The First Concorde Crash was Soviet

[@chodeoriki4113]

“Not one but two crash landings” that my friend is a plane disintegrating mid flight, not a crash landing....

[@andrewsstation6436]

Todoroki Owo Exactly! You took the thoughts out of my head!

[@heatherk2009]

I mean technically it landed, just not in one piece

[@Dice005]

Heather Kleineweber hahaha good one

[@lestatangel]

Todoroki Owo - technically it was an unscheduled disassembly of an aircraft in flight.

[@kentao4]

LOL right! Way to soften the situation.

[@CooperJohnson01]

French: it seems a lot quieter then the Concorde. Russia; yes cause we have thrown all the sound into the cabin.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

More like the afterburners weren't on for the show, only to sustain supersonic flight. The Concorde succeeded in an economic sense because it didn't need afterburners to sustain supersonic flight.

[@MrTuxy]

@@chrisantoniou4366 economic sense? Concord needed to be subsidised by tax payers money from France and the UK to make it viable.

[@turdferguson353]

WHAT!?!?

[@christianlabanca5377]

@@turdferguson353 yeah that's true... actually only British airways made profit of it and that's because the planes were bought by the British government so they were free for them

[@turdferguson353]

@@christianlabanca5377 I was making a joke about how loud the TU-144 was lol

[@listerdave1240]

This just goes to show how far ahead Soviet technology was. They managed to crash a Concorde (of sorts) a full 28 years ahead of their European rivals

[@henley_parker]

They literally stole the blueprints for the concorde from the french and british

[@yoshistar100]

@Prince Harambe If you're talking about jets both the Germans and Brits developed jets at basically at the same time, not that it matters this whole argument is pretty childish anyways lol

[@yoshistar100]

They where simultaneous inventions although the British guy had patented his design 7 years before the German guy, again not that it matters, the actual guys ended up as friends after the war

[@yoshistar100]

@Prince Harambe uh no it didn't lol

[@yoshistar100]

@Prince Harambe you should probably look up Frank Whittle and the Gloster Meteor

[@AndreySloan_is_a_cnut]

The Paris Airshow accident can NOT be categorized as a “crash landing,” it was an inflight structural failure and breakup.

[@AlanpittsS2a]

Yeah it was a straight up crash

[@patson420]

@@AlanpittsS2a uneducated, narrowminded AND murican. You got it all 🥱😂

[@Backoffboogaloo]

The bits landed, so I’ll call it a crash landing 😂

[@lzbhcvm6747]

Russian propaganda plane never flies lol

[@ralphe5842]

Well it did land just in piece’s

[@angelogandolfo6374]

“The Communist version of the Concorde”...... the “Comm-Cord”??

[@faekapira]

they called it the concordski but that could work too

[@angelogandolfo6374]

@ad Oh yeah, I like it! LoL!

[@lauris5356]

Our Commcorde

[@iexist3153]

Maybe

[@karbonkai]

Sounds like something you'd use with your radio

[@93KAPLAN]

I was 14 in 1973 and I was at Le Bourget show. Just before the accident of the TU 144, it flew over our head and a few seconds later crashed. What do I remember? the terrible silence of all people, disbelieving what happened...

[@kthall500]

I was there to. Rucking horrifying. I remember screaming after a good 15 seconds. That was imprinted on my mind. It was horrifying.

[@trapmfnicc3022]

You guys said this like someone asked

[@theprinceofmemes5228]

@@trapmfnicc3022 shut up this is not a group this is comments

[@Ven0mSRT]

@@trapmfnicc3022 You said this like someone asked

[@jccarranza96]

“The Test Pilot may be at risk...” “If he dies, he dies”.

[@pressstart1490]

*DRAGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*

[@111highgh]

You will lose.

[@Jay-im3qj]

Juan Ca 😂😂😂 yab sib yah

[@khantaung5442]

Hmm the floor is made out of floor

[@kitchenjail3546]

"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem." -Joseph Stalin

[@ChristianPauchet]

I am one of the fortunate humans on Earth to have had the privilege to fly from Caracas to Paris on the Concorde with my father as a young child back in the 1970's, It's still, to this day, the most awesome experience I've ever had. This beautiful bird got us there in 6 hours instead of 11 by the way. Simply amazing.

[@TrueLoveNetwork]

The tech is available to go three times faster and using much less power. Unfortunately, no government wants to allow this tech to be used, because oil prices would plummet.

[@johnprice5784]

Concorde was a brief success? 27 years of scheduled commercial flights is a bit more than brief mate.

[@ericscaillet2232]

😂

[@dryan8377]

@newagetojo Perfectly said.

[@The-Tall-Photographer]

And Concord didn't crash because of poor design. After nearly 30 years of service it was more a fluke that caused it's demise.

[@ferael0013]

Concorde was very inefficient. The idea was a success but it quickly proved to be impossible to open it to wider audiences

[@TW-mc9wk]

Concord Was the most awe inspiring vision . Used to love it taking off over the M25 when I was driving to get to the M1

[@firefightergoggie]

8:42 "failed Bell X-1 program"? Huh? Some fact checking needs to be done here, boys. The X-1 broke the sound barrier. It was an incredible and historical success. Credibility factor for this channel went down to zero.

[@OnKeyboards]

yes

[@bertiesworld]

"The X-1 broke the sound barrier". Only with the help of the British. One reason never trust an American to keep their side of the deal. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

[@spazmodicusrex6629]

@@bertiesworld The "flying tail" design that was essential to flying above the speed of sound was built into the plane (Bell X-1) when the plane was built. It wasn't added-on later. It was actually locked in place to favor the traditional elevator design of earlier planes. When the test team came to realize the feature was already built into the plane, they decided to see how it flew with it "unlocked". They then discovered that is was a key design feature to supersonic flight. Whether the design was implemented before or after the British shared information showing a similar tail mechanism design is debatable.

[@THESLlCK]

@@bertiesworld Oh like the UK paying its debts from world war 1? LOL

[@mattyjc931]

"Just wait until you see us fly, then you'll see something" *plane crashes*

[@umbra9628]

That's Russia for ya

[@pauld.b7129]

He wasn't wrong. You can put that on his gravestone lmao.

[@DGP406]

the fool jinxed himself

[@mitchbennett6019]

Hold my beer-ski

[@allanaddams9209]

big OOF

[@ANDATV1]

I saw a Tupolev unit in a German museum. The exterior was spectacular, but the interior was not so much, the electricity cables were covered in oiled paper, the connections were made of the typical white ceramic that you can find in a lamp holder. It looked as if it had been built by an electrician in the 1920s.

[@killmoreturtles]

Yeah.. because they stole the design of the Concorde.. but they couldn't replicate it exactly. They also rushed the plane out, because I guess that was their way of saying ' see , we are first to fly it, so how could we have stolen the design'.

[@РавильГимранов-б1ц]

Ничего советские инженеры не крали. Вы идиоты. Это американцы все 90е изучали ту144 чтобы, что нибудь похожее сделать...

[@GRom86]

@@killmoreturtles Soviets didnt stole anything. They create beautiful plane, none can ever made. Also american engineers tried hard to copy TU144...

[@joeyvanostrand3655]

​@@РавильГимранов-б1ц I understand your patriotism but as much as my country sucks dogballs right now, the US has been at the absolute tip of the spear of technological innovation. Especially aviation. Being the first to burn up a dog in the atmosphere or liquify a Cosmonaut by slamming him into the ground at terminal velocity inside an irradiated soup can, or this fuggin' jalopy in the video here. Exposed wiring inside a deafening, poorly constructed an just plain deadly paper towel tube with engines and what you folks call"wings". Your country has been behind all throughout history because your government chose a failed political ideology that has its basis and basic principles mired in theft and deception. I do like the idea that Putin FINALLY decided to do something about that dm vess put, the Ukraine. They've had it coming for some time. Lie, cheat, and break oaths and promises before it comes back to bite the hands and the ass of those responsible and on the way.

