Tu-144 - the Soviet supersonic

[@dominicwood3451]

Excellent documentary. We in the west tend to look down on Soviet era machines, but what you make abundantly clear here, is that Soviet engineers were fantastic given their constraints, and that the Tu-144 - given better engines and more development time - would have been arguably a better machine than the Concorde. I'm a Brit, but I can still appreciate the time and effort that went into these aircraft. Your documentary gives a balanced and fair insight. Great piece.

[@User0000000000000004]

Yeah, I'm sure it's hard to operate with the constraints created by stealing all the groundbreaking science from western corporations. I bet that's SUPER hard to do.

[@nickstaffer5036]

It is so refreshing to watch a documentary that is 100% accurate as well as entertaining. Thank you!

[@larsryberg9294]

😀 😀 😊 Og

[@pauljonkers4359]

Just one point: At 20:43 you see a Citroën GSA from the early 80's. That wreck can't be part of a TU-144.

[@JM-dy9fj]

Beautiful aircraft. I know it had many faults but for a small team in 1970s communist Russia to have created such a fantastic machine is just truly amazing.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊

[@srabjr1]

Lol

[@drewlawrence696]

The 144 ran commercially as a passenger craft for less than a year between Moscow and Almaty .....Concorde operated for 27 years.

[@river_salmon]

Actually, none of those 22...6? faults during operation had a direct impact to flight safety, according to constructors' memoirs. Sounds crazy, but it was more about complicating the operation, not just making it dangerous. It had about 24 faults in a single flight once and still managed to get to the destination safely.

[@mrc9437]

@@drewlawrence696 Concorde actually worked at a loss these 27 years, the Soviet government almost immediately realized that the operation of supersonic aircraft does not make sense

[@ronaldngadze9037]

Great documentary Sky. You have a knack for mixing technical information with humour. Your summary of different test pilot generations at 14:25 cracked me up.

[@watershed44]

Ronald Ngadze I love Russian humor, it's a bit blunt, but still dry, and deliberate too. Nothing else like it.

[@ronaldngadze9037]

@@watershed44 I agree. Nothing beats it.

[@olliversdad8447]

Such a beautiful aircraft. Looks like an eagle, with its wings spread. Very much like Firefox. I am a current 777 captain, and I’d do anything to fly the TU-144. Keep up the excellent work. Your videos are always right on. I thoroughly enjoy them. Especially the Russian bird. I have a fascination with Russian aircrafts, mostly because I don’t hardly get to see them.

[@AviationSimulation]

If the Concorde never existed, this would never had. Let that sink in

[@User0000000000000004]

@@AviationSimulation or their entire aircraft industry for about 30 years.

[@donalddepew9605]

Just let me know what airline you fly for, that way I won't accidentally book a flight on it. The TU-144 was a a poor copy of the Concorde and other western aircraft. Just about every other aircraft in a Communist inventory.

[@awangaddin]

A very underrated channel, you deserve more views and subs sir, especially from all aviation enthusiast out there. This is great history, and your vids cover from the past till the current gen of aircraft GA Mils and Commercial all the same. Love the history behind all this and your enthusiasm as well. Been binge watching your videos since yesterday 😁 greetings from Malaysia!!

[@vytautasvaicys8745]

Sky, your excellent videos add to the digital heritage of the world. Thank you.

[@SkyshipsEng]

Thanks for watching. This videos are very challenging in production

[@SounakBhattacharjee31291]

@@SkyshipsEng Thank you for so much effort. Your channel is so underrated.

[@SteveHolsten]

I appreciate your work on this video as well. It's very informative & just as interesting!

[@trash4cash454]

@@SkyshipsEng A digital heritage! Real awesome words)

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊

[@rhyshaug1272]

Fascinating video, especially for those of us unfamiliar with Soviet-era aircraft! Thanks for sharing your knowledge in such an accessible way

[@trash4cash454]

This channell is the only one which can provide so much information about the Soviet/Russian aviation

[@frankgaleon5124]

26 minutes. A real documentary!

[@User0000000000000004]

Your mom's a real documentary.

[@GIGABACHI]

Thanks, Skyships for putting this together. I had an Uncle that put together LOTS of plastic model airplanes(he was very good at it too) . . . the first time I saw a shiny TU-144 model at his apartment(I must have been 4-5 at the time) I sat in front of it and never got up until my Dad called it a day. To say I was hypnotized😍by it's shape and beauty is playing it low key. That thing looked like it could go to the Moon in the blink of an eye. That plane was(is) the stuff of dreams for any child who loves airplanes. I love all kinds of machines but supersonic airplanes are at the top . . . specially those "copycat, poorly built" Soviet ones. 25:34 MAJESTIC AF, this is what the B-1B Lancer dreams of and could have been hadn't money hungry politicians gotten in the way. That closing scene, 👌😎❤✨.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe

[@tufelkahonda5323]

It looks like it! Only the "modest hard worker" Lancer B-1B flies, and the "majestic Tu-144", rusting in the museum, dreams of the flying fate of the Lancer-))

[@GIGABACHI]

@@tufelkahonda5323 did you realize that the majestic one @ 25:34 its an ACTIVE DUTY White Swan TU-160 (technically superior to a B-1B) and not a retired TU-144 ? Go take your B-1B nationalistic fronting B.S somewhere else. This a video about a RUSSIAN plane, not some slow flying, underfunded, American wannabe.

[@MrBahjatt]

I like the use of rare Soviet footage. It is also a good insight into the unknown world of Russian engineering.

