The Biggest Waste of Money in Aviation History

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, Playstation and Xbox. Click the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now: playwt.link/notwhatyouthink2024

[@whyhip]

people who already play war thunder "INTERESTING"

[@TarahVanessa]

@@whyhipyea lol

[@LordBobeus-to9yz]

the real biggest waste of money in aviation history is buying war thunder premium planes.

[@n.shadowbg.]

​@@LordBobeus-to9yzso true

[@guarami1]

@@NotWhatYouThink What is War Thunder? Free sounds good! J/K - I love your videos but I skip your sponsors. I feel bad for the creators getting shade for their sponsors. Simon promotes Keeps, and he’s bald…

[@lhopi]

Ejection seats for pilots in a passenger aircraft. Something goes wrong and the pilots are like, “Best of luck suckers! We’re out of here!”

[@prfwrx2497]

Poka, suka! We're out of here!

[@northerner4913]

есть амфибия Бе 12, последователь Бе 6 Там есть радист, штурман, два пилота И катапультные кресла есть лишь у пилотов Радист может скинуть стеклянный блистер и спрыгнуть Но вот штурман, самый важный член экипажа который и обнаруживал всякое на воде должен был сделать действительео невероятное чтобы выжить

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

You must have failed reading comprehension in high school english class. It was stated that the prototypes had ejection seats for the pilots, the regular production passenger models did not.

[@CensoredUsername_]

They were only there for the test pilots in the prototype though. I can imagine test pilots did appreciate that feature.

[@cruisinguy6024]

@@MaxwellAerialPhotographyyou must be fun at parties 🤦‍♂️

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

An aircraft that is so bad that its own design bureau wanted to cancel it. In Tupolev's opinion, it was taking resources that were needed for more urgent civil aviation projects.

[@tjroelsma]

To be fair to the Russians: the American versions also sucked dishwater.

[@calvinnickel9995]

@tjroelsma The British also wanted to cancel Concorde on the same ground… and repeatedly asked the French to let them. But the French became more stubborn as the economic prospects became worse.

[@mohamadnuriman4815]

​@@calvinnickel9995 well France kinda don't want project that has been spent so much money and just to be cancelled and left rot

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@mohamadnuriman4815 Same with Tu. Both kinda sucked in the end, less reliable, more expensive and all that for slightly more speed then normal airliner is capable of.

[@mohamadnuriman4815]

@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 yeah shame maybe it was too soon for the time

[@ianworley8169]

In the early 90s, I worked in Twickenham, close to Heathrow Airport. I'd watch passenger planes stacked above each other, waiting their turn to land, minutes apart. Nothing came close though to seeing Concorde fly overhead. The most beautiful plane of any age. Stunnigly beautiful in silhouette.

[@wewinnew]

What an amazing experience! The Concorde truly was a marvel of engineering and design-a perfect blend of speed and elegance. Seeing it in silhouette must have been breathtaking, especially with its iconic delta wing shape and sleek profile.

[@TUMBLINJEST]

In the late 1960s I made rolls royce aero engine parts for Concorde. Its job paperwork was headed In RED INK - SECRET. but saint Concorde at the bottom. - a ruse or not I will never know. but the company I worked for on and off for 40 years was right under the flight path for our late queens birthday fly over, and we went outside one year to see Concorde flanked by fighter jets flying low some few minuets from London. HOW PROUD we all felt. In later years I and my day shift buddy made the firs 12 sets of main landing gear components that fitted the wings the UK made for Airbus A380, 2 sets for flying test planes, others for both destructive testing and non destructive testing. It was our jobs, someone had to make them. lol

[@Egill2011]

It is not Concorde. It is Concordski, Russian plagiarized version.

[@martinv.352]

You can visit both airplanes TU-144 and Concorde in Technik Museum Sinsheim, Germany, near Heidelberg.

[@imanonym1147]

Yes, an the Tupolow looks way better and more modern!

[@ric247]

French and passionate about aeronautics, I was a spectator at the Paris Air Show in 1973 when the TU-144 disintegrated in flight. I absolutely did not see another plane (supposedly a Mirage III in the video) approach it. I have a clear memory of seeing the canards start to retract and the Tupolev suddenly tilt into a nosedive and then the cell break towards the wing root before the debris of the plane fell on fire towards the village of Goussainville. In the evening, on television, we will see the images but also the devastated village with 8 dead, dozens of injured and more than a hundred houses destroyed. We will also see the brutality of the police but especially of the Soviet agents who prevented people and journalists from photographing and filming the scene of the disaster. Very quickly, André Turcat, Concorde test pilot, declared on television that the Soviets were going to continue their program because they had a "...heart as big as that!". The future would prove him wrong, the accident was no longer even mentioned and the village was razed before being rebuilt.

[@waverider227]

So I have an honest question you say there was NO other aircraft present within its flight path (ie recon mirage) Ive always heard this story (maybe its only a story) One thing is for sure is that I never (in the few grainy and dim films ) see any other aircraft within the Tu 144 flight path ) but it appears that they pulled up the aircraft too sharply leading to a stall in both the wings and one of its engines require a restart by putting it into a sharp dive and this overstressed the airframe causing the wings to snap off and the rest of the fuselage breaking up.

[@ric247]

@@waverider227 Sorry, "waveride227", but, I'm French (76 y.o.) and I was present at each "Salon du Bourget" since 1965. I'm sure to remember : 1-The accident happened when he has closed his "moustaches". 2-No other flight around the T.O. of TU-144 is possible, because during the mettings "Le Bourget", never another plane can fly during the presentation of an aircraft because will fly in very restricted crowd due to the very close presence of the Paris flats. The french fighter Mirage III was an accusatory legend during few time by french people pro-Soviet. So : How the crew of TU can saw the Mirage III coming from behind them and why nobody seen saw this french fighter from the ground ? ...

[@waverider227]

@@ric247 thank you for cleaning up this story many thanks

[@ric247]

@@waverider227 You’re welcome waverider. It was a pleasure.

[@roiq5263]

What was the Soviet police even doing in France? 😮

[@oml352]

3:33 "This meant that the aircraft had no vertical stabilizer" That's completely wrong, the giant finn at the end is the vertical stabilizer. It had no horizontal stabilizers...

[@Suscida]

Be kind, it’s half to 1/3 wrong

[@rexpositor6741]

I was looking for this comment 😊

[@hisnibs1121]

. . . and at 10:05 it says that the canards were only RETRACTED during take-off and landing in order to provide extra lift at the front of the plane. Presumably these were actually only DEPLOYED/EXTENDED during take-off and landing, and retracted at all other times. 🙄

[@MasterOfWarLordOfPeace]

Ahhh yes, Concordsky. Only second to Spaceshuttlesky.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

Only that's spacefaring, not aviation.

