to the engines . The variable inlets were manually operated by the flight engineer as well, no automatics here. In the mid 1970's the Russians even approached PLESSEY to build a digital engine control unit for the TU144. A similar PLESSEY unit had been VERY successfully flight trialled on production series aircraft 202 (G-BBDG) and only lack of funds prevented it being used on the production aircraft. As this unit could obviously be used for Soviet military applications, there was objection from the UK government, and more than just a little trans-Atlantic pressure applied, and so this venture never happened.

Quote:

Those "agricultural" fighters can mix it up with the best the west has to offer (until - or if - the F22 comes online) in terms of manoeuvering ability, if not in terms of weapons.

Until the advent of the Mig-29 and Sukhoi SU-27 this really was not the case. I'm afraid I'm with galaxy flyer on this; If you look at the air war over Vietnam, when an F4 met a MIG 19 or MIG 21 in an even air-to-air combat, the MIG was going down. (OK this could be partially down to superior US pilot traing etc, but if you look at the handful of skirmishes where the 1960's/1970's Soviet aircraft were engaged in Combat against US or French built fighters, the MIGs never really did very well at all). However, the aircraft that the Russians have been producing from the Mig 29 onwards seem to be in a completely different class now; hope they really are the good guys now.
ANYWAY, back on topic
Lurking SLF
No problem at all Darragh, please keep visiting us and post here also anytime.
Nick Thomas

Quote:

M2dude I have another question concerning "debow" You very clearly answered my original question on another thread. I just wondered how the engine was kept at a sub idle 30% N2? Was it done by careful metering of the fuel? and if not how was it done? I ask because the throttles would be closed during start up.

I'm not sure that I can describe the DEBOW process remotely as eloquently as my friend Bellerophon did, I particularly loved the 'out of balance tumble-drier' bit, but starting a hot or even warm engine, even at DEBOW, you could certainly 'feel' the noise on the flight deck, until the shaft distortions evened out.
Now for the PFM bit, equally eloquently alluded to by Bellerophon:
DEBOW itself was maintained by a special sub-idle datum in the electronic Engine Control Unit, and once the engine was accelerated towards normal idle (61-65% N2, depending on the temperature of the day) even if the switch described by Bellerophon was accidently re-selected, an electronic inhibit gate in the ECU prevented this sub-idle datum from being used again that engine cycle.

Quote:

Thanks for the explanation of how the pitch was "trimmed" Due to Concorde having elevrons instead of ailerons; was the aileron trim dealt with in a similar way? I guess the rudder trim could be applied normally.

You're welcome Nick, actually the roll and yaw trims operated in a similar manner to the pitch, although of course these was applied by a manual trim wheel only. (No French bike bell either ). Rotation of either wheel (more a giant knob actually) merely shifted the neutral datum of the relevant artificial feel unit, which in turn shifted the rudder pedals or control yoke; the resolvers for the FBW system would in consequence demand this 'trimmed' control surface movement.

Dude

Subjects FBW (Fly By Wire)  G-BBDG  Intakes  Landing Gear  Rudder  Trim  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Boeing  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Quote:

But "F-4 v a Mig 19/21" is not really part of that context...... so please?

Forgive me for butting in again, you're in part quoting me but I wasn't the one that brought the F-4 into the debate in the first place. If the Concorde fanclub brings the F-4 vs MIG 19 into the debate and then glibly uses it as an example of the superiority of Western technology then I feel there's a right of reply from those of us who have actually flown the aircraft ( 1000 hours F-4 in my case) and used the technology, irrespective of wether or not it's a military or civil forum....or do you just want to argue in the abstract?

As a general point many in the West have almost always believed in the superiority of Western designers and engineers and whilst Concorde may be one shining example of what the West did right we should not forget that on the evidence of Sputnik, Vostok, Luna 9, Lunakhod and even the MIG21 Russian ( or German ) engineers can achieve worldbeating results with minimal resources.

But, to summarise, yes, it would seem the TU-144 was a dog , does that get us back on thread?

---

Last edited by wiggy; 1st September 2010 at 01:54 .