[@watershed44]

Yes it is fascinating to see into that world.

[@radekb.2953]

@Robert Blackford We all see who is dumbass here. Concorde was better in many categories, it's mentioned in video. But not in all of them. TU carried more passengers, was sligthly faster. Reason for too few TU fligths was strict economical. In comunism there were law that ticket cannot be more expensive for supersonic then classic aeroplane on same distance, they had to be plusminus same. And, of course, there were not businessmen pays extramoney. No money, no developments... Both of the planes were beautiful, unique and kings of Air.

[@СанекМосква-н5ц]

@Robert Blackford Are you sure that everything was stolen ???? What is the cause of the catastrophe TU-144 June 3, 1973 in Le Bourget ??? And whose fighter during the trick races of the Tu-144 with Kankord flew too close to the Tu to examine the front outward wings. And do you think American Belenko hijacked F-15 in the USSR and after that the Russians made MIG-24 (or was it all the way). Believe working at the Kamov plant, we are able to make aircraft and rockets with such guidance that we can get right into the hole of the priests to someone who has too high an opinion about himself Sorry for the spelling translation by Google

[@СанекМосква-н5ц]

@Robert Blackford Well, the TU-144 may not have flown for many hours, but at its base the T-4 Sotka was made (it also costs at the museum in Monino), and then the handsome TU-160 came out - now it has flown many hours

[@SketchTurnerZero]

@@radekb.2953 Thanks, buddy.

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

Great video as always! The TU 144 will never be forgotten to be honest. Many hold it as an example of the failure of the concept of practical commercial SST aircraft. I've been in arguments over the failure of the U.S. aviation business to create such an aircraft, and as you pointed out, the presented designs were unreachable as for what was wanted. But the reality of Boeing was that our government wanted our country to lead while none of our airlines or manufactures were really interested in going that direction. They were basically forced to with lots of wasted taxpayer money. Douglas and Boeing had their own ideas, ones our airlines wanted. While France and Britain sacrificed their industries with the Concorde project, giving up the rest of their industry, and the soviets finding out the hard way that the faster you make a plane fly, the more fuel it uses and more maintenance it needs. Simply impractical. The markets spoke, SST's, the darlings of the 60's future, failed, and badly. Boeing makes the most popular commercial plane in the world, the B737, they also make the longest running widebody, the B747 to this day. The sheer amount of aircraft in these series are staggering. Yeah, the world compromised, the USA blinked and dropped out. Planes fly slower with more people crammed in. But when in any age of humanity could you fly anywhere in the world with such low relative cost than right now?

[@mahmoudelshaer6786]

Simply amazing the way you organize your videos and script is perfect Keep it going Mr Sky

[@SkyshipsEng]

Thanks for watching)

[@ketoking9435]

Sky,,, Best documentary I've seen on the TU,,,in the 70s I'd see Concorde fly over Twickenham UK,,,it was a sight to see,,,Thanx for a great upload,,,

[@RB747domme]

Keto King what's with all the commas? Lol

[@drawingboard82]

Sky this is great, probably the best, fairest and most comprehensive introduction to the TU 144 series on the Internet. It was an aircraft battling a political system which starved the engineers of the knowledge and technology to perfect it. Building an SST is an incredible achievement and I feel sorry for the designers who simply didn't have access to the facilities available to the Concord team. With more money and a few more computers it might have been successful. Thanks again!

[@slickstrings]

in a way, they did have access to the concorde facilities... since they literally had access to the concorde facilities. It is well established that the soviets infiltrated the program and stole data to build the TU-144. They of course didnt have the complete picture or budget and had to use canards to compensate for their inferior wing design.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg og så skal du ikke er så mange som muligt 🙆 i morgen er det ikke 😋😀😆😆🤩🤝🤐🤐😏🤗😊😍🤔😁🙄☺️😉😂😎🙆🚾⛔⛔⛔⛔⛔⛔☢️☢️☢️☢️↙️⚠️🚻🛂🛃🛃🛃🛃

[@АлександрФедоров-у7ъ]

​@@slickstrings Ты дурак полный!

[@АлександрФедоров-у7ъ]

Кто у кого воровал? Было нормальное сотрудничество. Это тебя, дурака, из родильного дома украли, а ума не дали

[@anthonyslaughter1419]

It was a aircraft ahead of its time. With today’s technology that plane would fly with no problems.

[@stacked-racing]

It could have worked well even in the 70s but it was rushed af because the soviets wanted it to fly before the Concorde

[@jyrkikoskinen8402]

Nowdays fuel price is very bad problem....

[@PhysicstIsaac]

Supersonic jets are bad to the ozone layer so Supersonic jets might be outlawed soon :/

[@shrimpflea]

Except no one could afford to fly it these days.

[@BCPANORAMA]

@Peter Ou l'inverse. Or the opposite. Concorde copy of Tu-144

[@benoitseron2392]

Excellent video ! Many thanks for your efforts. And for those who have the chance to travel over there, Sinsheim and Speyer museums are worth the trip.

[@utkarshg.bharti9714]

What an amazing documentary! Thank you for this Sky!

[@colombiaturismoyviajes]

This plane was a great achievement of the engineering of that time especially for the Russia's resources, they created innovative solutions that Western engineers had not thought of before, the 144 was a beautiful and elegant design that with today's aeronautical technology could fulfill all the specifications for which it was planned but retaining the same Soviet design

[@User0000000000000004]

No, the western engineers had thought of those solutions before, possibly when they were in their first year of university. The soviets didn't come up with anything, this plane looks the way it does for a very specific reason, not because they developed it in a wind tunnel. It's easier to cheat. You need to come off it, bot.