[@chrispaw1]

Concordski

[@человек-и3б7ь]

Buran (Soviet space shuttle) was actually good even in action, tho project was canceled before first real flight

[@tonyf.9806]

Also Boneski (Tu-160 rip-off of B-1 Lancer), or Superfortresski (Tu-4 rip-off of B-29), and a whole host of other aircraft. Very little was truly novel by the soviets. They stole the general designs, then rushed the job to get it done before the west. Then the PRC learned those lessons and did the same thing, even to the Soviets/Russians, where they buy 1 copy, then reverse engineer it, leading to their current PLAAF/PLANAF designs all being cheap rip-offs, and often inferior, to their Russians and Western designs.

[@hp2084]

​@@tonyf.9806and yet, first in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first space walk, first space station. Actually, you people are just shit who know nothing but just blabber nonsense.

[@richardcoughlin8931]

A passenger jet with ejection seats for the pilots is pure Soviet thinking.

[@memc0282]

Hahaha, yes, but that's an exaggeration The ejection seats for the pilots was only for the test airplanes, not the production airplanes that will carry passengers

[@DreamMonster7X]

Even today. Everything is about 'Me.' *** everyone else.

[@carta8399]

It was just the prototype, in order to save the testers if something went wrong, it was said clearly, this is a comprehension issue.

[@DreamMonster7X]

@@carta8399 Da, Da, Da!

[@richardcoughlin8931]

I was joking. However, giving the appalling safety record of Russian airliners, I’m surprised that you are leaping to their defense.

[@Yuri_Petrov]

I was born next to the factory produced it. Graduated aircraft technical college of this factory. We used to build Ilyushin planes but for short term it was Tupolev 144.

[@tomchloe3208]

I live in Bristol 🇬🇧 home of the Concorde, seen its final 5 minutes of flights as it circled above bristol. Such a beautiful jet, and i even went to visit it a year or so ago with my grandmother before she passed away, and had the joy of walking her through the plane in its hangar, holding her hand as she shared her stories of seeing its test flights. Rest in peace grandma (Dorothy)

[@neilpountney9414]

What a lovely memory Tom

[@tonyhenthorn3966]

Even though I'm an American, I'll give credit where it's due. The Concorde was a technological achievement on par with the Moon landings. She entered commercial service less than 30 years after the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier. The X-1 couldn't take off or land under its own power. It required a rocket engine and special fuels. A B-29 bomber had to carry it aloft and drop it as if it were a missile. It could only manage a short burst of powered flight and carried little to no payload. Concorde was twice as fast, could cross oceans, ran on jet engines and ordinary aviation kerosene, took off and landed just like other airplanes, and carried 100 passengers, their luggage, the finest food, and a host of flight attendants. She kept all of them in air conditioned comfort, and perfectly safe if not for an extremely unlucky piece of FOD on a Paris runway.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

@@tonyhenthorn3966 I am sick of hearing the Concord was canceled due it losing money. It was making a few million from 1980 on. Maybe not worth the hassle, but it was making money. Anyway I never really cared for the Concord, but I didn't know about the discrepancy between the Soviet airline, and Concord when it came to maintenence hours. 25,000 hours to 500... That is such an insane difference, and an impressive one. I wish he went into detail on why, because the Soviets for all their woes usually were not that far behind the West. Or so I thought. That rivals airliner engines today I think. Although I couldn't really get an average when googling. Mostly flight cycles. Liquid Pistons X Engine which is a form of rotary engine cannot even get over 1,000 hours before a rebuild, lol. They need to step up. (JK. Jet engines don't have apex seals.)

[@stabilo3170]

Was a real pleasure to read your comment about the Concorde, cheers from Toulouse!👍

[@xponen]

@@dianapennepacker6854 it would be interesting if Soviet industry is still around, there's philosophical difference for sure. I mean design decision like why their power drill uses ball bearing instead of sleeve, why chose piston engine for their tank instead of turbine.

[@jiggsborah7041]

It's a pity that the United States got mired in politics and problems with the environmentalists and crazy people. The Boeing design was beautiful.

[@stabilo3170]

@Anti-Fake-ul9oe OK, you'r laughing, now explain why? If you are able.

[@Andronicus2007]

Well, the American SST project cost a billion dollars, and never even left the ground! (Because Boeing only had a mock up made of plywood!) 😅

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

The manufacturers early on knew the SST concept wouldn't work, but it was demanded of them by the government. So they worked on the concepts while at the same time developing new commercial aircraft that would go on to regular service. This included the 737 and 747, legendary aircraft that served the world well. They dropped the SST programs literally as soon as the government called it off.

[@Andronicus2007]

@@Oldbmwr100rs Boeing stuffed up with the swing wing design (later dropped as it's too heavy) and an unrealistic top speed (Mach 3 or something). Much of the aircraft had to then be made of titanium, which they didn't have much experience in using. The 2707 project was a failure, sure they had some great designs with the 747, 727, 737 etc.

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

@@Andronicus2007 It's like I said, they really weren't interested in doing the actual plane, between Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing all kinds of stuff kept changing, I believe Boeing started taking cues from Lockheed and Douglas dropped out early. By the time the Concorde was getting further along, in the US environmental groups were pushing for bans in supersonic travel over the continent. The entire thing was a huge waste of time and money and that was figured out early on. They had bigger ambitions in larger scale passenger travel. Only reason the SST project lasted as long as it did was due o our government demanding it without listening to anyone. They didn't want to be "left behind" by the concorde or soviets, and both of those projects were between disasters and huge wastes of money. The British basically gave up their entire aircraft manufacturing because of this project. Boeing went on to lead the world in production airliners.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

With a far greater knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft than the British the Americans quickly concluded that SSTs were not going to be commercially viable and predicted the failure of Concorde. Boeing built the 747 instead and the results were dramatically different Boeing became the largest aerospace company in the world while Britain no longer makes any jet aircraft of its own today. Concorde was an epic failure that led to the destruction of the country's entire jet aircraft industry.

[@EncephalonBubble]

I’m midway through the video and I already see a lot of errors in it… 1. They removed the horizontal stabiliser, not the vertical 2. The canards extend during takeoff and landing and not the other way around 3. It is believed that the engineers extended the limits of the FBW just before the paris air show to try and have a better presentation than the concorde, and those changes broke the stability of the Tu-144 which lead to its crash. However the Mirage was indeed present, and we don’t really know if it was a contributing factor.