[@andreytolmachev1435]

​​@@РавильГимранов-б1ц Их мозги промыты их "свободной прессой". Их не переубедить даже тем фактом, что первый полёт Ту-144 состоялся на несколько месяцев раньше первого полёта Конкорда.

[@JeffreyOsb]

The plane was never designed to be aerobatic, all their silly attempts at "looking cool" cost them their lives and their reputations.

[@angryagain68]

Life is dirt cheap in communist countries.

[@Gunners_Mate_Guns]

Hold my brewski, comrade!

[@IanTaylor_1]

Yep. That's typical of Russians who are all ego and no substance. Losers.

[@Nafregamisrocanob]

First, as an eye witness to the crash at the 1973 Paris air show, i can point out that Bob Hoover is correct; the Concorde took off first and was performing low altitude maneuvers that the Tu-144 tried to copy when it took to the sky. Secondly, the plane is NOT referred to as the Two One Forty Four, it’s the Tu-144, T. U. refers to Tupolev. Lastly, as a photographers assistant for Aviation Week Magazine at the time, I can tell you that Aerospatiale knew that the USSR stole designs because all the writers talked about it.

[@Kanamit.]

@@Nafregamisrocanob Great inside information. Thanks for your post.

[@thetigerstripes]

"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Any landing you can walk away from AND use the aircraft again is a GREAT landing."

[@leeroyholloway4277]

depending on how low your standards are

[@linanicolia1363]

old saying.......very old.

[@Jlinwoodjackson]

Shul

[@randallcline1176]

Jimmy Doolittle said that if the number of landings equals the number of takeoffs then it's a good day.

[@Redridge07]

@The tiger's Stripes Very low standards, too funny!

[@SubvenioArguo]

The crash of the "Real" Concorde was caused by a puncture to one of it's tyres caused by a metal strip that had fallen from a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off from the same runway five minutes previously. This wear strip had been replaced at Tel Aviv, Israel, on 11 June 2000, and then again at Houston, Texas, on 9 July 2000. The strip installed in Houston had been neither manufactured nor installed in accordance with the procedures as defined by the manufacturer.

[@lbowsk]

You need to do some more research. There was a LOT more to the crash than that strip.

[@SK-le1gm]

Thanks you just saved me a bunch of tin foil hat research XD i was thinking, who was on that plane, and why did the elite want them killed??? sabotage would explain it too. just like the titanic, a culling of some pesky elite that didn't like the Plan. Anyway this explanation seems quite reasonable, thank you.

[@SK-le1gm]

@@lbowsk oh hai wot?? link please ! thanks

[@John-er9di]

@@SK-le1gm the main reason was this metal strip-Pilot Mentour has a good video on the crash

[@srccde]

@@lbowsk The metal strip punctured a tyre which exploded as a result so that parts of it hit the fuel tank in the wing puncturing it too. This led to a massive fuel leak that was quickly ignited by sparks caused by the tyre explosion and debris. This led to a loss of power after having reached V1 speed. The pilots were forced to lift off but, due to the damage inflicted and the limited power available, were subsequently unable to get the plane to a safe altitude. Eventually, the fire took out the left side controls and the plane went down into a hotel. What "more" happened in your mind?

[@terrycrusader]

At the aviation museum at Sinshiem in Germany there is an ex air france concorde and the soviet version next to each other mounted on poles like they're taking off,its a great place to visit.

[@SuperNawn]

At 6:02 you can see a picture of them at the museum

[@waynejuckts66]

Sinsheim is correct 😉 Technikmuseum.

[@jlo7770]

@@SuperNawn lmao it looks like the one plane is giving the other doggy. Haha Russians buying secret plans, what else is new? They did it for the atomic bombs why not planes... we all know the Russians.. they are our beotches

[@Blfrw]

When I returned to my hotel after the show I turned on Paris TV. After a while, they showed an aft view of the acft/full screen. As it reached the top of the zoom climb and started to push over, something shot up out of the left wing. The wing folded up, the acft went sideways and broke into three pieces. Bob Hoover, who had flown in the show was in one of the Chalets. It was reported that when he saw the acft. enter the steep climb, he grabbed a photographer and told him to start shooting because he is not going to make it. The Concorde had made an impressive climb after a touch-and-go. he came in and parked so that the TU-144 could make a slow fly-by with gear and flaps down. The crowd could then get a picture of the two acft as it passed. It was out of this "dirty" configuration that the TU-144 attempted to outperform the Concorde. I never read anything about that close-up view that I saw on Paris TV.

[@ShermanHerman]

For everyone who lives in germany - you can check out both, the Tupolev and the Concorde side by side including the interior in the Museum in Sinsheim. Fantastic Display of real planes there.

[@MrTomyCJ]

That's a nice tip, thanks!

[@DT-cd2pd]

Since when has the X1 program been considered a “failed” program

[@sheevone4359]

I don't know but maybe he meant the Boeing SST program

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@Sir Tristan >>> What do you mean?

[@potatofuryy]

Its darkdocs they dont seem to fact check

[@R_an_D]

Whuuut? Fail? I had to back this up to see if I heard correctly. We're past mach 3 anyway, and that's just in the atmosphere. The competition is a speck in the mirror.

[@jfan4reva]

Since July 6, 2019 when a poorly informed You Tuber who relies on conspiracy theories said so. Just another "Everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to it" internet moment.

[@eightiesisgold3600]

For those who don't know yet, there is a Concorde aircraft at the Manchester UK airport museum, where you can board the aircraft and also have a tour of its cockpit. Its even available for your own private small gathering event such as a wedding or conference.

[@simonvucko8756]

There is a Concorde and a TU-144 in Sinsheim technical museum. In both you can go inside …

[@DMETS519]

@@simonvucko8756 And there is a space shuttle on display on the west side of Manhattan on the Intrepid aircraft carrier. A shame how such modern technology is now on display in museums as relics.

[@derekheeps8012]

there is actually a Concorde just parked , not preserved , at Heathrow , just lying out in the weather and rotting away . Most other Concordes in museums have had engines removed and are no longer viable aircraft , but the French do have one Concorde which is still intact and taxi-able .

[@craigclaassen7346]

There is the Concorde test bed aircraft at Duxford

[@derekheeps8012]

You can also visit the one at the Museum of Flight , East Fortune , which is preserved indoors with lots of relevant exhibits all around it .

[@ultrametric9317]

The Bell X-1 was not a failure. It was a huge success. In fact it was the first supersonic airplane in 1948. The US never had a supersonic passenger plane. Boeing got pretty far with a design for what would have been the 2707, but construction never began. A full-scale mockup was created. It is at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle.

[@AtomicExtremophile]

True, because the X-1 was clearly stolen design features of the M-52...the Yanks reneged on an agreement to share supersonic research, a pact the UK stupidly adhered to.

[@MarsFKA]

Years ago, I saw a documentary on passenger aircraft that included a discussion on the development of super sonic passenger aircraft. One of the Concorde designers said the Americans wanted to fly at Mach 3, rather than the Mach 2 that the Concorde was being built to do. The lower speed for Concorde meant that it could be built with conventional materials, like aluminium, while the higher speeds that the Americans were aiming for would mean higher temperatures that aluminium could not handle. Therefore, the American designs would need more exotic materials, like titanium. The Americans realised that the project was going to cost more than it would be worth and cancelled their SST. That left only Concorde to do the trans-Atlantic run, which many Americans found intolerable and the aircraft was banned from flying into America for years.

[@ultrametric9317]

@@MarsFKA Yes, for many reasons, most of them with $$$ in front, supersonic passenger travel is and will always be a complete non-starter. Instead, Boeing developed the 747 and the rest is history. Totally transformed commercial aviation.

[@derekheeps8012]

I agree : until the point in the video where i is mentioned , I thought your remark was somehow based on my comment re Concorde not being the West's first Supersonic Jet , and I had mentioned the X-1 amongst others . Of course the X-1 was a huge success , and indeed led to the X-2 and others . Sadly , Chuck Yaeger passed away not so long ago . He was a true pioneer , and for a time , the fastest guy alive .