[@ADPeguero]

Thank you so much Sky. Excellent work as always!

[@maxdugan7449]

The Tupolev 144 is a beautiful airplane.

[@User0000000000000004]

It's almost as beautiful as the source material it was copied from. Sort of like a tracing of a painting by a great master. Same, but different, you know?

[@super_slav91]

@@User0000000000000004 It wasn't a copy, if that was true the Lockheed l-2000 design for a supersonic transport was too. All supersonic airliners have to have the same look.

[@dandare2586]

You can go on both at the German Technical Museum. The Tupolev has glass valve electronics & Concorde is solid state.

[@vladchan]

It was an interesting project which was killed by its main client aeroflot who didn’t want it. But the legend lives on in the shape of the tu160 supersonic bomber which shares lot of the engineering with the civilian version

[@greghvazda2946]

The 144 may have been a political "tool", but it was a damned nice non military aircraft. It was interesting to see a MiG21 as a chase plane!

[@CMan-rt9in]

Thanks for the video, beautiful aircraft. I saw the model of the TU-144 at the USSR pavilion at EXPO-67 in Montreal, great memories.

[@wicked1172]

Flying is inherently dangerous and expensive. The SST's were extreme aircraft, extremely expensive, extremely fast, and extremely dangerous. It was interesting to learn here that both SST's were retired for the same problems. Great documentary, thanks Sky !!

[@User0000000000000004]

How were they dangerous? I don't understand? Are you saying they were dangerous because they were built by the USSR? You're probably right.

[@wicked1172]

@@User0000000000000004 Flying any airplane is expensive, flying any airplane is dangerous. The faster the aircraft, the more it will cost and the more dangerous it will be.

[@henriklmao]

@@wicked1172 driving your car is like a million times more dangerous than flying a plane btw...

[@assiz.m.pm.p2014]

Thank your for brings out the facts which the modern generations are not aware. The world was not matured enough to evaluate the economic viability along with technical feasibility in earlier days. This was the prime reason behind the failure of many major projects in sixties and seventies. Still it remains as a technological marvel as well a lesson for the Aerospace community.

[@bennybenitez2461]

Brilliant a most proper and utterly informative presentation. Enjoyed very much.

[@HC-cb4yp]

And yet... some intentional "flaws" were placed into the Concorde's plans - plans never intended to be used - that DID end up appearing in the Tu-144 that ended up requiring the addition of front canards to overcome...

[@АлександрФедоров-у7ъ]

Нет, не так. ТУ144 второй или третий экземпляр оперативно модернизиновали и управление стало гораздо лучше. А Конкорд так и остался с детскими болезнями.

[@HC-cb4yp]

@@АлександрФедоров-у7ъ The Brits added flaws to bogus plans that then appeared on the Tu-144. It's okay - corporate espionage is very chic.

[@constantiniasmith4231]

Beautiful plane. Like if you agree

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars 😊 😊 😊 😊

[@owenklein1917]

Love your videos of the Soviet airliners because it isn’t just the typical, “Soviet dangerous airliner” narrative you hear in the west”

[@duanebonney]

Thank you for this in-depth video. Some new information I've learnt here. I love the TU-144 and Russian Aviation. Greetings from Australia.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg 😎😎😎😎😄😅😅😅😍😍☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️⛔⛔⛔⛔☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️🔇🔇🔇🔇🔇🔇😀🎷🎷🎷🎷🎷🎷🔕🔕😎🎧🎧🎹🎹🎹🎹🔕🔕🔕🎻🎻📞🔕🔇😋📢📢📢📢📢📢📢📢🥰🥰🥰☺️☺️🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰😀😄😄😄😄😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

[@larsryberg9294]

😀 M 😍🎧😅🎻😀😀😀😀😀😀😀☢️☢️☢️☢️🤩🤩⛔☢️☢️☢️🔕🔕🔕🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎸📢📢📢📢📢📢📢📢☺️📢🧨🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🏒🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽🥉🏉🥈🎁🧧🧧🎆🧨🏅🎀🎋🎋🎄🏆🏆🎰♦️♥️🥌🥌🥌♥️♥️♥️♥️🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🕹️🎨🧵♟️♣️♣️♦️♦️♥️♠️♠️♠️♠️🎯🥌🥎🥎🥎🥎⚾⚾⚾🏅🏅🥇🏈🏆🏅🎎🎎🎎🎎🎗️🎊🎊🎊🎊🎊🎊🎊🎁🎁🎁🎁🥅🥌🎰🖼️🎨🧩🧩🧩

[@dododakowski2813]

A Tu-144 can be seen in the Sysheim-Museum in Germany. I was there and had the opportunity.

[@watershed44]

Lucky Man!

[@shebbs1]

Was awesome to go thereE

[@theshadowman1398]

Really want to visit that museum

[@nube144]

The beauty of the decadence!! Thanks for this amazing video.

[@user-yb3zc8ni7c]

12:04 What a truly Slav design....... Even their jets Squat Blin!!

[@anhtuanleminh1149]

Jay isn’t that the Concorde

[@hannanpakthini7221]

@@anhtuanleminh1149 .... but it's Concordski, as somebody put it.

[@ChannelAsh100]

I was hoping someone else was thinking this

[@NicolasZart]

I love your videos and you excelled with this one when talking about the "controversy". Excellent job!

[@setsunatellem]

That intro logo switch was cool. Nice touch Sky!

