Catastrophic Flight Demonstration at Paris Air Show - Supersonic Airliners Dispute for Supremacy

[@tango6nf477]

The competition between East and West during the cold war was very intense, the Soviets just had to be seen as better in everything. This led to cutting corners and "borrowing" ideas from others so the Concordski had to be bigger, faster and better. This extended to the flight crew who were no doubt instructed to "make it better" or else.

[@georgepopa1674]

Such a lie! 100% lie. Tu-144 flu 3 months before Concorde, how are so sure it was a copy? Where is the logic? Truth: there was a sabotage, a french fighter flu direct in front of Tu-144, created air waves

[@lj03oem]

The British and French knew there were Russian spys amongst their workforces,they changed small things like screw thread/pitch and tyre compound,all sorts of not so obvious things on the blue prints,so as to give the impression they didn't know they were being spyed on.There is a video on KZbin explaining this,the British and French basically toyed with the Russians.

[@paulmca8514]

My dad was at the show with his work, and saw the accident. He said the TU-144 looked better than the Concorde, but it was obvious when they pulled up into a steep climb as shown in this video, that they would likely stall, which is what my dad said happened. Had they attempted the same thing, coming in at speed ,gear up, they may have got away with it.

[@bjornsigursson4978]

m

[@DaveArksey]

Your graphics and simulations are exceptional! I always love the end of your videos where you show the plane flying free!

[@MPCFlights]

Thanks!

[@RedneckSpaceman]

I agree!! Fantastic Work!!

[@antonbruce1241]

"Then they'll see something they won't forget."....how prophetic in this case....

[@anthonywilliams9852]

@antonbruce1241 famous last words.

[@alsanamir497]

with small detail as CVR was not working ,definitely whole story sounds pathetic :)

[@white-dragon4424]

In all the wrong ways.

[@echelonrank3927]

its not a prophecy its a reassurance that not everyone is going to end up dead / its actually quite safe

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

But they won't see it here on KZbin. KZbin will talk about it, though... Maybe they think they're imitating the Soviet commend of technology...

[@davidmccann9811]

When I was a kid in London back in the 1970s/80s, Concorde used to regularly pass over our house on its approach to Heathrow. The sound was something else as it went over at (I'd now estimate) around 4000 - 5000 feet. It was so loud we could here it coming and never tired of going outside to watch it pass over.

[@cv990a4]

I flew Concorde twice, once on Air France, once on British Airways. It was a great technological achievement, but utterly uneconomic and therefore a dead-end. Paris 1973 was a cold-war showdown where, for once, the US was not a player, the US having withdrawn from the SST competition with the demise of the Boeing 2707 project. So it was the French and UK on the one hand vs the Soviets on the other. While the Brits and French managed to create a reliable and mostly safe aircraft out of Concorde (albeit crazy expensive and never coming close to paying off), the USSR never did crack the code with the Tu-144. It was a kind of a Potemkin project.

[@ant2312]

@@cv990a4 Concorde ran at a profit for British Airways

[@alexbispo9188]

Here in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Concorde was coming twice a week. My mother in law lived in a house, aligned with the runway. It was flying above us about 200 metres.

[@cv990a4]

@@ant2312 With a total production run of 20, including 6 prototypes, the program was massively uneconomic. Demand for the aircraft was trivial because its operating economics, in general, didn't work. It might possibly have worked for BA on New York to London, but there were no other airlines other than BA and AF who were willing to take it on.

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

@@cv990a4 I worked with somebody who had been a stewardess on Concord, and she said that towards the end, people were being taken on flights out over the Atlantic so that it could go supersonic, then coming home again - essentially taking people for joyrides - which I found very sad.

[@californiadreaming9216]

Excellent video. The second most interesting airline occurrence video EVER, in my humble opinion. (Sorry y'all...I am Canadian...I have to give 1st place to Air Transat 236 😊). History has repeatedly proven that hotdogging aircraft at low altitude is ALWAYS a bad idea. In the air, you have TWO allies...altitude and speed...when you close the door on both, you are asking for trouble. Period.

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

Wouldn’t be the last time a rus pilot mistook his airliner for a fighter jet during a demonstration in Indonesia, this century.