[@acx1337]

not to mention that the soviet manufacturing at that time WAS inferior to the western counterparts and their spies stole technology that was deliberately wrong, didn't see through that and actually implemented the stole wrong design lol

[@ВасилийКоровин-г9э]

It was not. Otherwise Soviet government would have taken the chance to blame the French. Instead they tried to blame a cameraman who was in the cockpit. Like he dropped his camera which blocked control stick. They tried to recreate it in the mock-up of the cockpit, but camera didn't fit into control stick shaft. So they had to enlarge it for the recreation to succeed.

[@juancarlostelleztellez5731]

for sure, it was and a very criminal, irresponsible action ...

[@Your-local-a220]

All of the dangers of the tu-144 aside, the tu-144 was still a beautiful bird.

[@lycian123]

The test bed had ejection seats but the prototype and 14 production models didn't. Paris airshow proved that. Been on both Concorde and TU144, albeit in static at Sinsheim. No ejection seats.

[@-Owly-]

Zahnrädchen --> Audiotrack--> da könnt ihr die originale englische Tonspur wieder einschalten :)

[@blexy2969]

Das Feature ist so nervig... Ich hab Deutsch und Englisch als meine Sprachen eingegeben, warum will KZbin mich ständig zwingen Titel und sogar Videos auf Deutsch anzusehen.

[@thomasrichard7054]

Aber dann verpasst man solche sprachlichen Highlights wie die „schwanzlosen Flugzeuge”. 😢😂

[@-Owly-]

@@thomasrichard7054 😂

[@mz00956]

3:50

[@maskeradedarkstar6632]

Habe mich schon gewundert, warum es so nach KI generiert anhörte. In englisch ist es wesentlich angenehme...auch wenn ich nicht alles 100% verstehe.

[@chrisi06]

The NK-144 engines were actually turbofans and not turbojets like Concorde's ones, and Turbofans are just not suituable for supersonic flight. Nevertheless those engines were way more complex for their time as the development of Turbofan engines had just begun at this time. Therefore, the Tu-144D uses turbojets after the Tu-144S used the turbofans. Speaking about Tu-144's "Flight control augmentation system" called ABSU - automatic onboard control system, it acted pretty like an FBW in fact, just not like an Airbus one. More like a Boeing one, you still need to trim the aircraft when flying manually but there's no physical connection between controls in the cockpit and control surfaces, and all feedback forces are synthetically generated. In the Soviet Union it was called a "Booster control system" and was also used on the Tu-154 for example. ABSU cross-controlled ailerons, elevators (which were the same in the case of the Tu-144, obviously) and rudder, applying all the dampings if needed. So yes, pretty much Boeing-like FBW. And speaking about other avoinics it was far more advanced than on the Concorde. The Tu-144's cockpit looks more modern than Concorde's one. The engineers panel on Tupolev has from 1,5 to 2 times less gauges and switches, in fact the automation was so high that the flight engeneer just had to monitor the panel and toggle one single switch 2 times during the whole flight (yes, a bit oversiplified, but still), even fuel balancing (known as the main headache of those supersonics) was fully automated. And the navigation system was just a marvel for mid 1970s. 30 waypoints in memory (10 in Concorde), 100-meters-precision INS over 5,600 km leg using automatic beacon correction, several alternates which can be flown to by autopilot by one click, automatic holding patterns, 15-inch moving map, etc. You can even pick any point on that map, push 2 buttons and the autopilot will fly you to that point. Maybe only L-1011 Tristar was more advanced at the time. To conclude, it's such a shame that this airplane just hasn't shown its full potential. It was innovative in every acpect, sometimes not fully successful, the engines for example (though they were lately developed into NK-32 - the best high-thrust supersonic turbofans in the world, installed onto Tu-160), and sometimes marvelously good. But nevertheless, every engineer working on this project put a part of his soul into it back than.

[@tonyhenthorn3966]

It is odd that Tupolev chose turbofans, whereas Boeing and the European consortium went with turbojets. Maybe the turbofans were more readily available because Soviet bombers and strike aircraft used them. They make sense for warbirds that usually fly subsonic, but need to accelerate and climb quickly while carrying heavy weapon loads. Such jets can go supersonic, but only for short dashes as needed in combat. Turbojets are better for sustained high Mach flight in the stratosphere, since the air is so thin it isn't necessary to "bypass" any of it.

[@chrisi06]

@@tonyhenthorn3966 No, many soviet bombers like the Tu-22 which had their first flight before the Tu-144 had turbojets.

[@dash_lp]

Ehm - then why does the Eurofighter also use Turbofan engines and is even capable of supercruise with those? (Google EJ200)

[@chrisi06]

@@dash_lp Tu 144 first flight: 1968 Eurofighter Typhoon first flight: 1994 The technology behind supersonic turbofan engines has just rapidly developed. As such, the Tu-160, like I already said in my comment, also uses turbofans. Those where also used on the Tu-144ll which therefore and similar range as Concorde but still flew faster. Also, fighter jets do not fly supersonic all the team, just take a moment and read the comment from @tonyhenthorn3966

[@dash_lp]

@@chrisi06 but if the Soviet’s used turbofans with low bypass it’s not that different from the eurofighter engines and therefore more suitable for supersonic speeds 🤔

[@Quentin-d9q]

i love the ears of the tu144

[@Haroun-El-Poussah]

It's called moustaches. French tech copied by the Soviets (Dassault Patent, used on the Mirage Milan)

[@tomchloe3208]

Im British 🇬🇧 and i also think it has a very pretty look. This era of aviation was so cool. But this jet seems very scary

[@Haroun-El-Poussah]

@@tomchloe3208 Well, russian copy of a French-Brit jet...crasher...

[@denisjammet9487]

Oui. Ce film est avant tout americain et par jalousie ils véhiculent cette histoire de Mirage au dessus lors de la démonstration du Bourget. Bref une chaîne peu fiable. Il existe des centaines de reportages sur cette histoire. Vaut mieux les regarder eux !

[@Haroun-El-Poussah]

@@denisjammet9487 They couldn't even take the Boeing 2707 airborne, for sure they were jealous!