[@erictaylor5462]

6:05 "Was Soviet intelligence involved with industrial espionage? Of course." As were we all, Comrade. There was an American Navy Admiral in charge of nuclear power that got a tour of a nuclear powered ice breaker. He came off the ship and ordered *ALL* nuclear energy technology classified. He said it was very scary to see just how bad it was.

[@User0000000000000004]

Your stories are just that, stories. You're probably a russian bot. Shut up.

[@ollyalme]

The Concorde is by far the most beautiful aircraft that has ever flown.

[@User0000000000000004]

It's not as beautiful as the Lockheed Constellation. Sorry.

[@ollyalme]

@@User0000000000000004 Nothing to be "sorry" about. It's just our personal opinions 😆

[@super_slav91]

@@User0000000000000004 Vickers VC-10 is prettier

[@Michael.Chapman]

1:02 Shows the Tu-144 also has a beautifully sculpted, complex wing form and the view is enhanced at this angle by those amazing canards :-)

[@ottonormalverbrauch3794]

The canards that were made necessary because those 'beautiful wings' weren't really up to the task of realizing a reasonable landing speed and stall characteristics.

[@gnrl_mayhem]

They were all psychos. Love these little comments you throw in. And very informative and entertaining as usual.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe i en uge

[@theskunkupine1809]

This was an excellent documentary on this aircraft. Great work. Me subscribe.

[@sailintothesun3421]

Only in Soviet Russia do you design a state of the art supersonic airliner with the ability to land in the mud. Just make a proper runway already.. it's so much easier and cheaper!! :)

[@trash4cash454]

They didn't solved this problem until now in many regional airports

[@maciekkra539]

Long time ago on tv i've seen a glimpse of Tu144 taxing on snow and ice covered field, there is a reason why they design their planes with that ability. During combat situations is when a machine passes the test or not. Germans found out the hard way not to make anything too sophisticated with fine tolerances for Russia;)

[@helloworldstein]

It’s impossible to pave proper runways in some super cold places. The constant freezing and eventual thawing wreaks havoc on asphalt and creates dangerous cracks and debris. Honestly probably easier to just land the damn plane in mud.

[@ManteIIo]

Average runway in mother russia: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jobXip-IZ52MmJY

[@penskepc2374]

@@helloworldstein you just make a concrete base thats like 5 feet deep, lol.

[@theonereborn9299]

11:12 this part makes the plane look pretty intimidating.

[@larsryberg9294]

😀 😀 🥰 😎 😍 😏 🤩 😋 😋 😄 😅 ☺️ 🤗 🤔 🤗 😀 😀 🥰 😎 😍 😏 Og har ikke fået nogen besked om det er ikke så mange af de mest

[@haz525]

thanks a million for making this I enjoy the supersonic episodes

[@wimm1392]

Awesome doco, it proves psychos make the world go around, those test pilots had nerves of steel. Thanks

[@iP3To]

You can see both in Auto-Technik musem in Sinsheim (even from inside)

[@gooner72]

I'm glad there's still some of them in museums, there has only been 2 supersonic passenger aircraft and the TU-144 should take it's rightful proud place in history as one of the two.

[@User0000000000000004]

Proud. Lance Armstrong proud.

[@russt8874]

Have a feeling that we just could be seeing the TU 144 soon, in the next 2-3 years, and not in the museum but in service as passager aircraft in Russia. Let's wait...

[@ЮрийМирошников-з3л]

the cost of a ticket for the TU-144 was 68 rubles, which is half the engineer's salary on the other hand, if you look at it, few people could afford to fly on the Concorde)))

[@dododakowski2813]

80 Rubbel. More expensive then a regular flight but in comparison to Concorde almost for free. It gave me big chuckle.

[@Lyon_flightfilms]

Do Dodakowski nevertheless - that was a socialism system about

[@realsirarthur]

80 Rubel was average wage in USSR till 1985-90...

[@alyonav4078]

​@@realsirarthur no, average wage in 1985 was near 180- 200 rubles.

[@realsirarthur]

@@alyonav4078 equal to 3.000€ today. bread was 0.10 Rubel for a Kilo. Beef - 0.60 Rubel for a Kilo.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg, ➕🅱️🅱️🅱️🅰️🅰️🅰️🅰️🆗🆗🆗🆗🔱➕➕◼️◼️🔴🔷⬛🔶💠🔵♈➕🔱🔱🔱🔱🔱🔱🔱🔱⛎🔱©️☑️⏺️☑️🔆✝️♈♈✝️✝️♻️♻️♻️📛📛♎♈⛎⛎⛎⛎🔀🔀☣️🔆©️🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇯🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇬🇭🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇴🇫🇴🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇬🇫🇴🇫🇴🇫🇴🇨🇾🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇾🇩🇿🇩🇿🇪🇨🇫🇮🇭🇰🇭🇰🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇭🇳🇯🇲🇮🇳🇮🇹🇮🇸🇮🇸🇮🇸🇮🇸🇰🇬🇮🇸🇭🇷🇰🇵🇰🇵🇯🇵🇶🇦🇵🇾🇵🇾🇵🇼🚳↙️

[@luisemiliotorres3317]

This is so cool! Keep on!

[@gerardusvanhoorn1004]

Ĺ

[@Nawabid]

For it's TIME PEriOD, Both Planes were way ahead of it's times and it was A HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT.. Seeing as today we CANNOT GO TO THE MOON AGAIN, and need many years to accomplish this..