[@jaguar3248]

A well planned, practiced and approved display is as far from hotdogging as you can get. Thousands of displays are flown yearly without incident. The problem is you crash at an airshow your doing it in public and the chances are it's going to be filmed and the armchair accident investigators will be all over it. A lot more aircraft are lost each year due to poor planning and pilot error than the ones that rarely crash at airshows.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

An airshow is not the right place for a dick-measuring contest, and that´s what the Russian did.

[@FP194]

@@jaguar3248 Did you not watch the video and read the text He tried to do a vertical climb with the landing gear down over stressed the air frame and it broke up Passenger planes are not fighters

[@geiko64]

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec cette reconstitution. La dislocation de l'avion n'est pas présentée car l'avion n'est pas tombé complet... Les causes premières ne sont pas traitées.

[@Alexander-_GregMashaba]

A million thanks for your very very highly insightful videos

[@ItsVideos]

6:17 Captain Kozlov was right. The spectators saw "something they won't forget".

[@SirReginaldBlomfield1234]

As prophetic as it gets ! 🥴

[@leon38m1]

ТУ 144 .......

[@mitchurchin2]

The main issue with the TU-144 were its engines, which had to keep the afterburners on to retain supersonic flight, burning huge amounts of fuel. It limited the performance of the aircraft, the range and capability.

[@michaeld5888]

I have a read a few books on Concord and one said the crowning achievement was the air intakes which controlled the ingress of subsonic air in to the engines at supersonic speeds. I really doubt the Russians achieved this. I can imagine they were not quite there in many areas of this aircraft. One story I seem to remember was a Hustler pilot in the Concord cockpit during testing was terrified when they slammed the throttles shut whilst supersonic saying his aircraft would not have survived that. I believe the cockpit filled with smoke from the surge to add to the drama. Concord was tested to such a degree and fail safed so even if the control columns jammed sensor would pick up inputs. Unfortunately it had its Achilles heel which ended it.

[@SirReginaldBlomfield1234]

I wouldn't exactly call it an Achilles Heel. It was brought down by part of a shitty Yank plane falling off onto the tarmac.

[@dstarr8222]

@@SirReginaldBlomfield1234 Pretty sure every country has stuff like that (or worse) happen occasionally. Or are you claiming some country has pristine runways and the planes that grace their runways would never do such a thing? 🙄

[@richardpark3054]

Well, you're glossing over the fact that the ridiculous fuel consumption kept it from flying more. So, in a way, the huge fuel consumption was a safety factor! Clever ruskies!

[@jerrymiller2071]

@@SirReginaldBlomfield1234 Again the B''s express their ignorance!

[@VerissimusAurelius]

Imagine what we could be enjoying if our resources were pulled together and instead of fighting senseless wars spending all of our energy on destruction… We were making incredible advances in medicine, transportation, For our children🙏

[@rogerboswarva4102]

Yep! . . . And that is the key to PEACE and prosperity for all.

[@chuckgottschall3747]

OMG yes I hear you loud and clear,and agree with you 100%

[@spxram4793]

A competition always helps innovation - but obviously a competition on life-threataning machines is the worst possible idea ever.

[@elsenm3965]

Yep but Islam and ruSSia doesn't think this way

[@spxram4793]

@@elsenm3965 true. That's why they get what they ask for.

[@Aircraft1606.]

CCCP-77102 CVR Transcript 6:20 CAPTAIN KOZLOV: Just wait until they see us fly. Then they'll see something they won't forget. 10:06 a explosion is heard 10:17 CCCP-77102 crashes in the town of Goussain Ville Val-d'Oise tragically all 6 onboard are killed along with 8 ground fatalities and 60 injuries

[@davidpage3893]

No one forgot that flight.

[@miket2120]

Even without the crash, the Tu-144 was a doomed airplane. It could only fly if all systems were checked out by the Tupolev designers themselves, and often landed with 5-7 major systems failing. The cabin was so loud that you had to yell to your seat mate to be heard. Anyone further away you could only used notes on paper. It's engines are far inferior to the Olympus engines on the Concord (Concorde if flown by Air France), able to sustain supersonic flight only while on afterburner, drastically reducing it's flight distance and eliminating any overseas flight. The Concord would use it's afterburner (reheat in the UK) only to break the sound barrier, after that the afterburners were turned off and the plane went into supercruise, sustained supersonic flight without afterburners. All this added up to a plane with mediocre range, no overseas flights, uncomfortably loud interior and failing systems being the norm.

