Tupolev Tu-104 - rise of the Soviet aviation

Tupolev Tu-104 is a twin-engine jet passenger aircraft developed by the Tupolev design bureau in the mid-1950s. The first Soviet civilian jet airliner and one of the first representatives of this class in the world.
The Tu-104 carried over 90 million passengers with Aeroflot (then the world's largest airline), and a lesser number with Czechoslovak Airlines. 201 planes have been delivered.
Thank you for watching!
Subscribe to the channel, comment, like!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom

[@SkyshipsEng]

Ok, we're starting the Tupolev marathon)

[@flyerkiller5073]

Good!

[@jayvincentmarchetto2633]

Yeees! Can't wait for the next episode!

[@talionescu6275]

Great ! Keep it up !

[@dundee256]

Yes! More Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian/Czech planes! I love these planes!

[@amiralavi6599]

Can't wait for Tu-144's video!

[@maxboya]

My great grandfather was the first to fly this plane! March 22, 1956, the crew under his command performed a Moscow-London flight on the Tu-104, the first international flight of a domestic jet passenger aircraft.

[@maxboya]

ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стариков,_Анатолий_Константинович

[@jerryj7432]

That's so cool. I bet your Grandfather had many interesting stories to tell.

[@namesomega3694]

Did he fly Nikita Khrushchev in it?

[@Erated78]

Wow that is cool and something you hopefully take pride in. Cheers

[@joefzd4040]

I believe my dad flew on one of these when we lived in India, late 1950's. I have a very faded photo that he took at the airport which I always presumed was a military aircraft because of the bomb aimer's window. I sent a copy to Duxford museum here in the UK and they identified it easily. It suffered some pretty serious design faults and had nasty habits requiring high speed landings to keep away from a stall. I think the final straw was the crash that wiped out a large number of military top brass. Like all early jet designs we learnt from the failures. Great film, thanks.

[@Erated78]

They believe the crash in Pushkin that killed 28 military commanders was due to load shift - most likely the pilot and crew were told to move aside, shut their mouths while the commanders loaded furniture and huge rolls of paper onboard - it is believed these rolls were improperly secured and shifted rearward causing stall and crash. Pilot Anatoly Inyushin was highly experienced with 8000 hrs on this aircraft. Sad tale. Cheers

[@proberts34]

I've always liked the appearance of the first generation passenger jets, like the de Havilland Comet and the TU-104. I think it's having the engines are buried within the wings that i like most.

[@gooner72]

Me too mate, engines located inside the wings makes them look clean, and neat and less cluttered.

[@Spooky_32]

@@gooner72 Until you get to maintenance, have you seen the inside of these configurations? very cluttered!

[@francescov.3610]

The first gen passenger jets do have a very future retro aesthetic to them, but honesty I feel like the most aesthetically pleasing planes to look at are the classic 60s-70s jetliners, The 727, DC-9, 747, DC-10, L-1011

[@peterdickenson424]

while stationed in Barhian in1960 i watched the tu104 and comet take of they were both spectacular

[@lucasottile6982]

I like them because they look like bombers, even the 707 is visibly informed in it’s design by planes like the B-52 and B-47, while the Comet is visibly a Hawker Siddley Nimrod.

[@michaelosgood9876]

With its glass nose cone, inboard engines & swept wings, this is one of the most beautiful of the 50s jets along with the Caravelle.

[@AddictedtoProjects]

Awesome video as always. I'm glad that you are able to source, translate and present information about all these beautiful planes for us westerners. This stuff would probably be much harder to find out, otherwise! :)

[@liubolun]

"A revolutionary plane, and revolution loves blood". Love that line!

[@mattbarker581]

I'm looking foward to the TU-144

[@ervandrush3116]

I'm looking forward Concorde and Tu-144

[@cowboybob7093]

TU-144 never exist, is fabrikation of west propaganda. Da.

[@oxcart4172]

@@cowboybob7093 NASA used one!

[@cowboybob7093]

Does it literally take tagging #humor for some people to get a joke?

[@oxcart4172]

@@cowboybob7093 Hey, there are a lot of stupid people around! Glad you're not really one of them!