[@paradisemace1]

We can't go back to the moon because we have never been there. The sooner we admit this, the sooner we will get there.

[@AviationSimulation]

Paradisemace1, do you think the earth is flat too

[@paradisemace1]

@@AviationSimulation No, the earth IS round, but no man has ever been outside of low earth orbit... Now deal with it.

[@AviationSimulation]

@@paradisemace1 so you believe the earth is flat and hate trump. Thanks for your time

[@paradisemace1]

@@AviationSimulation what do you NOT understand about the word "round" ??? Your attempt to force your opinions on others is both frivolous and juvenile. I like President Trump, for what that's worth.

[@blowinkk9396]

This is a great video. Thanks for making it

[@bennymutant]

Very interesting indeed. Beautiful fresh footage and loads of new information

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 🏆🕹️🕹️♣️♣️♣️♠️♠️♣️♣️♣️♥️♥️♥️♥️♦️♦️🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🥎🎄🎄⚾🥇🏅🥌🥌🥌🥌🥌🥌☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️⛔⛔⛔⛔⛔⛔⛔⚠️⚠️🛅🛅🛃🛂🏧🚼🚾🛃🛃🛄☣️↙️⬇️↘️➡️↖️↖️↖️↖️⬅️⤴️↪️⤴️⤵️⤵️🔃☣️☣️☣️☣️☣️☣️☣️☣️✝️♈♎♎⛎🔀⏺️🔆♻️♻️☑️♻️☑️➕➕➕➕➕➕➕➕➕➕➕📛📛🔱⚜️☑️©️®️🅱️🅱️🅱️🅰️🅰️🅰️🅰️🅰️🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🆗🔵🔴🔷◼️⬛🔶🔘💠💠💠💠💠

[@doctorstrangelove9487]

Majestic plane. Sad that you could fly from New York to London in 3 1/2 hours in 1968 and now it takes more than 6 hours!

[@RB747domme]

The King the sad thing is, the Tu-144 didn't have the Range to fly to New York. With the after burners constantly let, it would have run out of fuel halfway across the Atlantic. And even the later model with more efficient engines could fly at only Mach 1.7 without stressing the engines, and as he said in the video, the Illyushin could do the same flight only just a little bit slower. It's a shame common because it could have been so promising, if the engineers had been given the access to better facilities and technology.

[@misasavic5073]

Tu 144 was developed from russian supersonic bomber Su 100 T4.

[@TheTomyossarian]

I love you presentations, Sky! Objective and informative! Keep them coming! Cheers from the USA

[@User0000000000000004]

bot

[@watershed44]

Skyships Eng Wow she is BEAUTIFUL! Sexier than the Concorde if that is possible. Thank you for bringing the history of Russian aircraft to those of us in the west.

[@SkyshipsEng]

After some time I will make another video - a little tour on the real Tu-144)

[@watershed44]

Skyships Eng I look forward to that, as I do ALL your detailed videos! Oh and I'm in the USA. Regardless of what our "mass media" says most Americans think highly of the Russian People and all Slavic Peoples.

[@Mondoria]

watershed44 As a fellow American, I heartily agree

[@budyeddi5814]

Cheers from Alabama 💪 Love the gorgeous Russian aircraft

[@doncarlin9081]

Ha, see not all of us are hardcore jingoists! 😁

[@nickbreen287]

4 variants, due to major re-design! I knew this thing was a disaster but 4 re-builds would be 4 more than a commercial western company would ever entertain.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe og y og så er vi på en eller anden form for tuning til 😎😎😎😎🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐😆😏🤗😅😅😀🙄🤔😉🤗😋😂😄😄🥰😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@die6oo]

THANKS FOR THIS VIDEO! Love tu144 but its difficult to find all info you shared, nowI know much more of it.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe og så

[@tufelkahonda5323]

If you knew everything about this plane, you would love it much less!

[@RobbertsTravelGuides]

Thankss sooooo much i was at Sinsheim and the 144 is amazing and looks good :)

[@mikecar52]

Usual great work. Thank you.

[@crumcon]

They manages to build these marvels in the 60's ! Cold War indeed pushes human race to its limits!

[@User0000000000000004]

Shut up, bot.

[@williamwatitwa3534]

In 4 years, now they build a bridge in 10 years

[@N34RT]

While Concorde was never an economic success (it was highly subsidized by the British and French governments - who never recouped their research, design, development and production costs), it was nonetheless a marvel of combined technologies of that era. It was an "operational success" in that it could cruise at 1,340 mph in normal/dry thrust, making it much more (relatively) efficient, quieter, more comfortable (less fatiguing) and a giving it greater range (4,500 miles) with 100 passengers.

[@foxton3201]

Concorde wasn't an economic success it was an economic disaster...

[@N34RT]

@@foxton3201 Did you even read the first line of my comment?? "... Concorde was NEVER an economic success ...."

[@foxton3201]

@@N34RT but that exacly what I said

[@qasimmir7117]

@@foxton3201 Though it didn’t sell. It did make significant profits for British Airways.

[@flyingdentist]

Awesome research and presentation

[@gryfandjane]

Fascinating! Thanks very much for posting.

[@maxsaviation2622]

My Great Great Grandad Flew On It And One Of The Pictures On The Video Was By Him

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe 🇫🇴🇫🇴🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇩🇿🇯🇲🇯🇲🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇬🇭🇩🇪🇫🇴🇬🇬🇬🇬🇨🇾🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇩🇯🇫🇷🇫🇷🇬🇬🇩🇰🇩🇰🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇾🇨🇾🇮🇹🇮🇹🇩🇪🇫🇴🇫🇴↙️↙️↙️↙️↙️↙️↙️↙️🇩🇰

[@gr8cescale]

The Concorde was focused on passenger comfort. The TU144 was focused on beating concorde, which nobody could.