[@goldorakrak8939]

There is no Concord...Concorde is the official name given by both manufacturers and shared by both airlines.

[@percyprune7548]

A documentary on SR71 Blackbird pilots had one of them say they could not believe the contrast of them having a radio warning they were 40 miles from Concorde, wearing effectively spacesuits in a cramped cockpit, while 40 miles away at the same speed and height, Concorde passengers in expensive business suits were drinking champagne.

[@paulinefrancis3913]

What do you mean by no overseas flights, its main route was transatlantic?

[@paulinefrancis3913]

Ah you mean the soviet plane Tu 144

[@billolsen4360]

Wonder if the Russians still manufacture any passenger planes today.

[@sericono]

Despite having stolen the Concorde blueprints and years of technical research, the soviets couldn't produce a similar aircraft to the Concorde but instead a poor quality copy that never performed as expected. The only very limited useful use of the Tu-144 was given ironically by NASA, under a contract to research aerodynamics. In contrast, the Concorde performed impeccably for decades serving two main airlines. The only fatal accident was not caused by a flaw in the design or fault on the operation but by a tragic unpredictible event. The Tu-144 symbolizes another "achievement" of the communist system of the era.

[@jerrypolverino6025]

Boeing couldn’t build one either.

[@danieldobert9461]

@@jerrypolverino6025 Boeing did produced a prototype SST in 1970, but it was grounded by the FAA due to complaints about the excessive noise & sonic booms

[@jerrypolverino6025]

@@danieldobert9461 Never built. Never flew. The one they did make was a mock-up built out of plywood.

[@rayhankamer864]

Russia is a failed state

[@dgibson5252]

The UK/France intelligence community knew the soviets were stealing the blueprints and had them altered so there were errors in the copies the Soviets received.

[@ronduncan9527]

Tupolev was smart enough to not be on a demonstration flight in an unproven aircraft!

[@AKawalski]

@@ronduncan9527 he was forbidden 🚫 from being onboard.

[@johnstuartsmith]

He was also smart enough to build systems into the TU-144's flight controls to keep the plane from being subjected to aerodynamic forces beyond its limits. The crew bypassed and overrode them so they could make the plane do crowd-pleasing aerobatics that ripped the plane apart in mid-air..

[@AKawalski]

@@johnstuartsmith 💯

[@bdcochran01]

Your comment is the best. The pilot? Just another hot dogger who didn't know his limitations.

[@billolsen4360]

"Komrades, I watch from groundski, not concordski!"

[@billsheehy1]

Great job as always. Thanks

[@walkerpantera]

I love your videos.

[@abarth77700]

j'y etais.. avec ma grand mère , mon frère et ma soeur, j'avais 6 ans, je m'en rappèle comme ci c'etait hier! j'avais une glace en cornet , que j'ai laissé tombé, quand j'ai vu l'explosion après le piqué et la cassure en vol.. il y a eu un vent de panique tout de même, tout le monde se dirigeait vers la sortie, ca paraissait assez proche malgré mon jeune age... quel souvenir..

[@stabilo3170]

Et moi j'étais à bord. Jai pu sauter en parachute.

[@TheRealNatNat]

I remember this so well, I was almost 13 then. I'm french and it was over all the news. There were talks for years that the Soviets had spied and copied the Concorde ...

[@francisdelpuech6415]

I’m French too. I remember that day very well as we were flying the day of the accident from Perpignan (south of France) to Paris in order to return to the US. Our flight was delayed 2 hours. No explanation whatsoever until take off and we learned the crash after landing in Paris. Shocking! The main problem of Concord were its tires. Most planes take off at 188 miles per hour; Concord was taking off at 288 mph. Tires weren’t solid enough and what ever left on the runway could blow them off. Then the ream would disintegrate and parts flying around it happened in Dallas with no dramatic puncture but in Paris the parts punctured a tank and the plane caught fire. The pilot wanted to try to return to the runway but was too low and crashed on the hotel. He could have tried to go belly he might have saved some lives.