[@skyem5250]

"Tea and umbrella fans made their plane, fans of balalaika and vodka made their plane, and Boeing and Douglas are still developing theirs." My favorite quote from Sky

[@Erated78]

Lol missed that quote but yea, brilliantly said

[@tomb8430]

I love the look of the TU-104... especially how the wings droop a little bit, and the bomber window up front!

[@LINKINPARK11499]

Just came back from the Czech Republic where I ate inside this plane. It is now a restaurant called "Air Restaurant". Stumbled upon it by accident. Very cool that this video exists. Thanks.

[@Sacto1654]

The Tu-104 was certainly not a perfect plane, but it led the way for the jet airliners that really revolutionized Aeroflot operations: the Tu-134, Tu-154 and Il-62.

[@TenorCantusFirmus]

Tupolev Tu-144: Conkordsky. Tu-104: Kometovsky. Fascinating, anyway, to see how diverse were these early jetliners. Nowadays, they all look like copies of the Airbus A300 - I get it's the most efficient possible configuration for a large passenger jet, but still it's dull to see all of that almost undistinguishable planes crowding the runways in an army of "clones"...

[@Erated78]

Thank you, i enjoyed the video - I absolutely love the design appearance of the tu 104 - whether in flight or grounded it’s a gorgeous plane. As it was based from the tu 16 it gave the tu 104 its military look. Cheers

[@melvyncox3361]

Informative piece,and greatly enjoyed! Looking forward to a review of the Tu-114.Should be really interesting👍

[@canamwing6999]

Well done! This is the way to tell the history of an aircraft! Spasiba!

[@rhyshaug1272]

Fascinating video sir, love your channel!

[@SkyshipsEng]

Thank you for watching)

[@YIIMM]

I do love how Soviet adaptations never bothered to remove the bombardier nose.

[@CAL1MBO]

That is where the navigator sits... It has nothing to do with never being "bothered" to remove it.

Because the navigator needs a window... ffs

[@MrRandomcommentguy]

Because the USSR was so backward the only way to navigate there was to find a road and follow it, therefore the navigator needed to be able to see downwards.

[@TheCokoll]

@@MrRandomcommentguy totally stupid idea. Ussr used radio beacons just like anyone else. This is just a russian conservatism and a strategy to failsafe navigation electronics with human eyes due to the size and low dencity of area population - in europe and usa in 50s-60s basically in every place a plane will be visible on ground radars and could receive the help from dispatchers, in USSR, on the contrary, this was only more or less available in the european part of the country, while somewhere over siberia and far east, the crew would be only able to use eyesight if they lost navigation equipment. And it hardly was very reliable in late 50s. So they kept those navigator noses in 50-60s. Also, many of airline crews were former bomber crews, and they were used to it. Note, only early Tupolev planes (related to tu-16 and 95 bombers) and Antonov cargo planes (used both by airforce and civil airlines) had those navigator cockpits.

[@TheCokoll]

They bothered in 1970s. Only early tu-104, 114, 124 and early tu-134 used them.

[@benjoel]

I love your videos and transcripts... "revolutions love blood"... Golden!!

[@crunchy_water_]

Hi man, great video again. Sorry I'm late.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

Me too

[@Rudyworld]

I love your brograms, especially your former Soviet era jetliners.

[@terryboyer1342]

Love your humor! The more things change the more they stay the same.

[@karlp8484]

It's ironic that the structural problem of the Comet while quite easily fixed, killed it off completely as an airliner, whilst the TU-104 soldiered on for quite a long time, killing over a 1000 people in the process. But in the West, the B707 and DC8 swept everything else to one side as commercial prospects.

[@idanceforpennies281]

@Gallant Zodiac The only metric which counts is fatalities per million passenger miles. I'm pretty sure that number for the TU-104 is pretty disgusting.

[@rolandbogush2594]

Another good one, Sky!

[@mahmoudelshaer6786]

Your videos are the best

[@Iskalawagz24]

Proud to see our flag carrier Philippine Airlines ar 6:17

[@NHR2020]

It might have been crude, in its way...but it was a pioneer, and as the commentary says, for a couple of years, the only jet airliner. So hats of to Tupolev!

[@johnparrish9215]

Oh Please do the TU-114, it's one of my favorites.

