Concorde v Concordski

[WindSheer]

The success of the one and the white elephant of the other goes without saying.

Reading up on the TU-144 I am amazed at some of the design flaws, especially given the general talent of Russian engineering.

Leaving espionage aside, I am so surprised with some of the issues such as cabin noise. Apparently pax sat next to each other had to yell, whereas across the isle resulted in written communication.

I suppose what is more embarrasing is that Nasa and Boeing labels were planted on the side. What exactly was their involvment, I cant seem to find this? Was it purely funding in an attempt to beat the European superior product?

[MG23]

Originally Posted by WindSheer

I suppose what is more embarrasing is that Nasa and Boeing labels were planted on the side. What exactly was their involvment, I cant seem to find this? Was it purely funding in an attempt to beat the European superior product?

NASA had a TU-144 for a while (may still do) as a supersonic test aircraft after the fall of the Soviet Union. Is that what you mean?

[FCeng84]

NASA High Speed Research use of TU-144

NASA during the late 1990's contracted with Boeing to do research on super sonic transport technology. As part of that work NASA paid Russia to conduct TU-144 flight testing. Neither NASA nor Boeing owned a TU-144. The stories from the US pilots who went along on those flight tests were eye opening!

[Amadis of Gaul]

That particular airframe, RA-77114, is back to mothballs now.

[barry lloyd]

This one is regularly rolled out at the Moscow Air Show: this picture was taken in 2008. Not in flying condition as such, but much closer to it than any of the others.

[atakacs]

Also worth mentioning that this Tu-144 was significantly upgraded from the original design

[EEngr]

NASA during the late 1990's contracted with Boeing to do research on super sonic transport technology.

What did they do with the (never completed) #3 XB-70 airframe?

[TURIN]

I suppose what is more embarrasing is that Nasa and Boeing labels were planted on the side. What exactly was their involvment, I cant seem to find this? Was it purely funding in an attempt to beat the European superior product?

Sweet.

(I feel so old)

[Blantoon]

I wouldn't exactly call the Concorde a success. From a technical standpoint yes, it was a fantastic machine, with a lot of industry firsts and important technological advancements that has filtered down into different areas, but commercially it was a total failure.

That being said, this is a technical forum, and I had the fortune of flying with a top Concorde trainer the other month which has made me rather a fan. He mentioned that the super cruise was the main thing they had the Russians beat on - the TU-144 needed reheats which cut the range dramatically.

[Peter-RB]

Bro's across the ocean seem always to want to be seen as special Friends with the UK,...then why didn't they throw their lot in the the Anglo French Concorde engineering effort, so that between them they would still have Concord(e) and now possibly the son of Concord(e) being floated around the Globe by the Anglo's and the US pax carrying companies.

Or was it something like "Bastard Brits have beaten us again", well lets have it banned from overflights at full chat.....sadly that seems to come up many times in aircraft/flying discussions, always including the Bell X1 types using our Brit designed super tail system. to do deals with the Rooshians seems a backward way of stealing ( sorry designing) good ideas..!!

[TURIN]

The US didn't get involved because they knew it would be expensive and economically unsound.

They used the TU144 because it was cheap and available. They didn't steal anything from it except data.

[megan]

including the Bell X1 types using our Brit designed super tail system

A myth I'm afraid Peter.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The US didn't get involved because they knew it would be expensive and economically unsound.

The US spent more on their SST project than we spent on Concorde. We got that fabulous aeroplane for 27 years of luxury Mach 2 transatlantic travel several times a day, they got a wooden mock up.

including the Bell X1 types using our Brit designed super tail system
A myth I'm afraid Peter.

I think not. The Americans were handed all the M52 data, including the unique all-flying tail essential to pitch control at transonic speeds. The only bit they couldn't do was the engine; only Whittle could do that back then, so the Americans used a rocket based on German WW2 design.

Of course if the UK 'establishment' hadn't cancelled the M52 for stated spurious reasons 'Winkle' Brown would have been the first to go Mach 1 some time before the US eventually did.

[FlightlessParrot]

We got that fabulous aeroplane for 27 years of luxury Mach 2 transatlantic travel several times a day, they got a wooden mock up.

Actually, they got complete dominance of the subsonic large transport category.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Actually, they got complete dominance of the subsonic large transport category.

FP, I'm Intrigued. In what way did spending more on the cancelled SST than we spent on Concorde give them subsonic large transport dominance?

[Windy Militant]

The US didn't get involved because they knew it would be expensive and economically unsound.

They did, but overstepped the mark by trying to build a mach 3 design, which actually turned out to be good thing in the end as the problems in building a commercial carrier which could get through the thermal barrier slowed them down long enough so that the low cost market become the established norm rather than the jet set and captains of industry market that originally drove the design for Concorde.

As for complete dominance of the subsonic large transport category how many B52s and KC 135s were bought by the US government and also did not the 747 arise out of the CX-HLS? Despite there being a clause preventing data gained from Government contracts being used commercially this was circumvented in many ways but mainly by the transfer of staff between the divisions of the company.

[FlightlessParrot]

Actually, they got complete dominance of the subsonic large transport category.
FP, I'm Intrigued. In what way did spending more on the cancelled SST than we spent on Concorde give them subsonic large transport dominance?

They got dominance by cancelling the SST (and a lot of other things contributed as well, of course). How much of Britain's rather limited talent (small country, not the greatest technical education programme) was tied up in making a marvel of technology with no commercial future? How much of Britain's extremely limited managerial talent was blinded by the glamour?

[Peter-RB]

Goodness gracious,
I never thought anyone in (or from)NZ would ever make sour comments like that about us "Good ole Brits"

SSD thankyou for the M52 addition, I have not been able to find my book with that info in, ..however being a Brit I thought that we had supplied (GIVEN) that info to the Bro's over the Pond, sadly for the commercial aspect it came at at time when we(the Brits) had little or no funds to carry it through to full jet(not Rocket) propulsion, quiet simply due to fighting the WW2 for the full term ie 39 to 45.5.

In fact Whittle's Jet developed and built not 12 miles from where I sit, was also GIVEN to the Rooshiens to help(???) them build their first Jet aircraft.....

Does it sound rather like we have given the World an awful lot more than others might have done..??

PR-B Lancashire

[evansb]

Yes, it does. Britain displayed a curious sympathy towards Soviet Russia in the immediate post war years. Given that a few British double-agents were literally in bed with the U.S.S.R., it is not surprising that a great deal of what would otherwise be classified as national secrets were given away.

[Stanwell]

evansb,
'Curious' is the operative word there.
Can you recommend a book or somesuch that would help me understand just what was going on in the minds of those in Whitehall at the time?