[@shrimpflea]

The best thing about it are those front canard "snoopy" wings.

[@tufelkahonda5323]

But this is the only advantage! The main thing in an airplane is the main wing, not the front wings... In Concord, the main wing is much better. The Concorde has a wing so much better that even the front wings were not needed!

[@river_salmon]

@@tufelkahonda5323 well the Concordski could have flown on lower speeds thanks to the canards But imma mention that it was more like a semi-measure, because they didn't have a decent power unit

[@philipread8733]

Shame it wasn’t more successful. Good video again Sky.

[@hitthefloorlpu2003]

I smell communism lol it crashed and died

[@jmurphy1973]

A barrel roll in a 707. That must have been one helluva fun ride! Pucker Factor: 💯

[@Flies2FLL]

The inside of the TU-144 was SCREAMING LOUD!

[@Flies2FLL]

Due to the air conditioning design, this plane was not only 87 degrees F on a typical flight, it was nearly 90 decibels inside. That is about the same as a Briggs & Stratton push mower, but this is an airliner and it is right in your ear....

[@vitaliypredoliak2124]

as peoples used to fly 144 told it wasnt so noisy, depend of there are you got a seat. On back of fuselage it was.

[@KK-jb1fy]

There's a difference between standing on the shoulders of giants while observing research around the world and stealing blueprints and technical plans from rivals in order to pull off a political stunt in an ideological conflict. That's why the Tu-144 never flew at all (aside from economic reasons) - it was pestered by technical problems because the Soviet scientists did not have detailed plans of many of the components (the wings, the philosophy behind the engine intake, the engine parameters of the Olympus-SMEC itself...).

[@mexellify]

Never flew at all? Did you even watch the video?

[@KK-jb1fy]

@@mexellify I expressed myself badly, by "flew" I meant as a regular airliner, such as the Concorde. The Soviet government had to keep passenger numbers low in the highly probable case an accident would occur, the services were constantly delayed or canceled due to technical issues, etc.

[@mexellify]

@@KK-jb1fy I see :) It's not that Concorde ever flew profitable or reliably. British Airways and Air France just had deeper pockets than the Soviet Union.

[@arnaudn.5675]

That was a brilliant video, very nice footages of the plane, in deeper knowledge about the aircraft and it's rather complex development process. It's not so common to get some view of this bird in full flight mode, and it is a very nice looking plane, nothing to be shy compared to it's European brother.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg Faxe og

[@kokokaification]

Look at it as you want, Soviets achieved something that US did not, make supersonic jetliner.

[@larsryberg9294]

Lars rybErg 🕹️♠️🏆🎎🥎🥎🥅🥅♠️🎭🎄♥️♥️♠️♠️♠️♠️♠️♦️♣️♣️♠️🎯🎎🧩🎊🥎🧵🧵♟️♥️🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈

[@khalilfofanah7589]

Great documentary series

[@jjthomas2297]

It is too bad that, in almost every Soviet Era aircraft, the design bureau was ridiculously rushed.Dates became more important than the finished product. Given a few more years, this could have been a great aircraft. The same was true for the early space program. The early Soviet spacecraft were deathtraps.It was only until they took their time and produced the second generation Soyuz spacecraft that they got it relatively safe.

[@СашаУточкин-г9э]

The first Soviet spacecraft Vostok did not kill more than one person, the Soyuz killed 4, you know nothing about Russia and the Soviet Union

[@johnbrown9181]

​@@СашаУточкин-г9э Neither Vostok nor Voskhod killed a single person. Sadly, Valentin Bondarenko died during training, however this training wasn't specific to Vostok. Vostok 1 was rushed for political reasons, although the spacecraft wasn't ready at that point.

[@daapz]

Thank you for this, it was very interesting. Especially the part whenever it was just a ripoff of Concord as many seem to believe.

[@User0000000000000004]

Yes, many people tend to believe things that are true, like how this plane was the result of industrial espionage, not engineering. It's a great copy.

[@bencebanati]

Great video!

[@jimhughes2641]

Great video on an inspirational aircraft.

[@abhishekkumarprajapati5959]

Concord: I am the fastest TU 144: Hold my beer

[@STEVELILLEY011117]

Concord: I am the safest TU 144: Hold my beer

[@elimalinsky7069]

@Cliff Yablonski The Tu-144 was decomissioned from commercial passenger flights less than a year after its maiden commercial flight with passangers due to extremely high running and maintenance costs, several accidents and a plethora of engineering flaws. Yes, it flew almost 2.5 times the speed of sound and at 70,000 feet, but it had to leave afterburners on during the entire supercruise, unlike the Concorde which could turn off all afterburners after the initial transonic entry into supercruise, for a pleasant and economic flight. There were also complaints from the passengers in regard to excessive noise throughout the flight, unpleasant odors, vibrations and discomfort during take off, climb, descend and landing. The Concorde had none of those complaints.

[@hangyzhang9317]

Vodka*

[@meonair]

butuh hang..skit2 hold my beer..x dak bnda len ka nak hold

[@binaway]

@@elimalinsky7069 mach 2.5 was the original specification although the fastest speed achieved was mach 2.39 and only by the first prototype which was built mostly of stainless steel. The eventual production model was made from an aluminum allow very similar to the Concorde. In it's 55 commercial flights it never exceeded mach 1.86 whereas Concorde flew at mach 2 between London and New York and averaged 99 passengers per flight. The in service Tu-144 like the Concorde had a turbo jet engines. The largest number of passengers in service was 86 and averaged "3286/55="only 59 passengers.