[@frankfarago2825]

@@MarsFKA They were banned -- because they were a whole lot more NOISY than even the TU-144s were, Dude.

[@MichaelGreen-dm2ov]

I saw a documentary about the Tupolev and it was described as the Concords older crazy sister. She was loud, drank a lot (fuel), and dangerous as all hell.

[@Francois_Dupont]

cool story bro

[@lauragarrard919]

Danke.

[@QuestionThings123]

How appropriate

[@rock3tcatU233]

And more fun.

[@julemandenudengaver4580]

the one i would date

[@harryhalfmoon]

FYI: The Concorde's tank wasn't ruptured, only dented. The impact that caused the dent caused a shock wave in the fuel tank that blew a plug out of that fuel tank, which then caused the massive fuel spill that caught fire. Thanks for making this short documentary. Very interesting indeed!

[@EmpyreanLightASMR]

Going through the comments, I'm being amused by all the corrections to this "documentary", but I agree, it was interesting to watch, if sparse.

[@GregBrownsWorldORacing]

That's pretty deep in the weeds there Harry, I didn't know that.

[@GregBrownsWorldORacing]

@@EmpyreanLightASMR I'd say terse, but I think we generally agree. Wasn't there some 'black chewing gum super elastic bubble plastic' left on the runway for the operatives to take as tire samples?

[@gelatinous6915]

@@EmpyreanLightASMR There was a lot of speculative information going around before the actual report was released, creating a lot of confusion even today.

[@stevekirby1090]

Harry is correct, there are many documentaries on the French Concord crash so the true causes are out there.

[@alanoffer]

I lived in south london on the run in to Heathrow , and every day at around six o’clock in the evening , the concord would be on its return from New York and I never got sick of seeing that beautiful plane come over low

[@МихаилБоглоцишвили-и1ш]

not from NEW york, from old fuck at seven o clarch

[@darthnx9928]

Speed bird 192

[@МихаилБоглоцишвили-и1ш]

@@darthnx9928 speed bird CONDOME 192 HA HA HA

[@breakfreak3181]

Man, I live in London too and remember seeing Concords overhead on occasions! You'd always pull your friend up and watch it until it was out of site. Well, I did anyway.

[@briarboy11]

Was it loud?

[@Makrateli]

My dad flew on tu-144 once on a two-way trip to Central Asia. He returned his return ticket and took train back to Moscow instead.

[@tricosteryl]

Train and plane were at same price at that time in the USSR.

[@danmanthe9335]

Smart man

[@linanicolia1363]

ha.....funny.

[@Hardasnetherite]

and also the explosions

[@andreashammerschmidt6561]

Врунишка 😊

[@Nivola1953]

you were doing OK until 8:47 when you wasted it with 2 big BS in just one sentence , BOB HOOVER never flew the Bell X1 , he flew the chase plane for his friend Chuck Yeager which was the first man to break the sound barrier in the X1 in 1947, therefore the X1 was never a failure, and that plane named Glamours Glennis is now displayed at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, were did you get that nonsense?

[@russouk]

Indeed...met chuck in Nevada...nice bloke..

[@brianjob3018]

Deleted.

[@xavercendar2924]

No, he is wrong from the start.

[@brianjob3018]

@Nivola 1953: In your arrogant haste, you misspelled "Glamorous Glennis" ; >). I agree Dark Docs is riddled with erroneous things, so, either within reason politely correct for the audience or sit back and endure silently with the rest of us (I do admit I am the correcting type) because we need to put overall production value and the creator's effort and sincerity over accuracy.

[@RobertLegereIII]

@@brianjob3018 i hate to do this to you bro......... but it's "creatOr's" not "creatEr's" as you spelled above. he who lives in a glass house..........

[@JonPITBZN]

"The communist version of the Concorde..." ...should have been called the Commcorde!

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

'Comrades Corde'

[@semperparatus3685]

Funny...

[@pfdrtom]

You stole my comment! You obviously are a man of wit and intellect!

[@JonPITBZN]

@@MoskusMoskiferus1611 , Comcrade? Nah, that's not as good.

[@tdya1]

And you should be called Globatard

[@109-w7v]

The TU-144 was unable to maintain supersonic flight without the use of its afterburners, whereas Concorde was able to ‘super cruise’ without the use of re-heat.

[@DugeHick]

Top speed of mach 2.2 was reached with the use of afterburners. Read a god damn book. That goes to 29 sheeple that liked your comment. I should probably ask, do you even know what supersonic means? Its half of mach 2.2

[@mammutMK2]

When you think about it, she was actually the first plane in history that had super cruise. Correct my when I'm wrong

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Once the engines it was DESIGNED for finally got into production and into the plane, it was. That engine design had developmental issues and took years longer to go into production than was anticipated.

[@JohnJohansen2]

Actually the Concorde used less fuel flying super sonic over the Atlantic, than at start and landing.

[@David-g1p-v8k]

@@JohnJohansen2 Most cars consume more fuel at the absurdly "climate change" imposed 20 mph than they do at 50.

[@scotty3034]

1:00 I guess technically that was a crash landing. It crashed and all of the pieces landed.

[@RogerWittekind]

Or it could have been a crash crash crash landing. Me, I had a wing break off on a remote control airplane and if I was thinking I would have at least shut the engine off before it hit the ground but when someone said something I just quit thinking.

[@Lightblue2222]

I hate it when peices don't land.

[@r.6731]

Supersonic landing.

[@simonm1447]

So it did also land - just not in a one piece

[@philhand5830]

It came apart then all the pieces landed.

[@scootergeorge9576]

The first Concorde crash was Concorde. The first SST crash was the Tu-144. The title is nonsense.

[@louisfriendhastaste]

Well said

[@bobvidoni5898]

I agree.

[@eduardofernandez5217]

I think you know what he meant

[@bobvidoni5898]

Regardless... it is nonsense. This is what gives rise to people claiming news are fake even when they are not. Best to be accurate in one's description.

[@jeremytravis360]

you know what he is saying. The first Concord style and I let the e off because they called it something else. I understood the title and I got what he was saying. How true most of it is ? I don't know and we probably never will. I doubt that most people in the soviet Union at that time could afford a ticket. I used to do a lot of trade with the Russian Trade Delegation and I always thought that what I was selling was going to the Soviet elite that existed.

[@BandiGetOffTheRoof]

0:57 I think "crash landing" would have been an improvement...that thing fell apart before it hit the ground!

[@veinbanger9381]

No way in the fuck people or crew survived

[@CateB66]

When living in Surrey, England back in 97, the Concorde flew over my home once a week. Made a point of going out to watch this beauty every week. Devastating that she was forever grounded

[@basicallyalexvlogs1736]

0:48 That plane looks depressed

[@millux1422]

😂

[@TJD747]

wlod nat just wow

[@rainblaze.]

So would you be, if you came from the soviet union. Rumour has it, that at the flight show it was trying to defect so the commies initiated its on board self destruct function ...... damn shame by all accounts

[@tommylynch7887]

The droop nose 😂

[@revenevan11]

It having its "ears" at the drooped angle too at 4:27 makes it look so sad or ashamed or disappointed or something lol.

[@scootergeorge9576]

This thing REALLY needs a NEW TITLE. "The First SST Crash Was the TU-144"

[@nuno5181]

Yeahhh!!! Not "concorde"!!!!!

[@fastica]

No one knows what SST means. Everyone knows what a Concorde is.

[@nuno5181]

@@fastica "no one"???? the video and all the people here....."no one". 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@fastica - If you said "Few people have heard of the Tu-144" I would agree with you.

[@Zodroo_Tint]

@@fastica Your argument is stupid. TU-144 is not Concorde.

[@jesuswasasausage9262]

I think you need to look up the definition of “crash landing”.

[@pseudotasuki]

I really should have stopped watching at that point.