[@donr2176]

I visited both the Concorde aircraft F-BVFB and the Tupolev Tu-144 at the superb "Auto and Technik Museum" at Sinsheim, Germany. Both aircraft are on pylons in their take off mode, so you are pretty high up. ! You enter both aircraft by climbing a staircase at the rear of both planes. I thought the Tupolev although larger than the Concorde was not nearly as well finished.. however both are pretty impressive.. Also on pylons are a Lufthansa 747, at their second museum at nearby Speyer plus an Antonov An-22- the world's largest propeller driven plane! It has four engines each turning twin contra-rotating props. My visit was 14 years back.. It is possible to stay there in a very reasonable hotel. You will need at least two days -or more to see all exhibits! I spent 3 very enjoyable days.

[@billmullins6833]

Slight quibble: You said the TU-144 had no vertical stabilizer. That is incorrect. It very much had a vertical stabilizer. What it did not have was a horizontal stabilizer. Being a delta wing the elevators were included in the trailing edge of the wing.

[@ntdscherer]

The canards would extend during takeoff and landing, and retract at other times (the opposite of what the video says).

[@Matthew-Anthony]

𝚆𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚒𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚋𝚎𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚞𝚒𝚕𝚝, 𝚘𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚍 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚏𝚕𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚏𝚝 𝚢𝚘𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏?

[@purplestrawberrysunset]

So why did the French jet follow it if the canards are not even extended normally?

[@vasopel]

@@purplestrawberrysunset "retract at other times", those "other times" are when it flies at high altitude.

[@ntdscherer]

@@purplestrawberrysunset It was flying above right after takeoff

[@Haroun-El-Poussah]

@@purplestrawberrysunset There was no Mirage-III, fake news!

[@jh6031]

A very well done look at the Soviet approach to supersonic public transport. With a lot of footage I’ve never seen before, along with many new facts I wasn’t aware of, this look at the Tu-144 was an unexpected pleasure to watch. Thanks for the great content! Keep it up!

[@D3monL3A1]

As usual the idiots in the comments point out ejection seats but those were only for the test variants would not want to waste good pilots on an unrelable a nothing to do with the comercial versions

[@karlwalther]

Да кому это интересно?!

[@christianantonioburgospere7848]

​@@karlwalthera mi me importa....

[@villano9688]

Torryl Putin-lover detectado 🤬🤬😊😊😊

[@jskratnyarlathotep8411]

you're right. 50 hour lifetime for each of 4 engines, that's the real joke here =D

[@Radlschorsch]

@Anti-Fake-ul9oe nö die hatten nur zu wenig gut ausgebildete

[@doyoulikejazz9516]

"general believe that the soviets were technologically inferior, is widely overblown" directly followed by "yes they stole design documents, the technology was less sophisticated, the pilots knew the plane was dangerous" is pretty funny

[@juancarlostelleztellez5731]

no, is not...

[@dmitrybobrov]

“D” stands for Dalniy means distant. I flew on tu 144, 77112 to Khabarovsk. This plane is in Germany

[@cestaron634]

I must say that the end bit about the US and Russia working together for research on the Tu144 is how it should be. Working together to grow and learn.

[@alexander_d1277]

I agree. it should in theory. but what can you grow together with a homicidal maniac?

[@dianapennepacker6854]

We tried. It doesn't work. Programs when you work together between seem to just cost more with more hassle. I feel bad for the smart Russians. They all left the country. Doesn't seem like we will be seeing a competitor from them in a while if ever. I cannot believe the life span of the engines and frame compared to the Concord. I kinda wish he did a deep dive on why it is such a large discrepancy since the Soviets were not usually that far behind when they put their resources to it. Truly wild.

[@SN57ONE]

@@dianapennepacker6854 Thank your politicians for that one.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

@@SN57ONE Yeah politicans and buisnesses in each country crying and whining about getting a piece of the program. Then you have things like commmunication issues, and supply issues. "Hey Slovokia is in the program! They can design X part even though they suck at that part, and shipping costs will increase!" Anyway the buisnesses themselves are too blame too. All the small issues pile up. I read the supply chain behind joint programs between countries just simply is usually garbage.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

"The biggest waste of money in aviation history" Boeing: hold my beer

[@jpdemer5]

I don't think the A380 ever earned a profit for Airbus - how much they lost, overall, could be comparable to what Tupolev spent.

[@dmitryisakov8769]

Exactly. Plus F-35 comes to mind - supersonic money guzzler

[@rapidthrash1964]

Dassault Mercure: Hold my wine

[@evaluateanalysis7974]

@@dmitryisakov8769 It might be expensive, but it's streets ahead of any of your aircraft Ivan. Может быть, это и дороговато, но это на порядок выше любого вашего самолета Ивана.

[@evaluateanalysis7974]

@@jpdemer5...there is a slight difference. The A380 was a success as an aircraft.

[@engenius11]

The technologies that were tested on the Tu-144 formed part of the successful Tu-160 program, which quietly flies all 14,000 km in cruising mode, but can also be supersonic.

[@stabilo3170]

But the TU-160 is not a civil aircraft carrying 100 pax in a comfort like the Concorde and the engines have a very limited life.

[@engenius11]

@@stabilo3170 In the USSR, any advanced west programs were primarily considered from the point of view of military use against the USSR. And any projects usually had a dual purpose, especially those launched in the 50s and 60s. In the 70s, a separate civil aviation industry was already formed, but still civilian aircraft were built as dual-use - with a reinforced fuselage, chassis and proven, but old engines. By the end of the 80s, the industry began to deviate from the norms of the military, but by this time the economic situation of the USSR and political stability had been undermined. And in the 90s, the oligarchs and officials almost destroyed the industry because they could not finance it.

[@bibbr4137]

@@stabilo3170 to put it simply, supersonic passenger aircraft were just unfeasible in a communist economy. it was already a sinking ship in the west where only the wealthy was able to afford a flight, in a communist country it was pretty much unsustainable

[@KRAMITDFROG]

​@@engenius11 This is true. The Tu-95, which is still in use, had a civil counterpart, the Tu-114.

[@mickday1260]

@@stabilo3170Are you jealous at Russian airforce.

[@joe2mercs]

Almost every technical aspect of the Concorde was impressive. The comparative figures for air frame and engine service life of the two projects demonstrated that the Anglo French team fully understood what they were doing while their Soviet rivals did not. The Concorde team knew from the outset that the only reliable power unit they had to work with was the Roll Royce Olympus engine and therefore they effectively designed their airframe around it. The wings created high levels of lift at relatively slow landing speeds but also had low levels of drag at supersonic speeds and that also created a high pressure wave below the leading edge. The engine intakes were positioned to ‘feed’ off this high pressure wave to ensure that the engines were not starved of air. The engine intakes also included computer controlled ramps to slow down super sonic shock waves entering the engines to the subsonic speeds needed for efficient engine operation. The Soviets made overtures to have access to this technology but were denied. Anyone who saw and heard a Concorde will attest to its use of after-burners at takeoff but its long range flight capability required that the engines maintain Mach 2+ without use of after-burners.