[@9118693223]

supersonic commercial passenger flights were just too expensive to survive. even for the aeroflot ...

[@douglasfaichnie]

Hi Sky. Your videos are excellent!

[@nicholasjohnson6724]

Tex Johnston was the test pilot that did the barrel roll with the 707. He was hauled over the coals for it, his defence was that he was 'selling aircraft for Boeing..' Mr William Boeing apparently said 'you know it can do it, I know it can do it, just don't do it again' 😂😂😂

[@gexpe2003]

well researched material

[@scribcaseteam4717]

Awesome documentary!

[@olaolu2rule]

Great video.. great work

[@johnmyers6868]

These were the good old days

[@MrRandomcommentguy]

I prefer this to Concorde - I'm sure it had the potential to be far more successful, but I guess the Soviet collapse meant it couldn't be developed any further.

[@trash4cash454]

I guess the program was closed before the USSR collapsed. Nobody planned to continue the work

[@bluemountain4181]

It was retired from passenger service in the 1970s, decades before the end of the USSR. It was just too inefficient and unsafe. The Soviets came up with some great projects but the Tu-144 was not one of them.

[@egalf]

There were plans for the Tu-244 which would have used cameras instead of a retractable nose. Then the USSR died and with it the aircraft industry as well. Tupolev still holds onto these plans and even sees a market for 100 planes till 2025. Quite a bit too optimistic, probably.

[@radekb.2953]

@Joel Schembri Constant afterburning was problem of early versions of TU144. TU144-D with kolesov engines was capable of supercruise. If I'm wrong, correct me.

[@rosisrosarum643]

TUPOLEV TU-144 and CONCORDE: The first TUPOLEV TU-144 which flew on December 31, 1968 was indeed very similar of Concorde. It was a "proof of concept" model which was the TU-144A. The Soviets realized that this aircraft, which flew very well, could in no way be certified for civilian passenger transport because of its very high approach and landing speed. After a few test flights the Soviets came to the conclusion that another very different plane had to be built, the TU-144A was scrapped and they started to build the others, the TU-144B and after the C and D. Models C and D used important parts in titanium in an epoch metallurgy of this metal was unknown in the west reason why Concorde was only made in steel and aluminum (and this was the reason its cruise and maximum speed are the same and limited to mach 2 while the TU144 having its critical parts in titanium could cruise at mach 2.2 with a top speed of mach 2.35) . Double delta wings with strait leading edges would make easier to implement slats. Having engines near the center line close to the cabin it liberates the wing trailing hedge (a wingspan of 28.8 meters and 507 m² of wing area to be compared to 25.6 meters and 358 m² for Concorde) making it possible to have the significantly larger flaps all along the trailing edge that were necessary as having low speed in approach and landing that was the goal. Landing speed of Concorde was 305 km/h (165 kts) to be compared to 270km/h (146 kts) for the Tupolev that was indeed very similar of the Boeing 747 that was at time the fastest commercial plane landing. Another important difference was the width of the cabin more comfortable allowed the TU144 to have five seats up front while the Concorde only had four with seats next to the window being uncomfortable, only for people of below average height. Concorde flew in march 4, 1969 and Westerners (French and English) came to the same conclusions as the first version of soviets, it had a very high approach and landing speed, another plane had to be made. The French agreed to build another aircraft but the British did not. The new labor government led by new prime minister Harold Wilson begun to reorganize (and partly nationalize) the entire British aviation industry in what became later British Aerospace with the cancellation of many ongoing and operational projects. Cancelation of the TSR2 aircraft project (Supersonic Tactical & Reconnaissance Bomber) few weeks after its first flight was a serious blow to the Concorde project as it had the same Olympus 593 Concorde engines and had an early version of electric commands a kind of fly by wire but still of analog technology to be implemented in Concorde among other innovations. For the English a design of a new Concorde plane was not possible, they had to continue with the Concorde as it was in the state it was, with all its faults and problems due to design flaws, or else cancel it as the English wanted. The British government did everything to cancel the project, which was firmly opposed by French President George Pompidou. In February 1973 the Concorde project was virtually dead and in the process of being definitively cancelled. It was then the French president embarked to Azores in prototype number three on what is called the flight of last chance to Concorde for a meeting requested by the US President Richard Nixon. Nixon asked the French President to stop converting into gold each dollar entering in France because the US exits the Brenton Woods agreements and the dollar will no longer be convertible on the fixed price agreed in 1947. For his part, George Pompidou explained to Nixon the problem of the Concorde and the danger of having a more efficient Soviet competitor thanks to the use of new metals such as titanium. It was decided to continue the Concorde project as it was the first prototype, but a special committee was created to adopt a very special (and extremely expensive) approach and landing procedures were adopted especially for supersonic planes (but actually only for the Concorde). On approach it was necessary to create a gap in front of the Concorde, which made it impossible for 4 and sometimes 5 planes to land, which were sent to turn around or to a waiting circuit. In all air control centers, priority had to be given to the Concorde, it often arrived at its destination with just ten minutes of fuel in reserve, which was a safety aberration, all regulations require it to land with at least 45 minutes reserve. The French and British governments would pay enormous compensation, this was the price of prestige. Among other several design flaws one was the very great exposure of the kerosene tanks to projections from the landing gear were even the cause of many incidents but three accidents with significant leakage of kerosene, two in 1979, one in Dakar and the other in Washington/Dulles. In November 1981, the American National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a letter of concern to the French BEA that included safety recommendations for Concorde. This communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents during a 20-month period from July 1979 to February 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as "potentially catastrophic," because they were caused by blown tyres during takeoff. During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic. The most serious accident was in July 2000 in Gonesse (France) that caused 113 deaths and marked the end of the aircraft's prestige. This design flaw could be easily corrected on a second copy in prototype phase but … it didn’t happen . On the TU-144 such an accident would be impossible or would not have had the same consequences, projections from the landing gear were not in line with fuel tanks and these are protected by titanium pieces. IN SHORT : Concorde was an immature project, a version B or other was not possible mainly due to budgetary constraints from the British government, it flew for 27 years below important safety rules authorized through derogation obtained at the highest political level. However Concorde was the first operational plane with an early version of “fly by wire” commands (instead of hydraulics) and this was a great and important innovation in aviation very soon adopted by Airbus. The Tu144 was 11% heavier than Concorde but had 40% more wing surface (canards not included) and this made it having approach and landing speed comparable to existing commercial jets like the Boeing 747 and much lower than Concorde.(GM).