[@christianberes5900]

Yes, at the time the Tu144 was called the Concordski... I flew the Concorde from Paris to New York once, it was a memorable flight...

[@agnes6585]

@@christianberes5900 Yes, majestuous Concordolev 145...

[@wilhelmgauthier3184]

Je crois d'ailleurs que des Français avaient rebaptisé ce Tupolef " Concordski " ou quelque chose comme ça... Le plagiat était flagrant.

[@wilhelmgauthier3184]

Il semble bien que le plan canard à l'avant de l'appareil n'ait eu qu'une utilité cosmétique. Genre : " On se démarque du Concorde ". L'inutilité peut se payer très cher en matière d'aéronautique...

[@freddielaker2]

nice remake but imaccurate. it was 77102 it was about 10k north about over Goussimville and the turn and descend manouver broke off the front port canard and was ingested into the wing edge and engine. I was there watching through binocculars.

[@LudoMineur]

Moreover, the 77102 was fitted with Kuznetzov NK-144 engines, lacking the exhaust cones of this 77115's Kolesov RD-36 engines. Unlike the NK-144 that was a low bypass (and inefficient) turbofan, the RD-36 was a much more efficient pure turbojet, nearly doubling the Tu-144's range.

[@LeonardoDoRuim]

Hello MPC, How Are You? Sorry Interrupting Your Day But Can You Make a Recreation Of *Malaysia Air System Flight 2133?* And *Palair Macedonian Airlines Flight 301?* Thank You And a Big Hug from Brazil....❤

[@badkittynomilktonight3334]

Concordski! Concorde was a graceful swan, Concordski was an angry eagle, carrying a lead pipe and an attitude.

[@bricktopperheadon5490]

"The soviets blamed......." LOL. Some things will never change.

[@madgeordie4469]

....and the Russians blamed the French. Yes, dome things do not change indeed.

[@malcolmabram2957]

They (Russians) blame Ukrainian Nazis for their invasion of Ukraine.

[@arch9enius]

There was enough low cloud on the day to hide an aircraft in. But yes, the Concordski was being chucked about a LOT, and being asked to do things that were pretty untidy.

[@mastercommander4535]

I flew often on Concorde ..it was like flying economy on a standard jet . Cramped seats and very narrow walkways between aisles . . Quite uncomfortable really ! Good champagne though !

[@timorvet1]

After a few glasses of champagne, that wouldn't worry me I'd be dozing off watching the world slip by at Mach 2.04....lol.

[@sedekiman824]

But you wouldn't be aboard for very long.

[@mastercommander4535]

@ About 5.5 hours if I recall . You arrived at same time as you left from departure going westwards ..

[@stabilo3170]

So why you flew Concorde? Are you masochist? Or you love to be complained? Or most probably you never flew the Concorde.

[@chief9938]

Tragic, but Concorde is still such a beautiful aircraft.

[@karmicselling4252]

The Concorde is the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft that has ever been conceived, built and operated by humankind to date.

[@west_park7993]

@@karmicselling4252 sr71?

[@GBEdmonds-j1i]

The sad thing about the Soviet Union at the time was they were always trying to "keep up" with the world and never really able to because they lacked the high quality safety standards that the rest of the world that produced such incredible technology did. They remind me of a girlfriend who when you bought new pair of shoes she wanted new shoes you bought a new set of headphones she wanted headphones always skating on the coattails of someone else's ideas!

[@stabilo3170]

This is excactly why USSR collapsed.

[@gregtaylor6146]

And here we are 50 years later, aeroplanes flying half as fast and the World's in a mess ...... what progress?

[@tuckertucker1]

What progress? KZbin! duh.

[@goldorakrak8939]

World's in a mess thanks to the USA...

[@gregtaylor6146]

@@goldorakrak8939 - Nope .... is lamb.

[@CA999]

"cheap" flights ...