[@marian7965]

Maybe the Tu-144 was not state of art plane, but on otherside, the lessons learned on that project wasn´t just waste of money. They learned a lot, and improve it, so much. Maybe not the best airliner, but definitely a milestone for another military projects, which cames like Tu-160 White Swan. So either you win, or you learn... Last thing, they did it, at least. Build it, maybe not perfect, but made it. And then NASA decades later cames to learn something. :)

[@andrewthornley5172]

I can understand why some people think this aircraft is a copy of the Concorde. But in reality if you are engineering two different aircraft to achieve the same goals, you are going to get something that looks similar. It is like saying a Ford car is a rip-off of a Toyota car because they both have four wheels and an engine.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

yes and no, while there will be some simularities to have something looks almost identical is insane. We have planes that do the same job and come in all shapes and sizes from wings tips, fuselage etc. even jet fighters look different. the thing is when a design proves to be the best at what it does thats when you get copy cats. The soviets were behind and they stole planes from concorde then they changed elements that fitted their design philosophy and manufacturing. If the USSR was capable of building top quality machinery mark my words they would have built a proper concorde knockoff.

[@MH-fb5kr]

the soviet’s also stole the Concordes design plans

[@-oysterthief4444]

The damn commies stole everything from the establishment, still do! Their economic model dissuades innovation but encourages the copycat model, but usually with more guns or engines… so it’s more better

[@JackF99]

The Soviets have been making copies of Western aircraft since just after World War II.

[@philgooddr.7850]

Backfire Tu 22 M3 used the same reactors, and is still in operations and being modernised ,,over 500 were built..the passager supersonic program helped Tupolev to develop improved bombers TU-22M3 and TU160 far better than previous TU22 Blinder. The Reactors from Klimov NK 144-22 derated coming from the TU 144 to Kouznetzov NK 22,NK23 puis NK25 , the reactors upgrades have been the main struggles for range and speed…the Tu 144 was also upgraded to Koliesev RD36-51 to reach Mach 2.15 on TU144D and finally in the late 1990 to the TU 160 bomber Kouznetzov NK321 turbofans for a top speed of Mach 2.3 on the TU 144 LL, a joint research program with NASA funds !!! But none of all those like the Concorde were commercially viable . A much lighter composite air frame flying higher and faster is required to regain some efficiency with thinner air around…and there also the conventional turbojet propulsion systems are also speed limited at Mach 2-2.4 …A Cryogenic liquid H2 to reach cruising speed and altitude which requires near 1/2 of the energy…is also a weight saving potential then cruising on kerosene as the airframe heats up..there the current Boom program is not ambitious enough,,

[@hashimbenhashim5417]

Are you sure it was the biggest waste of money in aviation history?

[@lioneljacrot8523]

Le principal défaut du TU144 par rapport au Concorde, c'était ses réacteurs qui nécessitaient de conserver la postcombustion pour maintenir le vol supersonique, il en résultait un énorme bruit en cabine et une consommation effrayante qui limitait le rayon d'action. Pour le reste il n'y a pas grand chose à dire, Le Concorde a aussi été fabriqué à 15 exemplaires est est donc tout autant un gâchis d'argent. Les Américains ont lâchés l'affaire car ils ont réalisé plus tôt que le projet n'était pas viable.

[@christianshields4164]

Not What You Think Narrator: Just like that DC8 made history you can make your own mark in the skies with War Thunder!! Me: Smoooottthhh!

[@Rotorhead1651]

It was also the first supersonic commercial jet TO CRASH.

[@garymilne8900]

one crash in 27 years still makes it the safest jet in the skies, you bell end.

[@RonSchuurman-td7yj]

Well it had to be one or the other as there were only two of them and lets be real they both crashed once.

[@userhessenone1469]

​@@RonSchuurman-td7yjwrong, Tu 144 crashed twice

[@Bamoceanographic]

Good, but not all in this documentary is factually correct. The sight of the French Mirage as a factor in the 1973 crash was never proven.

[@eugenesuhanov104]

Actually, the Concorde was a bigger money pit than the TU-144, not only they were sold at a symbolic quid to the 2 respective airlines rendering the entire R&D worthless, but they also operated at a consistent loss for over 27 years. The Concorde, together with the A380 are regarded as one the biggest money failures in the aviation industry.

[@paulqueripel3493]

British Airways made £500 million profit (after tax) on Concorde operations between 1982 and 2000.

[@Guspech750]

Wow. To be a pilot who had flow both the Concord and TU144 is something special.

[@ВасилийКоровин-г9э]

11:00 Crash was not due to collision avoidance. That flight was before load testing of airframe, so it couldn't withstand 4g. And the aircraft was in experimental state, so some command lines were connected through a patch panel. And cabin engineer connected it wrong, so in certain moment canards went to extreme position and plane made a turn experiencing 4.5g. 18:30 "Dorabotaniy" ("Доработанный") means "upgraded". "Finished" would be "Законченный" ("Zakoncheniy").

[@richardvanberghem4881]

bonjour j'ai vu le TU exploser en plein vol à ce moment il était en piqué , l'avion aurait décroché et tentait de reprendre de la vitesse pour voler les forte contrainte aurait casser la cellule en deux suivie d'une boule de feux dans le ciel . le crash c'est fait sur la petite ville de Dugny tuant plusieurs personnes .

[@ccdd9298]

@@richardvanberghem4881 sur Goussainville pas Dugny !!!

[@TCBElvisAPresley]

Despite the issues with the Tu-144 (and the Concorde), I gotta say -- they were both _seriously cool_ looking planes.

[@znarqamshlu6720]

بارك اللة فيك 👍👍كانك موهاندز وا ميكانيكي الكونكر علا شرحك 💐💞👍

[@EdMcF1]

I heard a story that after the crash, the Politburo demanded reports from the Paris KGB and GRU residencies. The GRU had loads of people at the show with cine cameras, and the KGB guys weren't interested. Andropov, then KGB head asked the GRU boss for one film from the show so he had something for the Politburo. The GRU guy said. 'Chairman Andropov, I'll not give you one film, I'll copy them all and send them to you for 10 am tomorrow, after we've shown the Politburo them at 9.30.' Andropov slammed down the phone.