[@joshuajoe1419]

Next B2707 and L-2000 oh wait they were canceled

[@SkyshipsEng]

But the video will be realized about them

[@frankgaleon5124]

It would be interesting

[@trash4cash454]

Instead of the B2707 and L-2000 they've developed the first wide-body airliners. Much more successful solution

[@joshuajoe1419]

The B2707 had a similar capacity to the dc-10 and l-1011

[@trash4cash454]

@@joshuajoe1419 And several times more expensive

[@roshanannauth3172]

Awesome document... it's has change my view on concord... in my whole life i thought concord was the best but no the tu-144 is the best and more powerful

[@davidellis279]

It was obviously a copy of Concorde in many ways, the makers of Concorde knew that if it were to travel any faster there could be problems so it's debatable wether the Russian plane was faster, the one thing that was not debatable though was Concords reliability against the Russian copy, up to that accident in France its record was impeccable, it's a shame that it was scrapped after only one accident, I don't see Boeing doing the same thing with their 737 Max after 2 fatal crashes in a very short time from new. I think that accident with Concorde was just the excuse they wanted to ground the plane after years of reliable service. Apparent Boeing were a bit pissed off because they couldn't make anything as good so they got the US government to make life difficult for operators of Concord by saying it was too noisy and restricting it's speed overland because of sonic booms. There's on thing for certain Nobody has made a passenger plane that's been as good and reliable as Concord, it's just a shame it was scrapped but I think that was a political decision more than anything else.

[@n1c98]

Very awesome documentary

[@rupertestrada7970]

Gracias ...excelente documento...

[@bobking7910]

I LOVE RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT, WHEN YOU GO TO AN AIRSHOW WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO THE RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT, BEST LOOKING AND SOUNDING.

[@egalf]

All the fools saying the TU-144 was a copy of the Concorde can be proved wrong simply by looking at the history of its creators. Tupolev did indeed make a real (verbatim) copy of an airplane: The Tu-4 aka B-29 Superfortress. They even copied the Boeing inscriptions and all the faults the B-29 had. There is no part in the Tu-144 that is remotely identical to the Concorde. They surely got help from intelligence agencies but it is still not a copy of anything. The most interesting twist in the story is the assumption that the French wanted to "steal back" the retractable canards from the improved Tu-144 by flying a Mirage next to it which probably caused the crash at Le Bourget.

[@andrewpalframan4666]

Don't be so fucking ridiculous, it's a direct steal.

[@shebbs1]

Yet the theft of intellectual material was admitted later on, as well as being known at the time due mainly to flaws in French security.

[@leneanderthalien]

your assertion is completly ridiculous and false, and prove your ignorance: 3 soviet spys was arrested in France with bluepints from the Concorde and one had metal probes from the fuselage, and this last detail is very important: le Tu 144 had immediatly heawy problems with structure metal cracks because the choice from the alloy was no good...The Concorde not need canard because use weight transfer from kerosene to modify the CG. The canard on the Tu 144 was only use at very low speed (take off or landing situation)...Canard use on the Mirage was first use FROM THE ISRAELIANS in 1970 on they KFIR, and they modify later the Swiss Mirage III ES and others exported Mirage III and 5, but canards was NEVER USE ON the french airforce Mirage: see the Mirage 2000 entered in service in 1983 had no canards...

[@egalf]

@@leneanderthalien So where can you find an identical part from Concorde that was copied 1:1 for the Tu-144? I said that they surely got help from the intelligence agencies but which part is an exact copy? And where did I say that they wanted to use the pictures made with the alleged Mirage for any of their planes?

[@MarkMark-ji6ts]

@egalf 100% correct but I'm sure peoples biases will continue to run wild. Even in this documentary it flat out states industrial espionage is a reality there is a HUGE difference between spying to get ideas and secrets and a direct copy. I would also add T-144 was first before concorde LOL

[@SHARP2026]

Great video. Well done

[@pedropuelles6011]

I need a this one TU- 144 for my home garage

[@sidamarali3030]

Informative video. Thanks .

[@shibinraj7]

Tupolev Tu144-2430 km/h Concord- 2180 km/h

[@AviationSimulation]

Shitolev Tu144- shit Concord- supreme