[@hertzair1186]

Jesus was a Sausage ...“cratering” would be more accurate .

[@realminecraftnub3682]

Hey it all made it to the ground

[@heraclitus6100]

Lol I was thinking the same thing. The only thing that crash landed was flaming debris.

[@realminecraftnub3682]

@Tommy Salami lol

[@michelbigot7586]

I was one the witness at Le Bourget Air Show, on Saturday and Sunday. On Saturday, the Concord has made a touch-down then was climbing again, followed by the TU-144 which didn't make a touch-down (to avoid the wheels to be void). But the political officer was not happy and asked the Soviet crew to do more. On the Sunday, nothing new from the Concord, but I was surprised to look at the TU-144 doing a touch-down (big smoke), then climgin at a crazt angle. Stallinng was the anwser and in the attempt to recover, the left wing was lost, and the plane was going into a spin. But some gasoline went in contact with the engine and it blows out before reaching the groud, in Goussainville. Some days later, I was driving along Le Bourget airport and I saw the wrekage of the plane on a French Air Force truck, nothing remained of it, just metal. The crew was never recovered.

[@mrsx7944]

You saw the Concorde wreckage? From 2000?

[@dianefarley37]

@@mrsx7944 No. He's talking about the 1973 crash of the TU-144.

[@darrellcaraway6068]

Fuel.

[@redgrey85]

Pedants aside, love these docs more than the standard Dark5 content (which I also love). Keep up the great content and presentation.

[@9HighFlyer9]

It's not pedantic when he continually makes factual errors. He's not as bad as infographics, but he's working on it.

[@redgrey85]

@@9HighFlyer9 That's adorable. Unsub then. Yes, I want the stories to be as accurate as possible but I come here for the *stories*. This is not a news network.

[@9HighFlyer9]

@@redgrey85 thankfully your right. Have you noticed how many errors both factual and basic grammar news media make? I'm pretty sure there are no proofreaders or fact checkers left. I understand they're "stories" and most of the time I'm able to ignore the typos weird, grammar and pronunciation. Nobody's perfect. But when he lifts a couple sentences from Wikipedia and then adds in something untrue, why? It's possible to to take 30 minutes and verify facts before he finalizes the script. It's not like he's producing that many videos a month. Maybe it doesn't matter when channels like Infographics are throwing out falsehood after old wives tale after urban legend. I'm trying to teach my kids to not believe every "fact" online. When you have channels and webpages all just using one another as sources without any citations the incorrect facts end up hardcoded as the truth. Hey Dark5, you did some research to put this together. Why not spend a few minutes and get it right? You do claim to be producing "Short documentaries" not satire or comedy.

[@redgrey85]

@@9HighFlyer9 Definitely not a pedant.

[@DarthVibrator]

It was NOT a Concorde It was a Konkordski ! They had stolen the plans. BUT they still did not have the supersonic engine fuel control. Crashed, Not really: It DISINTEGRATED.

[@theant9821]

Its probably more likely that falsified Concorde plans were deliberately leaked.

[@ocsteved]

Grenberg(sp?) and Hoover were correct....

[@avgVar]

Uh...Russians were first to make it, not French...

[@mmdday]

did you actually watch the video?

[@woozhiy]

This boomer got so triggered about his Concorde lmao, chill out mate

[@willrobinson7578]

"America's failed Bell X-1 program?" The X-1 was the first aircraft to exceed the speed of sound. How is that a failure?

[@shredder_mang3211]

Will Robinson wasn’t the x-1 not even a passenger plane

[@elrjames7799]

@Will Robinson: The X-1 was rocket powered and couldn't be developed further: in that sense it 'failed' to go on to better things.

[@willrobinson7578]

@@elrjames7799 That doesn't make sense. It was an experimental aircraft deigned to explore the "sound barrier." We learned much from it. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describing it as a failure. That's like saying the Apollo program was a failure because it wasn't developed further.

[@andrejansen9003]

X 1 was in no sense a failure It did what it was meant to do , for experimental purposes

[@elrjames7799]

@@andrejansen9003 Yes: it failed to progress beyond the experimental stage.

[@cameronquetzalcoatl1552]

An obscure but fascinating piece of aviation history. Interesting story. Love this channel.

[@DrWhom]

why? many mistakes

[@STRIDER_503]

The Concorde crashed only 9 miles away from where "Concordski" went down... now that's creepy af.

[@walterF205]

Coincidences?

[@DoubleMonoLR]

I think Air France might've only been flying from/to Charles De Gaulle airport at the time of the crash, so the odds would've been very high. Even when they had the most routes, it was still very limited.

[@dangraham9741]

thats a telling point , not many people would be aware of that .

[@slappy8941]

Illuminati confirmed?

[@billolsen4360]

@@slappy8941 The Illuminati were meeting with Bigfoot that day

[@bac1111967]

I was in Paris when it crashed at the airshow and in my opinion it was showing off and the front canards broke off into the intakes I was watching it through binoculars. - then flying home that night

[@jeffreyhill4695]

Wow. great story!

[@JohnJ-fj2xe]

If the carards broke off they would fly upwards due to aerodynamic lift and never get anywhere near the intakes that were on the underside of the aircraft. Further, if all of the intakes had ingested debris of any kind, it would have caused an engine failure rather than the structural failure show on the video.

[@bac1111967]

@@JohnJ-fj2xe Were you there? the left canard spun downwards as it was doing a right turn, the explosion can clearly be seen from the left engine. my friend and I were at that end of the runway and watched it as it happened. look again

[@blameyourself4489]

@@bac1111967 If the canard get into the inlet, the engine would certainly explode and damage the wing structure. I always had difficulties believing in that a wing breaks up just because of a hard stall. I'll buy into your observations.

[@bac1111967]

@@blameyourself4489 If only I could have proved it, my friend was putting his camera away as I turned and watched and then said hey Roger its crashing. he told me in no uncertain terms to go away but I watched the whole thing happen. We were flying home that night as we were in the RAF and on duty the next morning, our flight home was delayed and Air France put on a substitute aircraft. It was one of those days. You don't forget things like that

[@gerald4133]

I saw the Concorde land in Dallas, it was a remarkable thing to see.

[@lancecason]

The X-1 program was not a failure. It was an experimental program to research and achieve speed of sound flying capabilities which it did achieve. The program was so successful it went on to multiple variants, X-1B - X-1E, for further research.

[@ksaboda]

Famous last words, “watch this”.

[@JohnSmith-1957]

"Hold my vodka..."

[@lostinspace699]

I'm Watching ,,,,,

[@johnhancock6114]

Otherwise known as SHOWBOATING.

[@odustbrown1836]

Your pronunciation and fact checking need some work. Nacelles, canards, “2”144, failed Bell X-1?

[@david_fisher]

The "Tu" in Tu144 is quite often pronounced as "2" as with other Tupolev aircraft.

[@alext8828]

@@david_fisher Tee Yoo, not 2. To pronounce it 2 is to embrace the new dumbed-down world of the Millenium idiots.

[@gpdude22]

Agreed. If you cannot properly pronounce the words your data is probably questionable.

[@wsadhjuk]

@@alext8828 In Russia we pronounce "Tu" as "2", not "Tee Yoo".

[@alext8828]

@@wsadhjuk I honestly don't think that in all of Russia, no one pronounces TU correctly. I've heard Russians pronounce it Tee Yoo for decades. You have my sympathy.

[@filipgolonka3758]

3:57 That's a plane Ryanair would have loved

[@as-guardianangel9360]

No. Too cheap for Ryan

[@thetreblerebel]

Ryan Air. I believe I've flown RyanAir. And your comment scares me

[@filipgolonka3758]

No this was not reliable.Also,I'm referring to the hard landing.