[@bobreese4807]

World's in a mess because of LOUSY priests, pastors, preachers, ministers who are bible dummies!! CRIME & CLERGY CONNECTION=TRICKLE DOWN IMMORALITY HOS 4:6, MATT 5:19, MARK 7:13,

[@keithalderson100]

Commercial espionage was engaged in by the USSR, but they could not achieve the same technical success. Though it also appeared that the pilot was going for gung-ho glory instead of staying safely within the flight envelope. Ironically, though never really used much commercially after this disaster, the USSR get jobs recently, if not currently, to undrrtake scientific flights requiring supersonic speeds.

[@kennethhardacre]

Great Graphics In the early 70s I worked near Stroud ,the test flights were from Fairford so I saw Concorde regularly It was noisy Little did I know then that I would have the pleasure of being a passenger many years later,

[@peteprizzi8508]

How are they doin' the camera shots??

[@psalm2forliberty577]

Showing off is a universal human tendency - and seldom has a good outcome - this case in point. Had they been satisfied with their already impressive display & a tad more humble, this accident wouldn't have occurred. It was 100% preventable. RIP to all the victims - doubly so to those in the destroyed homes. In Jesus name 🙏 AMEN

[@stabilo3170]

I don't agree, the TU-144 had design flaws who could'nt stand the "normal" g-loads of a standard flight, specially the escape manoeuvres.

[@agdgdgwngo]

I'm a big fan of the Tu- 144, to me it's a very striking and elegant looking aircraft and the folding canards are a very unique feature. It may have borrowed a lot from the Concorde, and been a deeply flawed aircraft but it was still a remarkable scientifc achievement. In the end the need to show off pushed beyond the plane it's limits, resulting in tragedy. It never had much of service life because the Soviets really had no real use for a supersonic passenger plane wiith relatively poor range. SSTs in general were a bit of a dead end, only 12 Concords were built and operated 2 airlines. US SST projects never came to fruition, and the Concorde was always a luxury for the very wealthy. They are both still absolutely fascinating and I'm very lucky to have witnessed the Concorde in flight, and hope to see a Tu-144 at a museum someday, with any luck enigineers will find a way to make SSTs viable again in the near future.

[@JohnStedman-d4s]

20 fully airworthy Concordes were in fact built. Six were Pre-Production Prototypes, and seven Operational Aircraft were supplied to each of the British and French Flag-Carrying Airlines. 18 Concordes still exist, and most are on Public Display in The United Kingdom. France, Germany, The United States and in Bermuda.

[@whortle]

I flew the Concorde once from London to NY. It was an extremely unpleasant flight. Fast, but unpleasant in a cramped seat. Narrow aisle. I took a 747 back. Slower, but more relaxing.

[@rickdeckardbr2603]

The Concorde was not designed to carry its passengers more comfortably, but faster than a 747...

[@billolsen4360]

@@rickdeckardbr2603 As I understand it, Concorde's engineers found that it would cost millions more to make a wider fuselage, due to the limits of construction technology at the time, so a narrower profile had to be adopted.

[@RedneckSpaceman]

I heard this interview with a Concorde Pilot. He said that once the plane reaches cruising altitude and speed, it's quite boring in the Cockpit! There's really nothing to see and it feels like you're not even moving!! In spite of cruising at what?? Mach 2, maybe??

[@ligeiasinistra879]

A former ATC from JFK, that flew in the frog-limey bird to Paris, told me quite the same. Tight and uncomfortable.

[@mrrcassidy]

@@ligeiasinistra879 It wasn't designed with the American anatomy in mind.

[@richarddavis3239]

What a tragedy for those on board. Despite the competitiveness of the occasion nobody wants to see something like this. Very sad.

[@jimsimpson1006]

I've heard that the noise in the passenger compartment was such that having a conversation was impossible.

[@stabilo3170]

Yep, that's right.

[@jourwalis-8875]

How long did the Concorde fly? Why don´t we have supersonic passenger planes today?

[@ant2312]

Commercially it flew from 1976 - 2003

[@alanwhite6293]

Not cost effective in these bad times.

[@jourwalis-8875]

How high speeds did they reach on these demonstrations?

[@zerstorer7527]

The usual Soviet overconfidence and rush to be better than others.......and in the end, they blamed the French 🤌🤌 Pathetic Soviets

[@andilowe9526]

Welcher Simulator???