[@btrdangerdan2010]

Yay! I hope you can do a video about my favorite plane the TU-114.

[@SkyshipsEng]

I have a plan to make a video from the real Tu-114 in the museum, later)

[@jacobzimmermann59]

Now THAT is very exciting to hear!

[@btrdangerdan2010]

Skyships Eng cool!

[@kikobarros76]

great channel!! Loving it!!

[@jansupronowicz1300]

Tu-104 was a "prototype" passenger jet of sorts. It was never a commercial success, but... you have to start somewhere.

[@kpadmirer]

I flew in one from Moscow to Leningrad in July 1969. The engines were powerful but thirsty. The plane had to be towed from the terminal to the head of the runway to save fuel.

[@justforever96]

13:02 pilot has a (red?) star tattooed on his hand. Probably a vet.

[@PenninkJacob]

I Love your channel!!!!!! Thank you!!!👍👍👍

[@lars-goranwillny42]

Thank you for a good video. It is my understanding that a four engined Tu 104 was built in an attempt to close in on the western market, who in those days (mid 1950s) demanded more than two jet engines for medium/long haul routes. Anybody know about that? I flew on the Aeroflot Tu 104 between Moscow and Leningrad on New Years Day in 1976. It had a cabin layout 3 by 3 seats and approx. 80+ seats. The heavy, forged gray painted steel rings around the round cabin windows is a memory along with the not so slim air hostess who served us passengers candy from a tray before start and before descend to Leningrad.

[@svetlinslavov9000]

Great, a new video

[@MEATYOKERRable]

YOU ROCK!!!! You nailed my country right on the head

[@jagdeepdesai6848]

Flown in this CSA, Bombay to Singapore, via Rangoon and Pnom Penh

[@CMan-rt9in]

Liked the video, more please.

[@fuzzylogic5507]

I think the video tittle can be complemented with the " price of revolution II " . The Tupolev Tu -104 has to face another challenges, different to the de havilland comet. Being a jet which means that has more speed than its pistons counterparts, then it needed more runways for takeoff and landing and the lack of reverse thrust systems, a mechanism that modern jets has and allows them to slow down rapidly, Tu- 104 used parachutes. The other problem was the crew training, although derived from a military version, the Tu-16. Unfortunatedly his older brother and improved version the Tu - 204 suffered from stalls produced by turbulence and resulted in many crashes. But from my point of view from both sides of the Atlantic, magnificents airliners were, are and will be built for those who love the aviation.

[@AtackofTheBeast]

That was mentioned in the video.

[@randym4121]

These early jets really had panache! The TU-104 was no exception. It's a shame that modern airliners do not possess the same visual sophistication and beauty of the TU-104.

[@borisluzanov3361]

Excellent video. The accent is a nice touch too)))

[@marcelosao2]

Another amazing video

[@iamthatguy8207]

Outstanding! Keep them coming!!!!!

[@sawajiri100]

My Flag Carrier 🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭 😍😍😍 because of that i subscribed and 👍👍

[@redlock4004]

Excellent video. Please do the Tu114. This is one of my favourite airliners. Thanks.

[@Majk369]

It might have been unreliable and not safe but it just looks so cool

[@Majk369]

@Gallant Zodiac out of the ČSAs 6 104s 2 were destroyed in an accident without any casualties and one in a fatal crash with 13 casualties. All within 11 years from their delivery. They were not equipped with any western navigation equipment like VOR or ILS and ČSA had to add these systems if they wanted to fly out of the eastern block with them. They had problem with center of gravity and could become uncontrollable in mid air (which happened to aeroflot), this was partially fixed in the 104a. It was horrendously difficult to pilot and ČSA were once transporting an Air India pilot which flew on the 707s and he was really scared when they were landing in 350km/h. After this everywhere he went he would say that pilots who fly the tu104s are the most skilled pilots ever.

[@Majk369]

@Gallant Zodiac you want me to send you an interview with an engineer that worked for čsa to look after them? But be warned that its in czech so you probably wont understand a word... Look i am not trying to say that they were dangerous but even you have to admitt that they were not the safest, as it was with all other first gen jetliners. Heres the interview in case you wanna try to read it: www.lidovky.cz/byznys/doprava/letani-s-tupolevem-byl-cisty-adrenalin-vozilo-sefkuchare-i-sudove-pivo-vzpomina-mechanik-cech.A160916_114321_ln-doprava_rsa and in case you wanna see some photos of the crashes: commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tu-104_Crash_site_near_Nicosia_airport.jpg

[@Antonluisre]

Great vid!