[@gerardomartinez7463]

Ryan Gosling‽

[@hermanmunster3358]

The accident that happened to the Air France Concorde was not due to any design faults. It was a freak accident, that could have happened to any plane. The main reasons why Concorde was mothballed, were due largely to economic constraints. They were thirsty, and required a lot of fuel, when the world was looking for more fuel efficiency. Ticket prices were too expensive for regular leisure flyers. And many countries restricted Concorde from flying through their air space at supersonic speeds, due to the 'sonic booms' So Concorde was never utilised to its full potential. And with the onset of the internet, the need for tTans Atlantic flights became less of a priority for business flyers. They were also getting old, and it was difficult to update the technology and flight controls to keep pace with more stringent, modern safety standards and digital equipment. So that is why Concorde was retired, not because of its safety record. Until the Air France disaster, Concorde had an unblemished safety record, with Zero crashes, and Zero loss of life. The Tupolev however, well let's not even go there.

[@robj2704]

Saw the Concorde in flight about 1985 as it did a "parade lap" around my area, at low speed and with the nose high. It was an impressive plane.

[@civlyzed]

Very cool! I watched Concorde take off from Dulles years ago.

[@DurkMcGerk]

Never did see it fly but after it was retired, one of the remaining planes was at Boeing Field in Seattle for a while and you could see it when driving south on Interstate 5.

[@fakenews7266]

​@@civlyzed I saw it in 1977 at Dorsey Speedway when it was forced to land at Baltimore‐Washington International , this was during the winter and racing season was over , we were at the track goofing off , a friend of mine was working there at BWI as a baggage handler and let us know when it was leaving so I saw it fly twice .

[@anthonywilson4873]

@@DurkMcGerk I have seen it a number of times at displays, nose down slow cruise past then around nose up, turn away and re- heat, the power shook your body to the core. It was an Airliner doing what a Fighter would do just bigger and better. Four Olympus engines on reheat. 37,000 Lbs of thrust per engine. 148,000 Lbs of Thrust. But reheat only needed to take off and get Supersonic. Concorde did not use reheat to achieve MACK 2. It could truly SuperCruise. MACH 2 no reheat.

[@mbritton1984]

I too saw it fly a lap around your area. Truly a beautiful aircraft.

[@FernandoPartridge]

Concorde was the safest commercial aircraft ever, even after the loss of the Air France aircraft, just 1 crash in all the miles flown and that 1 loss not a fault with the aircraft, and all this while at the cutting edge of flight: the very first aircraft to feature 'supercruise', only using afterburners/re-heat to reach supersonic speed and then being able to maintain the supersonic cruise without them, no wonder TU144 only did 2 hour flights if needed to stay in re-heat, the fuel used would have been enormous!!

[@ulfunger4608]

There are models with no deads in their history. A380. A340.

[@lucwallace4308]

@@ulfunger4608 if an a380 crashed then like 500 people would die lol

[@MrRoninGT]

Look at the characteristics of these aircraft and then show your surprise (stupidity).

[@jeremypearson6852]

You’re absolutely correct, the accident was basically a one in a million chance. If that piece of metal had not been on the runway, it would have had a spotless record.

[@mikebronicki8264]

The Concorde suffered from repeated blown tires. It was only a matter of time before one of those tire chunks damaged it's vulnerable fuel tanks. The piece of metal on the runway was superfluous.

[@johnstrato9795]

The real Concorde was in service for 27 years hardly brief. The commentator seems a little biased to say the least.

[@suburbia2050]

Yeah he is American lol

[@ianm.w1563]

He's American

[@unatco6554]

Concorde was better all around than the Tupolev 144. Sovietboos btfo for all eternity

[@annnee6818]

Brief is not a very clear statement. And "biased" against what? Maybe you a little triggered?

[@Aguijon1982]

It is brief when compared to other airplane designs. You can still see Boeing 737 units flying today that were made 30+ years ago

[@andrewmanley9579]

I remember as a young boy being fascinated by the Concorde. I live on Long Island and remember the sound of that machine coming in to JFK. I'd look up and marvel at that beast. It didn't take long to realize when it was coming in without looking up in the sky. It sounded like a fighter jet. I'll bet those folks in Queens was happy when them there flights were canceled forever.

[@Metoo3232-pu2wc]

The Concorde used to fly directly over my work outside of Pearson airport in Toronto. I can't remember if it was once a week or month. But it was coming in for landing and was flying slow. We would all run out to try to catch it in time to see it flying over. They were very loud. I remember the first time it flew over being shocked at how loud it was. Very cool airplane.

[@matty6848]

Yes Andy as great aircraft that was sadly decommissioned purely because of one terrible accident. Despite that the Concorde had a brilliant safety record. However watching a recent documentary on the Concorde that due to todays financial climate the Concorde would be that expensive that no one would use it today, but there’s plenty of millionaires about who can’t quite afford their own private aircraft but would happily pay the extra for Concorde. What other aircraft could fly from Heathrow or Paris airport to New York in 6 hours? Nothing even today has come close to the legendary Concorde.

[@philip_hees]

@@matty6848 A British Air 747 once did the NY-London trip in under 5 hours. Concorde's record for NY-London was under 3 hours.

[@goldorakrak8939]

@@matty6848 Not 6 hours, but 3.

[@SilentKnight43]

We were just outside LaGuardia when the Concorde carrying Phil Collins landed for the LiveAid concert and I remember the sound it made. It was incredible.

[@dsmyify]

Nice one dark docs. That was genuinely interesting.

[@faekapira]

"The First Concorde Crash was Soviet" then it wasn't a concorde crash..

[@steveeisenburger6011]

Yeah it was ,the Concordski🤣. Now the Russian version, that was a bad design. Rushed, and under tested. Concord had no incidents. And it still perplexes me, how anyone could consider concord a " Bad design " , First, it's work of art, and secondly, it's record speaks for itself. Great plane

[@faekapira]

@@steveeisenburger6011 actually, concorde had a crash, but it was the DC-10's fault for carrying unapproved parts. Air France 4590

[@scotpens]

Some people seem to think Concorde is a generic term for supersonic transport.

[@faekapira]

@@scotpens do they really? concorde is one of the first things you should know about in aviation.

[@mike_98058]

Amazing DarkDocs has 500k subscribers when they can't even get the title right! It wasn't a Concord. You can't blame a product when a cheap knock-off fails.

[@dcallan812]

I lived in Concords landing route into Heathrow from NYC. The noise I think was just great as she slowed down ready to land. Great Video.👍☮

[@MarvinHartmann452]

The concord was the most beautiful aircraft I've ever seen. I have friends who flew in it. I was supposed to fly in it but it was retired the previous year. Which makes me very sad.

[@simontist]

It's worth a museum visit to go and see one in person.

[@hermanmunster3358]

It was a Beautiful graceful looking thing, like a Supersonic Swan. The TU-144 I thought, was an ugly brutalist looking machine, and those canards made it look like it had floppy bloodhound ears. The wing design was also much less elegant than that of Concorde. The Concorde wings swept back in a gentle graceful curve, unlike the wings of the TU-144.

[@camsmeltzer9388]

Can't find a grocery cart with four good wheels, what makes you think we're ready for supersonic passenger flight!

[@user-vk2mp8ez5o]

Okay you Win!!!

[@spencerwilton5831]

bag man Well India has a space programme, but 600 million of the population still shit in fields or the street...

[@robertheinkel6225]

I hate carts with bad wheels.

[@sosaalejandro5536]

👏😄

[@simonm1447]

@@spencerwilton5831 India also bought A 320s with a 4 wheel main landing gear, to land on bad runways. BTW, it was the only customer worldwide which ordered this landing gear variant.

[@chuckselvage3157]

I've been inside British/French Concorde when one landed in Sydney. Very narrow but what a thing to behold,such a beautiful bird.

[@pintificate]

I remember seeing the Concorde flying over our house in Chatswood on its way to Sydney airport. I believe it was a prototype test run, late '60s. I'm not sure if there were ever any passenger flights to Sydney. .

[@chuckselvage3157]

​@@pintificate No it rarely came here as supersonic planes were banned.