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Nick Thomas
This of course is one for one of my pilot friends to answer properly again, but as galaxy flyer says, it's an 'eye to wheel' issue here when compared to other aircraft.
galaxy flyer
Again best answered by learned gentlemen such as my friends EXWOK or Bellerophon, but to the best of my feeble knowledge a resounding NO, at least as far as CRUISE flying was concerned. As the majority of the flight was carried out between FL500 and FL600 there was really no weather as such to avoid during supercruise. (As has been previously posted, at Mach 2 you would invariably be above FL500). Only at extremely low latitudes where the tropopause could theoretically extend up to around 70,000' was there ever any chance of seeing any cloud anywhere near your cruise altitudes. The only turbulence as such you would ever encounter was as the result of a temperature shear, but these never felt to be too much in the way of 'bumps' to me. And again, only at very low latitudes did you encounter severe shears anyway; anything encountered on the North Atlantic was generally very mild and civilised.
A CONCORDE PARADOX
The tropopause issue here is an interesting one, in that the coldest stratospheric temperatures we ever encountered were close to the equator, whereas the WARMEST temperatures possible are over the POLES , where the tropopause can be as low as 22,000'. This is just one of the many paradoxes involving Concorde, and the reason why the aircraft would never be routed over the poles, BECAUSE THE DARNED TEMPERATURES ARE TOO HIGH, in terms of the stratosphere. The result here would be that the aircraft is temperature (Tmo) limited all the time to 127 deg's C. (I previously mentioned in another post in this thread that only 5 deg's C above ISA, -51.5 deg's C, would mean Tmo being reached at Mach 2; any warmer and we HAD to slow down) The relatively high polar temperatures mean that we are unable to fly anywhere near Mach 2. Another paradox would then come into play, the slower your cruise speed, the HIGHER your fuel burn. It was originally proposed in the early 1970's that Concorde would fly from London to Tokyo, and the routing for that needed two things: It could not be polar, and possibly just as important , you required a refuel stop. The Soviet Union amazingly proposed granting a supersonic corridor over Siberia, refuelling at the Siberian city of Novosibirsk. This was hardly an ideal routing (definitely far from a great circle) but was arguably one of the very few that was possible at all. This by the way was not some early iteration of glasnost, but the Soviets fully expected that flying thoroughbred, the TU-144 (bad dude ) to be a success, and could compete side by side with Concorde.
ANOTHER CONCORDE PARADOX
If anyone wonders why when you flew faster you burned less fuel, it was primarily down to drag, actually a thing frighteningly termed as 'pre-entry spill drag'. As most people (???) are aware, the Concorde engine inlet utilised a series of carefully controlled and focused shockwaves to slow the air down entering the engine; in 14 feet of engine intake you lost in the order of 1,000 mph of airspeed! Now most of these different shocks varied with a combination of intake variable surface angle, intake local Mach number and also engine mass flow demand. However the oblique shock coming off the top lip of the intake produced a shock that varied with Mach alone, and would project downwards, just forward of the intake bottom lip. Due to the air downstream of this fairly weak shock still being supersonic, a measured amount of this air spills downwards, away from the intake. If you can possibly picture it, we have this wall of air spilling downwards over the lower lip of all four intakes, the combined effect of this supersonic forespill is a fair amount of drag. The faster we go, the more accute the angle of the shock and therefore the less air is spilled, and in consequence the lower the spill drag. Remembering that cool temperatures could produce a higher Mach number, temperature really could either be our friend or enemy, but cool was COOL
I hope this explanation does not sound like too much gibberish, but it really was a fact that 'More Mach = Less Fuel'. Hope it makes some sense.

Dude

---

Last edited by M2dude; 3rd September 2010 at 11:08 . Reason: clearing up some gibberish

Subjects FL600  Fuel Burn  Intakes  Shockwave  Super-cruise  TMO (Temprature Max Operating)  Temperature Shear  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe

That's not a very nice way to talk about BA and AF's finest!
(Sorry, couldn't resist a feed like that)

LOL !

True though... they're little more than two small flat surfaces... clearly marked " NO STEP ", so they're not even any use for standing on to clean the windows.

They look pretty insignificant, compared to the 'canards' of the Tu-144 or the big foreplanes on some other deltas, or the long forward wing extensions on aircraft like the F-16 and F-18, none of which have the same function.

And to be perfectly honest, I myself didn't know about their real function until after 2003, when I started delving into a lot of other technical aspects of 'our Lady'.

CJ

Subjects British Airways  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles78

All due respect but this is the CONCORDE thread and it would be really nice if it could stay as such.

I would say that the SR-71, and the Tu-144, are in a way honorary members of the Concorde family, so I don't mind if they fly into the discussion every now and then.

Quote:

LandLady said in a post many moons ago that there was a pool of some 240 "Concorde Ambassadors" (sorry but CC and FAs don't sound right for this aeroplane) for Her. What was the numbers of Captains, First Officers and the all important Flight Engineers (sucking up to M2 with that one )

The full list of names (up to 2002) for both BA and AF can be found in "The Concorde Story" by Chris Orlebar. For BA, a quick count shows about 170 names. That book also mentions, that the maximum number of crews qualified at any one time was 28, in 1980, and that the average was about 20 crews.

Quote:

I looked at the photos posted by a thoughtful member in an earlier post and wonder how former crew felt looking at them. The photos give the impression that you could kick the tyres and light the fires and they would be once again gracing the skies. Obviously they are unairworthy BUT the photos project a different image.

Photos can lie.... or rather, they are rarely close-up enough to show clearly where corrosion has set in.

As an example, F-BVFC at Toulouse, which was the last one to remain at least taxyable, now has some patches of corrosion starting to show, when you know where to look. Not to mention the nasty smell of damp and mould in the cockpit which bodes no good for what's going on underneath the floor.

And even F-BTSD, kept "live" to some extent at Le Bourget, leaks some hydraulic fluid (like all Concordes did on the ground), so it's easy to imagine the dried-out hydraulic and fuel seals on the other museum aircraft.