[@YeahYeahBruhBruh]

Well it's *Prepar3D* (Or *P3D* if you prefer)

[@LynneWilliams-bi1tx]

Arrogance + ego = crashes.😢

[@rogerhargreaves2272]

The TU-144 had an APU which also caused problems. Concorde didn’t use an APU.

[@davekramer4266]

This is a Computer image of what possibly happened..🤔

[@JohnStedman-d4s]

The Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 cannot in any sense be described as "competitors". Those of us who were Guests at the 1973 Paris Air Show were unanimous about this. From a distance, it was apparent that the aeroplanes were quite similar, but close inspection of the interiors and exteriors, and seeing them in flight, showed that while the Anglo-French SST was a superb example of engineering, systems and outstanding Rolls-Royce powerplants, was clearly well put together and was flown by superb aviators, the Soviet aircraft was a botched and inferior copy, was operated by foolhardy and reckless aviators, and would never be granted consent to operate Commercially in the Western World. The Russians learned nothing from their lacklustre (and ultimately tragic) exhibition of incompetence, and continue to adopt such backward-thinking processes today. Sixty years after the concept of Concorde was beginning its eight years of Concept Design at RAE Farnborough, Britain, supported from 1962 by France, was demonstrating visionary leadership that today's Russian Federation still cannot match.

[@Kayaz48]

OH, this is just AI, not real, Bye!

[@nkp777]

There’s a documentary which states that the accident occurred due to Miraj fighter flying and taking the pictures of front wings of Russian plane.

[@LEJapproach]

How is a low pass with extended landing gear "highly risky"? 🤔

[@alanwhite6293]

Not risky if you pull up normally, but a steep climb at a lower than normal airspeed and the wheels down creates a whole lot of Drag, causing the aircraft to stall, and there it is, total stupidity by the Pilot in charge.

[@LEJapproach]

@@alanwhite6293 Sure, but #1 it doesn't say so in the video and #2 your increased risk = stupidity is incorrect, because on air shows any pilot takes higher risks than normal. It all depends on _how much_ higher the risk is.

[@dangifford2710]

"Son, your mouth is writing checks that your body can't cash..."

[@jourwalis-8875]

Why didn´t we see any spectators?

[@briandenley]

Flight sim scenery was very bad. What FS was used?

[@LynneWilliams-bi1tx]

I don't think the plane likes the canards.😮

[@Ztbmrc1]

There is video of this crash. As far as I can remember you see the TU-144 in one piece in a sharp turn and than falling to the ground. No break up in flight. And I have also heard of that fighter jet being involved. Btw I visited Le Bourget Air show in, when I remember it correctly 1989. It was a rainy day, but the Antonov An 226 was there with the Russian space shuttle Buran on its back. I have taken pictures (slides) than. Unforgettable...

[@benjaminjb8427]

It was hideous compared to 'Concorde'

[@gusmc01]

Pride goeth before a fall...

[@mattfgln]

Is this fs98 ?

[@YeahYeahBruhBruh]

It's *Prepar3d* Or *P3D*

[@gbsailing9436]

Right from the beginning, You've stupidly got the Tupolev's front wheels cocked at almost 90º to the left. Pilots would always move forward first before initiating a turn.

[@djpalindrome]

Oh yes the Mirage conspiracy theory advanced by the Soviets to save face. The pilots exceeded the structural limits of the airframe. It’s that simple

[@trainglen22]

Why does the Russian version of the Concorde remind me of the XB-70 Valkyrie.

[@JennyMingClarke]

Convergent design solutions. When you are trying to address a problem often there is a best way. The problem in both cases was how to build a very large very fast aircraft with as long a range as possible. Neither was going to look like a Jumbo because that's an answer to a different problem.

[@jermainewashington7447]

Gotta hand it to the Russians for building a supersonic aircraft using labor that was one generation removed from harvesting wheat with a sickle. Surprised it ever got airborne.

[@cathybrind2381]

Whenever I saw Concord at Heathrow I was always struck by how small it was. The Europeans went for speed while at the end of the day the US went for size. Only one concept won out commercially. A bigger Concord could have been built I suppose, but who could have afforded it? Still when I was flying back from China to New Zealand yesterday I couldn't help wishing that such an aircraft existed. Especially after eight hours in the air (not counting connecting flights) and still nearly three to go...