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

Chuck Yeah I have been inside one twice at the museum of flight in Seattle, it is tight, cramped,

[@chuckselvage3157]

@@wilburfinnigan2142 My dad worked for QANTAS for 30 odd years and he took me to the jet base back in the 80s when a BA Concorde landed in Sydney we had to board from the rear as to not upset the trim or something like that as my dad explained yes very narrow but I would have given my left arm to be able to fly in it.

[@gspot525]

And to think that without KZbin as your platform, the world may never know your talent for such riveting and compelling storytelling. Once again, great job my friend!

[@itsjohndell]

And made up facts...

[@luke6587]

The Bell X-1 program was anything but a failure bro

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

True, I'm not pro Myrica but I don't believe in bullshit either. X-1 was a great success.

[@TheblueTraxxasRustler]

And X-15

[@johnt7630]

Maybe he meant the Boeing 2707 which was cancelled?

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

@@johnt7630 how could you possibly confuse those?!

[@pseudotasuki]

@@johnt7630 Bob Hoover wasn't a test pilot for the Boeing 2707. There weren't any at all, as the it never made it that far. But he *was* a test pilot for the X-1. I have no explanation for how the first supersonic aircraft could be considered a failure.

[@jimcambron9047]

This just in - the first Concorde crash involved a Concorde! Perhaps the first commercial supersonic airliner prototype to crash was manufactured in the Soviet Union.

[@dk1070]

Jim Cambron ...EXACTLY!!!!!!

[@jimcarpenter965]

The Bell X-1 was such a “failed program” that it now hangs in the Smithsonian. smh

[@jimcarpenter965]

HelpMe - Yeah, breaking the sound barrier led to nothing. Just like the Wright brothers plane, Lindbergh’s plane, and that stupid Apollo 11 command module.

[@robertstack2144]

@HelpMe yes you need help, hope you get it

[@douglasrowland3722]

Along with the X-15........ygbk

[@Adrian-lc6jq]

To be fair the Smithsonian Institute don't even think the Wright brothers were the first to fly.

[@jimcarpenter965]

@@Adrian-lc6jq That’s a patently false assertion. Read David McCullough’s biography “The Wright Brothers”, or watch Ken Burn’s interview about it.

[@chrisbuhagiar8299]

Oh my goodness! As a retired commercial pilot, I was almost in tears. I just witnessed people die.

[@djlondon7956]

The Tupolev had to run its afterburners the whole time in order to maintain supersonic speeds... It was never really fully developed as an aircraft.

[@hobbyhermit66]

Crash landing my eye! That was an all out kersplosion!

[@krisfrederick5001]

That's what I said, yeah the crash "landed" alright.

[@andyq752]

The difference to me is this: I'd be happy to fly on Concorde were she still around. I would NEVER have been happy to fly on the TU-144. Made that decision years ago. I also find it spooky that both the TU-144 and Concorde crashed near Le Bourget (the Concorde was trying to get there when it crashed), though years apart, obviously.

[@alext8828]

Isn't it ironic that Le Bourget is where Lindberg landed?

[@snowblind9065]

my buddy,an oil exec out of Calgary got to fly on the Concorde during its twilight years>London to New York in 3hrs the cost was 12,000 grand or something in that range

[@simonm1447]

I never flown with one of them, but in Sinsheim Museum (Germany) both are on static display, I visited it a couple of years ago. The Concorde's interior looks much more modern than the 144 ones, which looks still like one from the 70s, with the usual green blue Russian cockpit interior.

[@nolanr1400]

I've always been surprised that planes often land on airports

[@matty6848]

I’ve flown on soviet era passenger planes and its a experience put it that way. Way louder and as you can imagine they dont have the comfort of western aircraft. Soviet ear aircraft like their cars, tanks, ships etc are built for purpose not for comfort. To the soviets the comfort or lives of the crew were secondary to the aircraft or tank operating. Saying that their machines are way more hardy and tough. Ambient conditions that would force a delicate western aircraft to land, soviet ear aircraft can fly through anything blizzards, sandstorms, extreme high winds anything. Yes you’ll puke your guts up, but it’ll get you there.

[@jimmycline4778]

This plane is like a C5 Corvette,,Timeless design!

[@bkljal]

"Bob Hoover of the U.S. failed X-1 program"??? You mean the aircraft that broke the sound barrier, right? Failed? I think not.

[@SaltyTubers]

What the ?? Failed?

[@terrywaters6186]

Russia invented the sound barrier!

[@apegues]

Failed? .....Hmmmm must be Commie Propaganda or just a Dumbass!

[@pawswet9476]

Anthony Pegues ^ Nailed it. Correctski

[@Natemire]

Ok so I'm not alone in noticing that? Lol I'm pretty sure the x-1 worked.

[@TheMisleduser]

0:57 thats not a crash landing... thats just a crash.

[@WildPhotoShooter]

Technically not even a crash , it disintegrated before it fell to the ground.

[@dx1450]

Well, it did land because it's not still hovering there in the sky.

[@caseysmith544]

But it did crash and land, not explode into a bunch of little pieces too small to be called plane anymore.

[@JrplaysYT-hk8st]

The dude is talking at 2 times the speed of sound.

[@john4252]

😂

[@nigeldepledge3790]

One of the most remarkable feats of Concorde was its ability to supercruise. I'm surprised that the Tu-144 entered service at all if it needed its afterburners to maintain supersonic flight.

[@MrRoninGT]

Look at the characteristics of these aircraft and then show your surprise (stupidity).

[@VileDaegon]

@@MrRoninGT What bit?

[@MrRoninGT]

@@VileDaegon Have you looked at the characteristics of the aircraft? Don't ask questions. You better know the truth.

[@DjAlyX1]

@@MrRoninGT the TU-144 is inferior in every single way, and a significant amount of its design stolen? You better know the truth as you would say!

[@MrRoninGT]

@@DjAlyX1 If you are not educated, then do not enter into dialogue with those who know more.

[@barneymiller6204]

The title of this DarkDoc doesn't make sense. The Concordski that crashed was not a Concorde so it was not the first Concorde to crash.

[@quaaludes7898]

Alright buddy

[@nasanodia736]

Semantics.

[@thomasm1964]

@@nasanodia736 Hardly semantics. Massive error of fact.

[@nasanodia736]

@@thomasm1964 Yes, indeed T-E-C-H-N-I-C-H-A-L-Y, it isn't a Concorde. It is a 'Soviet Era' Riff of the Franco-Anglo Masterpiece. Which is why its "cut-corners" counterpart was a flying deathtrap since inception.

[@duncandavidson9275]

@@nasanodia736 Absolutely not a Concorde. Like saying "The first F-15 crash was a Mig-25."

[@Mikey888888888]

Been inside this plane in Kazan. Even though it wasn’t successful it is still an impressive construction.

[@jacobhobbs6918]

Dark Docs is great. Love this channel. I sub to both 5s and docs, but this one is probably in my personal top5 channels on the toob

[@S.E.C-R]

My great Aunt & Uncle flew on the French Concord exclusively for many years. They loved it!

[@left0verture]

Anybody remember the old Mad Magazine “Spy vs. Spy”? Am I crazy, or do the drop nose jets like this look like the white “Spy”?

[@Aviciiz]

Oh yes hahaha

[@koroba01]

Yep...sure does!

[@mushroom4051]

Spy vs spy c64,

[@magicmaker15]

Wow. Can't unsee now!

[@abcdecghijklmn]

Mad!

[@guy_with_gasmask5606]

I was in one of those Today. In a Museum in Sinsheim, Germany. Btw the only Museum where you can see a TU-44 and a Concord side by side

[@ChicagoGringo]

Bob Hoover and the “failed American X-1 program”? You mean the X-1 program that Chuck Yeager took past Mach 1? I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Please elaborate.