And yes, that's kitty litter...
The composite material of the floor and the hydraulic fluid don't agree too well.

Quote:

Final one for this post. If She was still flying, do you still think that BA (sorry but going to ignore AF on this one) would have sufficient patronage to keep Her as a going and profitable concern?

I'll leave M2dude to answer that one.

CJ

---

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 14th November 2010 at 11:32 . Reason: typo

Subjects Air France  British Airways  Cabin Crew  Captains  Corrosion  F-BTSD  F-BVFC  Hydraulic  Le Bourget  SR-71  Toulouse  Tu-144  Tyres

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Landroger
SSBJ is Supersonic Business Jet Rog', there have been a few designs but the most famous (and had the most potential) was the Sukhoi-Gulfsteam S21. This aircraft would carry about a dozen passenges at Mach 2.2, with a range of 4,500 miles. Gulfstram pulled out of the partnership; there werer serious doubts about the viability of the Russian engine as well as serious aerodynamic issues too.
I would not personally utter 'Concorde and Tornado' in the same breath Rog; you need to carry this 6 tonnes over more than several HUNDRED miles. There is absolutely no comparison between the performance of Concorde and the Tornado I'm afraid, you'd need to base any military adaption on a far better design than that.
Although design of the powerplant for any future SST is pivotal to the whole design, you still need an aerodynamic model with a significantly higher lift/drag ratio than Concorde to make the project viable. And as good as the SR-71 was (I'm one of her biggest fans) she was still using afterburning/reheat at Mach 3 cruise.
galaxy flyer

Quote:

Think of the Sixties projects--Apollo, Concorde, 747, SR-71, motorways, the Beatles, miniskirts--none possible today, the politics alone would kill 'em

Great to see you back here GF. I DO hope that you are wrong about mini-skirts
You are so right about the massive industrial collaboration required; it seems that there was so much more of a 'daring spirit' in the 1960's, makes you wonder where all the balls have gone today. (Oh I know, there are so much more deserving causes than aviation for us to spend BILLIONS of $'s and \xa3's on today).
Nick Thomas
No need to apologise for any thread drift Nick; this is such a diverse thread now; your points are perfectly valid here. And thanks for your kind comments again Nick; CJ the rest of the guys and myself are more than happy to bore the socks off of you and all the other posters and readers.
hoofie
So glad that you enjoyed your Concorde experience. The Jeddah flights were a fairly brief 'experiment',it would be great if one of my pilot/flight engineer friends here did a trip, we'll soon know. The double 'shove in the back' would indeed as you say have been the inboard/outboard reheat selection. Glad you are enjoying the thread, it is certainly bringing back memories for me about this seemingly eternal aereplane.
jodeliste

Quote:

Sorry again folks more misunderstanding when I said terrible waste I meant the cancellation and grounding not the work done

No problem Rod, I think most of us here agree about that one. A terrible waste and a giant leap BACKWARD in aviation.

Dude

Subjects Afterburner/Re-heat  Boeing 747  Lift Drag Ratio  SR-71  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

galaxy flyer

Quote:

any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?

Well the RAT was 'advertised' to be able to maintain 4000 (ish) PSI on Green and Yellow systems down to around 200 KTS, so IN THEORY you'd be ok (ish), refering to Brit312's post. Incidently, one of the prime reasons that the engines were housed in twin nacelle pairs, rather than the original TU144 'monobloc' style was to eliminate the chance of a severe ripple surges flaming out all four engines. (But as the thing had half of the engine air passing over the massive stowed main undercarriage, they had other problems to worry about anyway).
I have to echo your point GF about carrying on asking questions, even if they may seem dumb at the time. It's all about how we all had to learn in the first place; Personally I'm happy to answer any questions at all here (the questions may not be stupid, but some of my answers........... ).
Regards to all

Dude

Subjects Engine surge  IAS (Indicated Air Speed)  RAT (Ram Air Turbine)  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Subjects RAE Farnborough  Tu-144

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

CliveL , correct me where I'm wrong.

* Most deltas develop some vortex lift, and there were several deltas flying long before Concorde, so the phenomenon was not unknown.
Shaping the wing, and in particular the leading edge, optimised the effect on Concorde.

* The ogee (slender delta) wing was original proposed by NASA (possibly still NACA at the time) as best suited for a supersonic transport. The information was in the public domain by the time the "BAC223" and "Super Caravelle" were first revealed (they later "merged" into the Concorde design).
The Tu-144 design used the same information, which is a major reason for its resemblance to Concorde, rather than espionage...
How much the full advantages of the 'vortex lift' were understood at the time, is still an open question, IIRC.
I'll have to look for the original NASA TN (Tech Note)... it may be on the web somewhere.

* I would think the Handley Page HP115 slender-delta low-speed test aircraft must have contributed some details about vortex lift.

Sorry, I can't find my own photos of the beast.
It's now in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton (UK), together with Concorde 002 and the BAC-221.
It still has the "smoke tube" on the left wing leading edge, that was used to visualise the vortex over the wing (not yet fitted when the photo above was taken).

CJ

Subjects HP-115  Tu-144  Vortex

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.