[@darrenwalters6339]

I recon the Boeing 2707 has to be up there with one of the biggest waste of money in aviation, over a billion dollars spent on it (that’s like 7 billion dollars today) and they only managed to make a wooden mock up version of it

[@AndyBonesSynthPro]

Probably one thing accelerating to the inevitable doom of Tu-144- especially as a propaganda tool was their missed opportunity to give it a real name, something memorable & elegant like "Concorde". Concordski became its not-so-dignified moniker, a bit of a jab, at a pretty impressive- yet reckless attempt to upstage Western innovation. The fact that the USSR was even able to put something like this in the air with their massive financial & technological limitations is commendable. But you can see the cut-corners of the Tupolev just looking at the two supersonic airliners from a distance. Concorde is absolutely gorgeous, refined, brimming with quality and superior engineering, and obviously its track record, however ludicrously expensive & unattainable for the masses. It's still a monument to Western achievement in aerospace excellence. The Tu-144 is also a sight to behold, but it is visibly rough around the edges, looking like something built with extreme aspirations and vastly overextended means. The shapes, panels, engine clusters/ nacelles, even the visible rivets- like most Soviet aircraft ring of a rushed prototype greenlit into production. That characteristic still plagues modern russian efforts at attempting some level of tech parity with US & European machines, even if it's just for showcase & political theatre. It does make for some very interesting, sort of bizarre artifacts of desperate cultural aspiration to achieve similar feats of innovation. I do salute the men & women who made these things possible under the immense pressure of authoritarian demands, and little reward for their impressive work.

[@cesarvidelac]

I watched an interview made during the 90s to the son of Andrei Tupolev, he said that KGB forced his father to use the Intel that KGB stole from France. He had almost completed the engineering of the wings but the Party wanted to accelerate the completion of the prototype so they coerced him to get the work done using that data. He was a genius, no doubt, but Soviet engineers were always pressed to the point of risking being accused of treason, like Bartini and Koroliev.

[@mothmagic1]

Many years ago BBC ran a mini series of 4 programmes entitled The Story Behind The Headlines or something like that. The story of the Tu144 was one of them. Another was how Israel managed to build their own Mirage's after France refused to sell them more than the test airframes they had provided. What the other 2 were about I can't remember.

[@engenius11]

Tell your great story to Edward Snowden or Julian Assange

[@alexander_d1277]

@@engenius11you drank to much copium, go home troll

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

Nevermind of course the fact that he was arrested and then "detained" in a Secretive NKVD(pre-KGB) Design Bureau for like 6 years between 1938 and 1944 and you can twist that to push any narrative as these "documentaries" usually do. I mean the KGB hasn't existed since 1993 and people in Western countries still talk about it like it still exists.

[@ccdd9298]

@@mothmagic1Dassault is not his real name 😁😁😁

[@DemonioDorado]

The eye seats were for the TU-144 testing phase. It is epic to have to comment on something so logical. They had their similarities but the Concoder and the Tu-144 were very different. Likewise both were a failure, except that the Concorde was much more beautiful and carried out several commercial flights.- Likewise in What respects in Copy and Paste no country is saved. Since the fall of Nazism, a large part of the military projects of the United States and the Soviet Union were projects or designs carried out by Nazi engineers and designers. As it is also public knowledge that the United States, after the fall of the USSR, used many of their designs. Without going that far the f35... fully designed and applied in the YAK 141. China does exactly the same with the Russian/Soviet and North American designs... And I'm sorry, but the top 1 in waste has been the f35... 18 years since its first flight and devouring money without reaching a final phase without problems.. If this were the result of a Russian fighter we would already know that we would all agree :)

[@newIrons]

I bought a model of this from a german museum that had this parked on the roof. It is still one of my favorite models.

[@gerritvanderozenberg5166]

TU 144 was operational before the concorde, Nasa used them for year after the concorde was decomissioned and the TU144 was used for supersonic testing

[@jkbrbc]

There are both aircrafts few meters apart in one german museum. Cockpit of TU-144 was like a being in ww2 submarine - really messy compare to Concorde. I can't imagine how brave pilots must have been to fly over mach 2 with this machine. Wild engineering. Clarkson: POWEEEEER!

[@rebelgaming1.5.14]

Second aircraft being a totally different design? Sounds a lot like the Tu-22 and Tu-22M. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[@ucruci]

Did the Soviets seriously think that if successful, the West would have bought their supersonic passenger jets in large numbers??

[@ragelorenz2776]

I wish I would've able to see the Concorde. This jet is the reason I fell in luv with the SR-71..

[@doctorstrangelove9487]

I wouldn’t go that far it was an effort to build a SST and they succeeded. May be ahead of its time, may be it didn’t have commercial market value back then but doesn’t take away all the hard work and engineering that went toward the project.

[@guarami1]

Who else clicks "LIKE" before the video even starts? Love this guy!!

[@stolaire]

>The Biggest Waste of Money in Aviation History You need a reminder about Boeing 2707, that not even built and almost bankrupted Boeing?

[@elv202]

Don't Cry Commie Baby

[@sananselmospacescienceodys7308]

How about the A380?

[@calebemerson9317]

I’m pretty sure that was funded by the taxpayer. Also I’m pretty sure it was the 747 project that almost did Boeing in because most of the R&D was out of their own pocket… well I think it turned out alright for them.

[@paulqueripel3493]

​@@calebemerson9317it was the 747 that nearly bankrupted Boeing, because, as you said, they mostly financed it themselves (with some help from Pan-Am). The taxpayers were funding the sst, with the cream of Boeing's engineers (well, they thought they were) working on it.

[@aa.8823]

18:30 it's not really "finished", but more like "improved". Also suits better.

[@Klemmbaustein-Messi]

22:00 Rob Rivers was the only pilot who flies the TU-144 and Concorde. And the technic museum Sinsheim in Germany is the onliest museum wich has both airplanes 🤗

[@penduloustesticularis1202]

"The Tu144 had ejection seats for the pilots", - leaving the passengers to figure things out for themselves. 🤣🤣

[@huskydaddy-y5y]

What? I can’t hear you the engines are so loud!! I said PASS THE VODKA WE’RE GOING DOWN!!!!

[@robtrawick1]

@@huskydaddy-y5y 🤣

[@blacklightretro]

during test flights (that's what they were for, then) there weren't passengers until later, alexei.

[@ИгорьЦибизов-в4ф]

Why sad to you this shit? Or when you reed it? I think your brain need ejection seats bro 😂

[@tonyhenthorn3966]

I don't believe the Tu-144 was a "dumb" idea at the time. It looked like the future of commercial air travel was supersonic. "Detente" with the West meant America and its allies might be open to buying Soviet made products, including planes. The Boeing SST started late, and the US Senate pulled the plug on it, creating a "vacuum" for such aircraft should demand for them have grown. The USSR needed export money from more sources than just certain minerals, natural gas, oil, and weapons, for the vast country was a net food importer. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now know Mach busting jets, be they American, European, or Soviet in origin, didn't make good business sense for the airlines.