[@9HighFlyer9]

Just one of his usual mistakes

[@PasqualeTweeddale]

I think he was referring to the failed boeing super sonic programme - the SST, or boeing 2707

[@9HighFlyer9]

@@PasqualeTweeddaleBob Hoover wasn't a part of the 2707 or another SST as far as I know. I'd say it came from Wikipedia with his own error thrown in. "Bob Hoover, a pilot on the supersonic Bell X-1 program, believed that the rivalry of the Tu-144 and Concorde led the pilot of the Tu-144 to attempt a manoeuvre that went beyond the abilities of the aircraft:"

[@PasqualeTweeddale]

@@9HighFlyer9 correct. I was referring to the failed US efforts at producing a Concorde, which I thought darkdocs was referring to by referencing a failed programme

[@moosejaw50]

I think he meant the XB-70 Valkyrie that crashed during testing.

[@tanya-m5l2z]

I'm so privileged to have flown concord. We were so blessed I will never forget the experience of going supersonic over the Atlantic with a glass of champagne in my hand. What a plane. May I say we had the best pilots as well. Wish those days would return.

[@elliottwilford6457]

I live in South Wales and still remember the daily sonic boom from Concorde as soon as it hit the Severn estuary. The real reason Concorde ceased was cost but obviously the AirFrance crash didn’t help either 👍🏻

[@bgb702]

The Bell X-1 was one of the most important research planes ever built. It was supposed to achieve supersonic flight; it did so regularly and exceeded the program's goals. You don't know what you're talking about.

[@jeff111458]

Yes. He used the word "failed." Absurd.

[@torgbuiwonyigba5703]

I was in the crowd at the Air Show at le Bourget on that day. Following the performance of the Concorde, the Tupolev 144 was making loops in the air and at a point, it made a dive, and because the distance to the ground was too short, the plane failed to maneuver its way back into the air and crashed in a suburb called Goussainville, killing all 6 crew members and 8 people on the ground. My second witness of a plane crash was in Manhattan (New York) on September 11, 2001. I had to walk all the way from Manhattan to the Bronx.

[@Alexx-ml8wk]

How old are you 12?

[@jfrtbikgkdhjbeep9974]

amazing !! tell it 😳

[@torgbuiwonyigba5703]

@@Alexx-ml8wk i just got my Master's degree

[@andrewmanley9579]

I was 22 miles away from you that day watching the smoke from the WTC across the waterway.

[@torgbuiwonyigba5703]

@@andrewmanley9579 For years after that fateful event, whenever I heard the roaring of a plane in a city, I would think of which direction to run in, as if I could run fast enough to escape the impact of a crashing plane.

[@Lewis-4]

Then it wasn’t a Concorde crash, now was it?

[@veermastergames]

Thanks for the video Dark dogs

[@sumfingwong9286]

''Refinements'' is not a word used very often in Russia.

[@douglasrowland3722]

In Soviet Russia...you point out flaws...you get firing squad.........

[@sixstringedthing]

Good video, despite the odd pronunciation of a few technical terms and the odd reference to the X-1. I had the chance to see and walk through both the Concorde and the Tu-144 at the Technik Musuem in Sinsheim, Germany (as seen in the video at 06:02). While the two designs are very similar, when looking at them up close it is obvious that the Tupolev was built under the pressue of Kruschev's demands that it be larger, faster and first. The Soviet engineers followed the dictum of "make it bigger, then give it more of everything to make it fly". The massive engines are about twice the size of the Concorde's Olympus engines, as are the six-wheeled bogies of the main landing gear compared to the Concorde's four-wheeled arrangement. The more refined and birdlike compound curves of Concorde's wings are missing from the Tu-144 which seems more industrial, along with the somewhat awkward looking canards and more angular nose shroud. Everything about the Tu-144, from the overall design to the cabin interior and cockpit, is bigger but less luxurious and refined. According to reports, the same would have been true for the passenger experience as the interior of the Tupolev was also far noisier than the Concorde. Still, it was a remarkable aircraft considering the time frame and political pressure under which it was built, it was a truly awesome experience to see both planes up close. Highly recommended if you're ever in southern Germany (the rest of the Technik Musuem is pretty amazing too!).

[@mortenfrosthansen84]

One of the better posts, I've read on youtube in many ways and years... People are usually arguing, bullying or know-it-all-s. Or reminiscing, share memories and compassion, which is hard to relate to. What a fresh and pleasant experience

[@Rocket_scientist_88]

I also noticed the mispronunciations. I have worked at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, and there we always said cannard as “kuh-NARD”. Also, nacelle is just “na-SELL”, not “na-SELL-eh”. It is a French word, just two syllables. Yes, nitpicky, but like nails on a chalkboard to aerospace designers and engineers.

[@veronikalynn5084]

@@mortenfrosthansen84 just wanted to say I completely understand your pleasant surprise whenever I come across a comment like that these days. I hope you pass on the experience, I’m trying to also…we need it, everyone lately. 🖤🤘🏻

[@micarone]

​​@@Rocket_scientist_88 For me his pronouncication of Tu-144 sounded somehow weird. He prononced it "Two-one-forty-four" where as I pronounce it "Tee-You-one-forty-four". I don't know which one is the right way, but the way he pronounced it, he made the plane's name sound like "Tupolev 2144", which is rather misleading as there's no plane like that.

[@marysanders9461]

Also, it may look like CCCP to an English speaker not exposed to Russian, but in Russian (Kyrillic alphabet) it's pronounced SSSR, which was the abbreviation for the Russian words for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

[@hobbyhermit66]

Failed X-1 program? The X-1 did what it was supposed to do. Where did it fail? And it was Chuck Yeager that flew it to supersonic first.

[@777dannydan]

Fred Lamb, this is why it's so difficult to believe ANYTHING unless we see it with our own eyes... Anything!

[@marthavaughan4660]

@@777dannydan What's to see, unless you wish to reprogram history?

[@restojon1]

Speed is afraid of Chuck Yeager

[@fira2001]

Good catch. X-1 “Glamorous Glennis” was a bang up success. Punched a hole in the sky.

[@rosewood1]

The Concord was in fact very reliable and it went through a major upgrade after Paris and flew for many years after. It was very successful. But costly to operate.

[@laengan]

maybe so, but they should have own air strips. Saw some news, how the planes at that speed&altitude were under extreme conditions. Yes no free flying. How many times did you fly within a Concorde.

[@crazyfroggie6546]

My uncle and aunt went on Concorde to New York, halfway across the Atlantic there was a loud bang and juddering, message from the flightdeck, problem with one engine we're going to have to go subsonic the rest of the way.

[@qasimmir7117]

@@laengan Their own airstrips? That’s ridiculous. Concorde is the most tested aircraft in history to ensure its safety at more extreme temperatures than pressure differences. Concorde airframes also had a lower flight hours limit just in case.

[@Weihrauch88]

"A piece of runway debris" one VITAL piece of information you missed was the "Debris" was from a Continental Airlines DC10 N13067 that was the cause of the crash. There was no safety issue with Concorde... The DC10 however...

[@messagedeleted1922]

One crash in 27 years is an amazing flight record.

[@lbowsk]

There was more to the crash than that. Read the full report.

[@daveluttinen2547]

But let's not forget that the N13067 DC-10 replacement part was neither authorized nor its installation done correctly. After the crash of the DC-10 in Chicago (where, once again, maintenance used a forklift to raise the engine instead of the correct tool and cracked the pylon), it got a bad reputation. The crash in Iowa was still remarkable in that many survived due to superior handling of the aircraft by the pilots and the sturdiness of the bird. I'm not so fast to judge the DC-10. jmo.

[@nomdeguerre7265]

That's Continental for you. They were so cheap and ran things so close to the financial edge that when they declared bankruptcy they did it suddenly, with planes in flight. The flight crews were literally told they'd all been fired mid-air.

[@Weihrauch88]

@@lbowsk never seen this response. Root cause analysis... If that debris wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened.

[@CaydeTheSixth]

“The allure of beating the west to the punch superseded any protocols for safety and craft.” This is the Soviet Union. What safety protocols?