[@mad2477]

great video. beautiful plane. thanks - learnt a lot about this good looking pioneer.

[@mad2477]

also don't forget I ask every week. VC10 please!!

[@SkyshipsEng]

You have to wait it)

[@nehamaty]

Great video

[@ezyrod]

Fascinating video! I look forward to seeing more of your post. Thanks

[@UNOwen1]

+Skyships Eng; I always enjoy your films. This is a goofy question, but, is it me, or perhaps how the Tu-104's landing gears are, but, it appears that it was a very tall plane (the distance from ground to the roofline, or even the cabin door) - taller than an avg height plane?

[@owenklein1917]

Although the TU-104 was not perfect, I think the plane looked awesome (along with the Tu-16).

[@dave8599]

Another excellent video, thank you!

[@theinquisitivecritic]

Great video man, you should do a video on the Baade 152, East Germany’s only attempt at building an airliner.

[@jeffpalmer5502]

I had no idea, great video, as usual, thank you !

[@noka79]

The Russian tech fascinates me, i love watching these videos

[@bretthoffman2128]

Interesting video, a nice aircraft for its time, however , since it was an adaptation of a bomber design, it's worth noting that the 707, was an adaptation of the aerial refueling tanker, that the US Air Force, had wanted to complement the b-52, so the Soviets, weren't the only ones, the nose front section of the airliner is also very reminiscent of the b-29, that tupuelov had copied to produce the to-95

[@alexandrec9372]

Very good vídeo, thank you for upload, Congratts from Brazil!!!

[@wotan20]

Well done, informative video. My recollection about the Tu-104 is somewhat foggy, since I was a kindergarten student at the time, still the enthusiasm for it, reached even us. Every time when I and other small boys saw an airplane above pulling condense stripes behind it, pointed to the sky and yelled: Tu száznégyes! or Tu-104. Magic words, such as 'sugárhajtású' (that is 'jet powered' in English) rolled off from my tongue in awe and reverie, specially considering, that I didn't have the slightest clue, what those words meant. Still, those were the times, when even kindergarten boys got genuinely excited about new airplanes or rockets flying into space, such as the Vostok 1.

[@hederoth7883]

I really like your videos. Informative and entertaining at the same time! It’s really fascinating to hear about what went on in Russia in the USSR times. We know so little about that. Russia must have had some really brilliant people in the aircraft industry in those days!

[@GeorgiaHotties]

Russian aviation has always been one of the best in the world.

[@hederoth7883]

Lauren Payne And in space technology too. Just look at the little trick with the emergency landing the other day. A rocket went bust but the crew survived. That’s really impressive!

[@davidchristensen6908]

It’s a nice looking civilian plane. The world had lots to learn about jet planes. Nice video thank you

[@siddasgupta679]

Thank you

[@simonpoko4274]

Antonov marathon after Tupolev please :)

[@1joshjosh1]

You say the funniest thing every episode and you did it again. Passengers needed more comfortable transportation than the bombs. 🤣🤣🤣

[@danieleregoli812]

Very nice video! Well done!

[@donwebber7034]

Love your humor “same, except dragon”…”people needed more comfort than the bomb”…

[@ervandrush3116]

It's interesting to watch the videos about a little exotic planes (for Western subscribers)

[@namesomega3694]

These early passenger plane engines remind me of the me 262 and you can see why

[@ATIMELINEOFAVIATION]

Why I first saw a photo on this looking for a wallpaper, I thought it was a military transport!

[@rgraham-ncal]

Not enough mention given to having one of the worst safety records of any jet airplane. 18% hull loss from accidents. (Wikipedia). At least not early enough in the story.