[@tz8785]

Maybe, but the Tu-144 was a rush job and it showed. Cabin noise during flight made conversations impossible, it was plagued by mechanical trouble and the thirsty engines resulted in a fairly short range (although that one was improved before the model was withdrawn). There were only a bit more than 100 commercial flights.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

All SSTs are a "dumb" idea... Concorde was the biggest failure in commercial aviation history and destroyed the UK aircraft industry... Boeing and the Americans with far more knowledge and experience in supersonic aircraft realized that SSTs were not commercially viable, Boeing built the 747 instead and the rest is history. Today Boeing is the largest aerospace manufacturer in the world while the British? no longer make any jet aircraft!

[@evaluateanalysis7974]

It wasn't a dumb idea, but it was a dumb aeroplane.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@tz8785 All SSTs were a dumb idea... Concorde was also ultimately a failure, and its dead-end concept saw no commercial sales or follow-up designs. The Concorde has been plagued with technical and safety issues from day one and was eventually grounded due to serious safety related design defects that were deliberately covered up for years.

[@moel8230]

As a German I want to listen this clip in english!

[@vincentreim8962]

Einstellung>Audiotrack>Englisch

[@RGBcrafter]

the german track is weird

[@louis2303]

I hate taht it always switches back to the german audio track, even if I set my location AND language to english :( so annoying

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Hey, just curious, does it sound weird in German, or is it the translation? Basically, if you could only understand German, would you be able to watch the video? Thanks!!

[@ldIezz]

@@NotWhatYouThink Congrats on 3 million!!

[@lukeleung8505]

Thanks!

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Thanks very much for your support!

[@georgigeorgiev6756]

From a practical point of view, the Concorde is also a failure. High maintenance costs, the price of fuel, expensive tickets and a small number of destinations are some of the negatives. The only companies operating the Concorde are British Airways and Air France, despite the big advertising campaign. In fact, every flight of the Concorde, as well as of the Tu-144, was carried out at a loss. Only a small circle of people could afford to fly on this type of aircraft, which led to a gradual decrease in the number of flights. After the single accident in 2022, the cost of maintaining the aircraft became impossible for the operating companies as well as the imposed requirements for noise and fuel due to which Concorde flights were finally suspended in 2003. While the Soviet authorities realized this point, therefore the Tu-144 did not perform for a long time civilian flights and was decommissioned at the expense of more conventional aircraft such as Tu-154, IL-62. The problem with the Concorde, however, comes from the fact that the two companies have agreements to operate the aircraft for a certain period of time due to the investment in development. From an engineering point of view, both aircraft are mechanical masterpieces. At a later stage, the Tu-144 was used by NASA to perform experimental flights.

[@williammurphy3766]

At the small aviation museum east of Gloucester, 110 miles west of London, there is a model of Concorde in Lufthansa colours. A fascinating relic of the German airline's interest in possibly operating a supersonic service from Frankfurt or Berlin to Tokyo. Unfortunately, as it would have to land two or three times to refuel, it would have taken as long as a modern airliner flying non stop.

[@georgigeorgiev6756]

​@@williammurphy3766 Yes, Lufthansa has shown interest by ordering 3 aircraft and making the payments on the order. After perhaps realizing what the operating costs would be, they refused the order and were refunded.

[@paulqueripel3493]

Every flight made a loss? BA made £500 million in profit between 1982 and 2000 on Concorde flights, not sure how they did if every flight made a loss.

[@georgigeorgiev6756]

@ And the developing program costs 1.5-2.1 billion. From 1976 to 1982 they flew at a loss, the first year with profit. And profit from 300 k for month just from one plane is not that grateful. When you have the other airlines making more with less expensive aircraft’s

[@abdel0127]

Not What You Think non ce n'est pas gaspillage d'argent c'est surtout surtout une bonne expérience pour faire autre chose pour faire avancer la technologie

[@Delirium132231]

Love your pronunciation of 'dorabotaniy', sound like some remote village name in deep forest with population of 13.5 people :) More precise translation will be 'revised' I guess

[@superhover]

Dorabotanny means combination of fixed/improved. I wonder that the abbreviation was even possible because it assumes that the previous model wasn't good enough 😅

[@Chastity_Belt]

I'm not even sure that it is right explanation. Traditionally, soviet planes (and even some missiles) got letter D for "dalniy", in american tradition it is equivalent of ER for "extended range". And indeed Tu-144D was exactly that - a version with extended range compared to standard version. Similarly, letter S in Tu-144S means "seriniy" or "serial", meaning it's a production model. In most cases letter S doesn't even used, for example Su-27S can often be named as just Su-27, which is not exactly right, because Su-27 - is name of pre-production series of planes, basically a prototypes.

[@Delirium132231]

Chill guys, I’m native speaker of russian, I know what “dorabotaniy” means:)

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

Redesigned Upgraded Improved

[@PresidentEvil]

mom: we have concord at home

[@huskydaddy-y5y]

Yes, I know dear but that cheap POS is broken again, now drink your vodka you’re gonna be late for school.

[@krapeevids6992]

That was the most in-depth study on this plane I’ve ever seen. Good job.

[@holgersinger3722]

Das Ding ist bis 1978 noch von Scheremetjewo nach Sibirien Linie geflogen. Danach wurden noch zwei Exemplare bis Ende der 80iger flugbereit gehalten, kamen aber nur noch für das Raumfahrtprogramm der SU sporadisch zum Einsatz. Gutes Video.

[@krystalmae5557]

Still waiting for the video "I visited the most incapable ship in the us navy"

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Might be a long wait!

[@krystalmae5557]

@@NotWhatYouThink its ok i dont mind waiting

[@worldwanderer91]

Thar would be the LCS and Zumwalt-class

[@krystalmae5557]

@@worldwanderer91 he's already done videos on those

[@wind0eseal]

@@NotWhatYouThink can you come do a tour of coast guard cutter Munro?

[@tipptop9]

My two favourite aircraft all in one video. I visited both crash sites near CDG. TU144 in Goussainville and Concorde in Gonesse, about 4km away from each other 😢

[@ninjaman0003]

But did the snoop droop?!

[@eliaspeter7689]

Yes. ^^

[@PauloMarcioAraujo]

Yes

[@FernandoG-gj3dd]

At least someone told this story objectively how it really was. If they had actually stolen technology from Concorde, they would have started by stealing the engine plans.