[@igvc1876]

Not at all like the Space Shuttle that was forced to fly outside its safety envelope to meet a quota promised to the congress - and which then exploded. What safety protocols?

[@philhand5830]

That seemed to be S. O. P. back in the day. Always trying to beat the west some kind of way....

[@theant9821]

Rules only ever apply when they are forced to be applied. The hypocrisy of every government ever to exist.

[@douglasrowland3722]

You point out flaws....you shipped to Siberia....no air show for you..........da...........

[@davidm3maniac201]

A bit like their submarines

[@pianoman7753]

That's a nice droop snoot, I like it when the snoot droops

[@miltonferreira9287]

yes droop snoot is good

[@Syclone0044]

Why this word snoot? A: I just learned snoot is a 19th century variation of snout

[@haileyshannon7548]

My mother went to the air show and saw the crash. Such a shame the Concorde never really caught on. I was talking to my mother about this the other day when she mentioned my sister and her family were flying to Greece to visit her husband’s family and said they would be on a plane for almost 30 hours. Hard to believe in the 21st century it still takes so long to get somewhere.

[@kibinot]

Unlike the Brits and French, who had the opportunity to focus on Concorde, they had to design and work on two more projects - the Tu-154 trijet and the Tu-22M supersonic bomber. The people working on these projects could not focus on one thing at a time, causing them to have a lot of design errors.

[@God4445]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 dont ever change buddy....

[@jasonsweet1868]

The lada of the sky's built out of old paint tins and old tyres the people who flew in these must have had huge bollucks

[@loddude5706]

@@jasonsweet1868 *'ocks' - 'Bol luck' is finding somewhere to park at a rather pretty Croatian sea side resort.

[@jasonsweet1868]

@@loddude5706 this time of year mate finding a place anywhere by the sea enjoy yourself

[@babalon7778]

I saw my first Concorde when I was 7 and the sonic boom was so loud everyone came out to see what made it. I't's still a dream of mine to ride in it, oh well, damn.

[@JaySmithKiawah]

There's new supersonics on the way. Patience friend.

[@babalon7778]

@@JaySmithKiawah Awesome, thanks!

[@boogerdog5247]

I was departing JFK near dusk in 2000, had been at the GOP Conv. in Philly, and got the opportunity to see not far away, in a hangar, one of the "grounded" planes. Never checked into it as to who flew it where after being taken offline. Reading this just made me curious about the rest of that plane's story.

[@babalon7778]

@@boogerdog5247 That's so cool, you were a lot closer than I was.

[@eddjordan2399]

Babalon 777 how did you hear the sonic boom?

[@robashton8606]

Wow. That wasn't so much a "crash landing" as it was an "in flight Total Existence Failure". They must have been picking up teeth and jewellery for weeks.

[@treeshotgun681]

Total structural failure

[@RDDPro]

What an image Picking up the teeth of your kin

[@rifleshooterchannel208]

Rob Ashton Word is they knew the Soviets were going to steal the designs so they left deliberately messed up blueprints that would result in aircraft failure so when the Russians stole the plans they would build something that failed. The rest is history.

[@Mykelking16]

Rifle Shooter, sounds like everything the soviets did, it was all crude bootlegged copies of everything. Even their nuclear programs were stolen spy documents that they jusy filled in the blanks.

[@rifleshooterchannel208]

Mykelking16 Ain’t that the truth.

[@shootingsportstransparency7461]

The Britisch discovered Russians were spying and illlegal copied the building plans. The designers then incorporated a few construction errors in the drawings and had them illegally copied by the Russians. This was the successful result of it.

[@chameleonh]

8:40 "America's **failed** supersonic Bell X-1 program" I'm sorry, what?

[@JSMEsq]

Chameleon that’s what I was thinking

[@MrJackal43]

Chameleon this guys channel is a fn joke... about a hundred false statement ents in this pos....

[@beepboopthemyth]

Supreme Commander of the Solarverse better than over 20,000 false statements/claims by Donald trump in just 4 years 😂😂😂😂

[@beepboopthemyth]

Rusty Shackelford So, You’re just like Trump? Making false claims for attention 😂😂🤡🤡

[@benis4958]

@@beepboopthemyth hee hoo orange man bad

[@timgosling6189]

It was well established some years ago that the USSR had placed sources in the Concorde programme who were passing data, including detailed engineering drawings, to the Soviet project. Other KGB activities also yielded thousands of documents and even inspections of the aircraft. There was also an attempt to steal an example of Concorde's central fuel transfer pump, crucial to trim management, from the BAC stand at the Farnborough Air Show, although this was foiled by MI5. The similarity in design was therefore not coincidence. Significantly, the engine design was different because one of the things they did not get access to was the variable geometry air intakes that managed shockwave formation and allowed Concorde to go supersonic and cruise without afterburner, significantly limiting its range. Oh, and the word is nascelle, pronounced 'nay-cell', not naycella. It's French not Italian. However, the major problem the Soviets had was that although from the data they had obtained they knew how the Concorde was designed and built, they did not know why certain decisions had been made, or the implications of changing them. The profile of the leading edge, significantly changed by the Soviet designers, is a case in point. As to the 1973 crash, you are correct that the pilots appeared to be doing their best to show off the aircraft, pushing the envelope with some 'sexy' manoeuvres. However, it's worth mentioning that to permit this Tupolev had removed the previous limiters on the control surfaces. Now, extreme deltas such as these are prone to major and rapid longitudinal shifts of the centre of lift of the wing with angle of attack. This causes significant and rapid trim change. In Concorde the flying controls were designed from the start to accomodate this, and the wing shape to ameliorate it, as both BAC and Aérospatiale had extensive experience in this area. The aircraft also had a computerised fuel distribution system to assist this process; the 144 did not (see above) and the canards were eventually fitted to give additional pitch authority. The current theory is that for whatever reason the Soviet crew manoeuvred the aircraft outside its previous limits, with which they were familiar, and thereby caused a rapid aft trim change, hence the unexpected climb. The aircraft then entered a flight regime that was not recoverable in the height available, although attempting to power out of it was the likely best option. Aerodynamic loads from thrust and control demands then exceeded its structural limits. Finally, a 'crash landing' is a landing which goes wrong; this was just a crash.

[@sdavis7916]

Very well said. I was thinking of writing some of those very same points but you have done such a better job at it. Well done.

[@mariojakel5544]

The KB Tupolev was in close contact with the French Concorde developers from Aérospatiale. Mutual visits to the development centers and the exchange of research results gave both sides insights for their own work on the supersonic passenger aircraft.

[@NeuroDeviant421]

The Bell-X1 program was a failure? Somebody might want to tell Yeager.

[@___axg96___63]

Better not. He's liable to come around and beat someone's ass for it

[@algrayson8965]

Amazing that a test pilot has made it to 96 yo!

[@Belikewatermyfriend2631]

GOD bless him ,great pilot,May he live to 120 😎

[@salvadorpneri]

Mr. Hoover - I believe you mean sound barrier. The X-1 was the first (yes, it also beat the Russians in that rase) to break the sound barrier - no failure, no crash. No more Russian vodka for you. I wonder if you are a planted Russian sleeper spy??

[@higgs_boson2231]

He lived in my area lol, I met him

[@JJR93]

The engine noise of the Tu-144 was so LOUD in the cabin that passengers could not hear each other even if they yelled. They had to pass notes. It flew only one commercial route, between Moscow & Almaty, Kazakhstan. Its safety record was so spotty even the USSR decided to cancel commercial passenger use of the Tu-144, relegating it to carrying cargo instead before finally retiring them from service.

[@frostyvr9805]

“Crash landing” *PLANE EXPLODES WITHOUT EVEN HITTING THE GROUND*

[@Ekstasii]

**Disintegrates**

[@ingolfleiblle6661]

Someone hath blundered!

[@ErwannIV]

it was not even at the half of the show.... this video sucks and it was not a concorde but a tu-144