[@brandnazvi9354]

Looking forward to the TU-154

[@noahaviation4717]

nice video :)

[@rehanansari3581]

Unique design

[@jpoep9863]

It may not be the best plane, but wow is it beautiful! Gorgious design

[@flyboysaviation8822]

Still looking sleek

[@markust7709]

Sounds like Borat is narrating🙂 Sorry I have no issues, video is great. The voice just reminded me the movie. I thought the accent in that movie was made up, not real...I was wrong😃

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

4:19 I'm sold.

[@johnclayden1670]

Fascinating!

[@flyerkiller5073]

The first jet airliner - Comet, was not pretty good, the second - Tu-104 was not pretty good too. Then, Boeing 707 appeared)

[@CAL1MBO]

No shit dumbass... There is at least 6 years between the Comet and 707

[@joelworsley3591]

If it wasn’t for the comet the same incidents would of occurred on the 707 as Boeing had learned a lot from the comets mistakes

[@jimcrawford5039]

The Comet was the pioneer.

[@米空軍パイロット]

@ But the reputation was unrecoverable.

[@jacobzimmermann59]

Boeing as well as Mc Donnell Douglas publicly admitted that they learned a lot from the Comet's issues. In other words, if it wasn't for the Comet, the 707 and the DC-8 would have been plagued with the same problems and would have caused the deaths of many people.

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

As good as U.S jets are, I still find Soviet designs very fun to learn about. Different political and economic reasons behind development created some great designs for all.

[@dododakowski2813]

In America you develop to suceed. In the USSR you developed to fly. And to compete with the West

[@skyem5250]

Skyships is like Game of Thrones but with airplanes instead of dragons

[@oscarmike3028]

Any clue whats the projection equipment being used at 13:22?

[@Raminagrobisfr]

Nice video as alsways. There is one thing i don't understand : how could they extend the capacity from 50 to 115 seats without extending the fuselage? Where did they get all this extra space?

[@AndreyThreethousand]

The 50 seat version had three 1st class compartments with seats vis-a-vis and tables between them, with one compartment in 1+2 seat arrangement and the other two in 2+2 seat arrangement, while the later versions where stuffed up with seats in 2+3 seat configuration.

[@jakubroniewicz7263]

I like this one a lot

[@IcemanIceman-of5gf]

Skyships Eng. Make a history of Tupolev Tu-124

[@skyem5250]

I don't understand the Tupolev logo. It's like a stylized Tlly. T makes sense, and Cyrillic y is equivalent to Latin u, but why the two vertical lines in the middle?

[@temich1985]

I admire the bravery of the crew on those planes. About 1 out of 4 Tu-104's crashed due to a major design flaw. Would you fly on a plane knowing there is a 25% of a chance you'll die?

[@temich1985]

@Gallant Zodiac there weren't alternatives back in those days, TU-104 was the first and only jet airliner the Soviet Union had until TU-134 came about

[@justforever96]

You are obviously not very strong in the statistical department. One out of four Tu-104s crashing does not mean that any given mission has a 25% chance of ending in a crash. that is just stupid. Even ignoring the fact that most crashes were NOT fatal and did not kill the crew (so it would not be a "25% chance you will die" to start with), you won't get close to that kind of statistic. If it is even true, it means that 25% of all Tu-104's crashed at _some point in their careers_ . Almost all of them flew for many years before that happened, amassing thousands of flights. Unless each bomber was assigned one permanent crew that was never changed during the entire life of their assigned aircraft, then no crew has a "25% chance of dying" on any given mission. It is like Russian Roulette, the longer you play the game, the worse your odds get. Most Tu-104s were destroyed after long and arduous careers, flying from rough fields, with indifferent crews, in all manner of weather, and eventually some random crew member would slip up and the plane was destroyed. Although usually it was more along the lines of going off the end of the runway, or touching down too hard and overstraining the structure, not plummeting to the ground on fire and exploding with total loss of life. 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe fleet of F-104s was destroyed in crashes as well. But that happened over like 30 years. You want to explain to me how a fleet of aircraft survives a 33% attrition rate for 30 years? A fleet of 300 aircraft would be totally gone in a manner of weeks. Everyone calls the F-104 a "Widowmaker" because of that, although you will find that only a tiny fraction of the German F-104 pilots ever actually crashed one. Because it only takes _one_ pilot out of the long list of pilots who circulated through that cockpit to finally crash it, So 33% of F-104s destroyed in crashes does not mean that you had a "33% chance of dying" if you flew an F-104. Bomber crews in combat zones in WWII had much, much better odds than that of returning. It would have to be the most appalling aircraft ever built to even come into that ballpark of that figure. So amount of propaganda could cover up a loss rate that high, you couldn't threaten people to force them to get onboard. Interestingly, the F-104 is remembered as a dangerous "Killer Jet" and a bad design because so many were lost in crashes. But the Messerschmitt Bf 109 is remembered as one of "The Greats".....and more than half of the Bf 109s ever built were lost in takeoff or landing accidents. They _were_ that dangerous to fly. Go figure.