[@simonjones7727]

Concorde? You could have flown to New York on a V Bomber with Joan Collins strapped into the next seat and the experience would not have been all that different. It was still mostly a military jet.

[@alekoaktar8828]

Why they never developped it as an military bomber?

[@stabilo3170]

Ooooh! What a frustration for you my dear! Il est tellement vilain ce Concorde, même pas américain!

[@scowgod]

Concorde was never referred to as the Concorde, just Concorde

[@TransoceanicOutreach]

Concorde - supersonic airliner (medium comfort level) Koncordski - supersonic bomber (no comfort level)

[@stabilo3170]

But, Concorde = very expensive fare and still attracting a lot of people ready to pay for this dicomfort.

[@crlguitar1]

Quite a simulation of the two aircraft.... Sounds like the Soviets were trying to show off....

[@rickdeckardbr2603]

The Soviets, like the Russians,They were always characterized by being presumptuous of his achievements in the entire field of science and technology ..Especially during the cold war

[@rickdeckardbr2603]

And they paid dearly for their pride and arrogance in this tragedy. Greetings from Argentina.

[@jmp.t28b99]

Today, a safer SST can be built and would be a welcome addition to the current fleet of long-range airliners that we currently have . Sitting and traveling on a B-777 for 12 to 14 hours is an ordeal . As for the SST, the fare would be astronomical, and would it be economically feasible ? The Concorde was subsidized by the French government and barely was profitable.

[@q.e.d.9112]

It would cost a fortune and compete with sub-sonic, first class which is the most profitable segment of wide-body operations, I believe. For this reason, I suspect initial production may be in the private/business-jet, size range. Ego often trumps economics when billionaires buy their toys. Airlines are a bit more cautious. Real billionaires would own them, but common or garden hecto-millionaires would be able to hire them when they wanted to impress.

[@percyprune7548]

When it was planned in 1958, fuel was cheap and financially economical SST's were possible then but the world changed by the time Concorde was ready to use after many years of extreme testing & development to ensure it was safe. It was the world that had changed over a decade that made Concorde expensive.

[@ant2312]

It ran at a profit for British Airways

[@q.e.d.9112]

@@ant2312 I doubt it would do so in today’s market. Condcorde was a matter of National Pride and, if BA made it profitable on the busiest route in the world, it almost certainly wouldn’t have done if there was competition from every other major airine. Tbh, I think Musk is heading in the right direction. Premium long distance (London - Sydney for example) will be something like his starship. There’ll be a five minute boost phase getting up to something like 12 - 15,000mph. This will be followed by perhaps 45 minutes of weightless, sub-orbital trajectory before the rocket turns around and does its re-entry burn and lands on its pad in Sydney, roughy an hour after take off. London - LA in 45 minutes.

[@DianaNielsen-kf6wu]

Deadly National Pride..

[@ruggeropoggianella5451]

The very sad story of the Concordosky

[@b3stanga697]

The TU-144 would have had its nose down during taxi and takeoff.

[@spacedriver24]

Correct 👍

[@elaref7225]

@@spacedriver24 And it's nosewheel pointing n the direction of travel

[@deniscortes9200]

It's Ok, They always wanted to be the first on everything. Better luck for the next trial.

[@davidhull1481]

Seems crazy to me to hold the show in such a populated area.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Hey, this is KZbin. We could show the film of the Tupolev coming apart and then crashing, right? Right? And when the Russians claim there was a Mirage jet in the picture, we could show that picture too, right? Or, hey, here's an idea: we could write itin roman letters on screen over still pictures of stuff on the ground later, just like as if this was 1955 computer technology. Yeah. Let's do it the old fashioned way...

[@facu5661]

"Oh, these russians" Boney M ...

[@theacechip]

Interesting trivia that both the supersonic passenger airliners had an accident near Paris.

[@roo1314]

I can't resist: Of course the USSR blamed the French. Couldn't possibly the Soviet's fault. Sound familiar? Listen to Trump.

[@MUFCSINCE90]

Anyone reckon similar plane coming out in future?

[@Gary-jp2tf]

Nope

[@MUFCSINCE90]

@@Gary-jp2tf K

[@alanwhite6293]

If you mean the Russian one, I bloody hope not!!!!