[@GranMarquez]

An aircraft that is so bad that its own design bureau wanted to cancel it. In Tupolev's opinion, it was taking resources that were needed for more urgent civil aviation projects. ...

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Boeing knew SSTs were dumb... they built the 747 instead..

[@carlosmejia5728]

Now talk about the french concord that was a technomogical and economic failure 😂😂😂

[@Foquro]

There is absolutely no way this was the biggest waste of money in the history of aviation

[@eggboi6760]

Fellas, it’s a trap. *DON’T install War Thunder if you value your sanity 😭😭😭* Take it from me - 4000 hours 💀

[@rol_rob2603]

Is it too addictive?

[@daisiesofdoom]

I walked through one of these things in the sinsheim technical museum in germany. Impressive retro interior.

[@garycombs5721]

Even though it was expensive, odds are the USSR gained valuable knowledge during its R&D. That’s what most Americans do not appreciate about the Spruce Goose. The R&D advancements to build that Spruce Goose prototype almost single-handedly made jumbo aviation possible, especially in the development of its hydraulic system.

[@TarahVanessa]

Man I can’t wait for supersonic air travel to come back just not like that Thing

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Too inefficient, complicated and needless.

[@TarahVanessa]

@@alexturnbackthearmy1907tell that to boom supersonic and see what they say

[@alexandernorton693]

Did it go through 27 engines or 27 pairs of 4 engines?

[@killer3883]

No elevators, it had a rudder

[@faisal1777]

Tupolev Tu-144 was actually a very first Aircraft of its kind. While this communist aircraft was in the making only then the west thought of creating something similar resulting in the actual Concord. The Concorde built by Europeans was actually a mere score setting exercise during cold war. Communists were head to head with the west when it came to technology, education, research and were actually ahead in many fields. So much so, one Tupolev Tu-144 was bought by NASA many years ago for it's own supersonic aviation experiments.

[@billg7813]

I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to buy USSR hardware, only being forced to buy it

[@huskydaddy-y5y]

Is good plane, I promise!!!

[@ccdd9298]

That was also what the Challenger crew said...

[@DeltaEnjoyer]

Obviously the western people will call it a “waste of money”

[@alexander_d1277]

yeah, they are pretty good at stating the obvious.

[@GorgeDawes]

Because it was.

[@DeltaEnjoyer]

@@GorgeDawes 😂

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

They love their stereotypes and prejudices.

[@michaeld4676]

1:16 ❤ Love the little channel flash there

[@wolfgangbistekos4596]

War früher am Flughafen tätig, hatte die Concorde ein paar mal gesehen, unglaublich dieser Vogel

[@uselesshero]

Knowing what we know now, Concord itself was a commercial failure also, perhaps a bigger one than just not being very good. The thing burst into flames...

[@Maurice_Moss]

It flew for 27 years and had very few issues along the way. The crash was caused by debris on the runway that wasn't cleared up that ruptured its fuel tank. Might want to get your facts straight.

[@nicdig6686]

Tu 144 e Concorde saranno ricordati per sempre. per quel che mi riguarda grazie alle aziende per averli costruiti .

[@PenskePC17]

Usually projects like this have major benefits even if they dont work out because of the breakthroughs that occur while development is going on.

[@MarySusan-rq1yh]

Hallelujah 🙌🏻!!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🏻🙌🏻. I was owing a loan of $49,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery, Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $11,000 and got my payout of $290,500 every month…God bless Mrs Susan Jane Christy ❤️

[@DevinTaylor-kr9fk]

Hello!! how do you make such monthly, I’m a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself 😭 because of low finance but I still believe God

[@PaulaMorgan-nn6wb]

Thanks to my co-worker (Carson ) who suggested Ms Susan Jane Christy

[@DanielKay-ey6uh]

After I raised up to 525k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery….Glory to God, shalom.

[@Meganfinch-dt2qt]

Can I also do it??? My life is facing lots of challenges lately

[@Nelsonparker-tl4sw]

I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of KZbin videos about it but I still find it hard to understand

[@MichaelRoy-hc3lz]

Actually the Concord never made a cent. I don't think supersonic passenger was a failure. It was just too far ahead of it's time for the infrastructure

[@sananselmospacescienceodys7308]

If you average it out all the airlines of the world combined never made a dollar in profit.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@sananselmospacescienceodys7308 Concorde is the biggest financial failure in commercial aviation history, Concorde was a 3.5 billion colossal failure.

[@olysean92]

Ejection seats in a loaded passenger aircraft is hilarious to me.

[@userhessenone1469]

it was only on ghetto first airframe

[@huskydaddy-y5y]

Wouldn’t you want a ejection seat in a inferior built pos that constantly breaks down?

[@viking7084]

Commercial means "a company or individual that sells a product or service for PROFIT" something governments don't understand.

[@joaoluizguimaraesfranco282]

Excelente vídeo. Muita informação sobre o Tu 144. Parabéns.

[@9dvds]

nah no one can beat the USA in over spending (b2)

[@el_primo5457]

Noise plane ✈ = farting freely 😂

[@lightning76]

"was built for propaganda purposes" - is an amusing argument. Next: they built a spaceship for propaganda purposes

[@eleypvr7294]

so true. For having seen and been inside both in a museum, the Tu144 was much larger and spacious. Rumors say it crashed because of a mirage III getting a little too close, would make sense for the french to observe their competitor, even better to crash them.

[@kronk9418]

Ah yes, because the Soviet Union was definitely known to be completely utilitarian and immune to propaganda-fueled projects.

[@peterflohr7827]

Why amusing? If it never was able to carry a meaningful amount of passengers what was the purpose?

[@Aurochs330]

Yes, the airplane that was rushed in development to beat the upcoming announcement of the Concorde in the west… totally not propaganda! Sacrifice safety and quality for political image, so they can say they did it first! Totally not propaganda!

[@syntactyx]

⁠@lightning366 @@eleypvr7294 lmao, did either of you bots even watch the video? the aircraft was a piece of junk. only flew 55 flights with passengers on it and had *hundreds* of malfunctions. cope harder.

[@العندليب-ق1ق]

سبحان الله وبحمده عدد خلقه ورضا نفسه وزنة عرشه ومداد كلماته ❤❤❤شكرا لكم على الترجمة و للنطق باللغة العربية بالذكاء الصناعي❤❤

[@Afuru1]

The concord remains a marvel of engineering. What can you say about the concordski?... A marveleski perhaps.😅