[@temich1985]

@@justforever96 TLDR...The last thing I need, is some douchebag preaching me here

[@elijah24567]

6:18 - whoaw Philippine Airlines 😍

[@yumphallangthaphal1598]

Would this marathon cover tu 214r version?

[@royalanania3306]

A stunning Jetliner years ahead of the game, for exception of the reversables.

[@DL_Productions]

This plane is the first Twin-Engine reactor Passenger

[@skyem5250]

Can you create an English language version of Skyships.ru ? I would be happy to help with the technical side, though unfortunately I can't help with translation from/to Russian. I can translate English/French, English/Spanish, and French/Spanish, but all I know in Russian is "Я не говорю по русски Я американский капиталист"

[@Dan.d649]

It was an unsafe development. Here, the engines which were embedded into the wing almost like the English built Comets, were an accident waiting to happen. There must've been vibrations in the cabin, during engine operation, and in flight, which then ultimately would've probably created a hazardous situation within the wing assembly, and possibly leading into the fuselage. There were also controlability issues. The better built airplanes like the Boeing 707, and the Douglas DC-8, led the way with pylon-mounted jet engines. This also was much more safer, and easier access for maintenance. In reality, this is why the airlines wanted to choose an airplane that was going to serve them for the long-term, from a clean "sheet" design. This is where the Russians lost with the TU-104. However, they later built the TU-134, and the Ilyushin II62M which both were a lot better airplanes in design. Though I'm not crazy about the TU-154 though. The Kuznetsov NK-8 turbofans were amazing in sound. I always felt that American built jetliners were always the way to go.

[@ВсеволодДзюба-д7з]

The TU-104 never had problems with the destruction of the wing and fuselage, unlike the Comet, and the proximity of the engines to the fuselage made it extremely noisy, but still did not cause the destruction of the aircraft. The controllability was not very successful due to the not very successful design of the airframe, namely the low mechanization of the wing. Have you seen the sweep of the TU-104? - There was no such swept wing on either the Boing 707 or the Comet or the Caravella, and paired with not the best mechanization made it difficult to maneuver at low speeds, all the same, the legacy of the TU-16 bomber, which was not as important as comfort as speed. My grandfather flew on this one, according to his recollections, he flew in the tail on a side seat and the hovst shook, I don’t know if this is true or not, but these are his memories. The main problem of the TU-104 was the pickup, which, as described in the video, in the end, thanks to the heroism of Harold Kuznetsov, was identified and stopped. The rest of the accidents usually happened either due to lack of experience in operating the aircraft or due to the human factor, that is, these machines were capricious, but still not as much as it might seem. Well, the fact that American planes seem to you the best, well, that's how patriotism plays in you.

[@rocksnot952]

And the conversion of military aircraft to civil transport. Like using a B-52 to carry passengers.

[@justintang2294]

The same thing happened with the B-29 and B-50 bombers, which were developed into the C-97 Stratofreighter and 377 Stratocruiser.

[@anguscovoflyer95]

will you do the DC-8?

[@ronemtae3468]

If you notice how long the front landing gear is that’s because the plane was poorly designed with the wings and the engines connected it was a difficult plane to land it was a difficult plan to do everything as a matter of fact probably 40% of these planes actually were lost during takeoff and landings that’s a lot of failures

[@AndyAussie]

Nice video but you kept showing Ilyushin aircraft instead of Tupolev.

[@robertmunoz7543]

CCCP had some attractive aircraft!🤔 Jman

[@jfbaquero]

I am a huge fan of soviet / russian air and space industry. Your videos are great. Were do you get all that amazing footage?