[@MUFCSINCE90]

@alanwhite6293 No Concorde I meant.

[@JohnShields-xx1yk]

" concords demonstration lacking excitement ", that's ridiculous, there meant to go fast, not do corkscrews.

[@paulstewart6293]

Appaezntely Concorde did a move which the 144 couldn't do knowyinly. Zpying can work in both ways.

[@martynmiller4247]

The nose on either plane wasn't "retractable" If "retractable", where did retract to? The first seven rows of seating? "Mind your legs please, keep them up high, retractable nose coming through, thank you".

[@stabilo3170]

Here in Toulouse we say "Bec basculant".

[@ajett5081]

It was the camera from the other plane that did it. Just can't take pictures in the air.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

I went onto the Russian plane at Sienzhiem and the flight engineer wad rows of class fuses similar to a pre war car and generally the technology was dated .

[@stabilo3170]

This aircraft is representative of Russians, arrogant and pretentious, but at the end of the day it turn to be an absolut disaster, as the whole country.

[@hangemhigh7069]

This 50 year old horror show i never heard about? Sovjet Pilots take care!

[@GeorgeNewport-s6j]

folks who are not going to be on the aircraft while it is in flight should be making any decisions

[@CondorSkyGhost]

Accidents happen. Flaps not down, engines fly off, fuselages fly off, engines catch fire, wing icing, bird impacts, run out of fuel, midair collisions, crash for being too low, landing gear failure....and last but not least....pilot error. If youre lucky youve got a chance at an emergency landing. Russia does now currently have the fastest heavy bomber in existence.

[@mikeb3709]

Looks like simulator in flight

[@barneymiller6204]

They made the mistake with the Concordski as they did in the space race. Sensationalism and firsts, and a stupid pilot.

[@alexanderchinea8483]

The flight was AI,but the pictures of the crash are real

[@bobfresno7134]

I use to watch cartoons when I was younger. So, you don't have any "real" video of the flights? Hmm

[@DavidKoppana-iq8jr]

A risky maneuver produced tragedy. Concord ski RIP.

[@robertmiller2173]

This is a horrible maneuver in any big aircraft little lone a small one……..The B52, Concordskie, and many others……you bank to slow and you drop like a stone! So you try to do the Snake Move which the Russians are famous for…..and if it turns to S……t it isn’t ended in a nice manor! It is funny that all of us in the aviation business only wish our fellow travelers well. The Concord and Concordskie have a special place in aviation history!

[@TheGrumpyEnglishman]

It crashed as a result of a 'bunt'. Some speculate that the pilot was trying to avoid another aircraft. A french jet was sent up to observe the Tu-144's display.

[@Supervillainmc]

Beautiful jets

[@ottavva]

too bad for both of those beautiful planes that fly no more

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

More accurate to say "one one would survive". Thanks to an over-aggressive Soviet pilot.

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

Tragic.

[@edrobal-i4s]

Computer-generated images and the worst.

[@badcompany-w6s]

That's what happens when you start showing out.

[@robinrosenberg9065]

Unburdened by what has been.

[@alexv1269]

It's so funny to see all these "westerners" poo pooing TU-144, while US couldn't even build one and France had to team up with Britain to build their plane

[@percyprune7548]

The British & French never needed to steal Russian data to build their SST, unlike the Russians having to steal Concorde design data, and both nations realised they were working on identical design solutions so rather than compete they would co-operate to build a joint project. Concorde had a prestige daily scheduled international route while Concordski just transported mail once in a while within Russia only - when it worked.

[@alexv1269]

@@percyprune7548 Brit/French and Soviets had much closer mutual interaction working on the project than you think. The only "race" was to put it in the air first. Designs are similar because of the aerodynamic requirements. But there are a lot of crucial differences also. With your mindset though, I feel like I am waisting my time anyway.

[@kohedunn]

Treating a beautiful aircraft like a damn toy....What a disgrace...

[@aptroed]

Where is the Eiffel tower?

[@marcusblum7462]

10:10 the Soviets are so stupid they end up killing themselves!

[@TheGrumpyEnglishman]

They didn't kill themselves.