Concorde v Concordski
 

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?

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?

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!

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

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.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...photos/035.jpg

Concorde v Concordski
 

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

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

Sweet. :)

(I feel so old) :uhoh:

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.

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..!!:suspect:

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.

A myth I'm afraid Peter.

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.

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 :rolleyes: 'Winkle' Brown would have been the first to go Mach 1 some time before the US eventually did.

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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?

'curious sympathy towards Soviets'

There seems to have been a naivety about Stalin's intentions in places - on both sides of the Atlantic at all levels in 1945/6. He was still perceived as an ally by many.

The diaries of King George VI's Private Secretary, Tommy Lascelles, illustrate this. He had been to Oxford, so was well educated, and also seemed a reasonable judge of character as he wasn't impressed by the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor), but Tommy Lascelles seemed to accept Stalin at face value according to his diaries.

(However, on 2nd thoughts, I'm not sure about his standard of education. He thought a casualty rate of 5% on a bombing raid was reasonable - I hope he never took out a loan at compound interest!)

One plan for Concorde was from London to Tokyo with stops at Moscow and somewhere in Siberia. This was a potentially lucrative business route.

However the failure of the TU 144 knocked this on the head as the Ruskies didn't want their people to see we had a successful SST when they did not. Also because of this they would not allow supersonic ops over Siberia which they'd previously indicated they would be amenable to.

The man ultimately responsible for handing over jets to the USSR was Stafford Cripps, who had been ambassador to Moscow during to war. He had known Marxist sympathies even before this but I can't help wondering whether Stalin had gathered some blackmail material when Cripps was in Moscow.

Not much, a lot of Britain's aviation talent went to the USA because there wasn't enough work in the UK. Which is why many 747 systems are remarkably similar to the VC10.

I can recommend 'Winkle' Brown's book on the M52. Brown, having been selected as pilot for the first supersonic flight in it, obviously had a lot of involvement including working with Miles and various Government agencies.

I won't say here what Brown's conclusions were about the cancellation and the handing of the data to the US as it would be a spoiler for anyone yet to read the book. Political intrigue is there of course, Whittle and Power Jets play a part, and an expensive side-show of unsuccessful radio controlled models (that ended up costing more than flying the M52 would have done, but which proved the M52 would almost certainly have done the job) were foisted onto the project by a rather 'difficult' Barnes Wallis.

The official reason for cancellation - that 'it was too dangerous a mission for the pilot', is effectively shot down by Brown as nonesense. Brown's teasing out (from his knowledge gained in meetings, and with personally knowing the main characters involved) of the probable real reason is fascinating.

The book is well worth a read!

By the way - TU144 and Concorde. TU144 was in no way a 'Concordski' (Copy of Concorde). If they'd copied it, they'd have got it right. The wing and in particular the intakes on the 144 were far from 'right', hence the fuel burn. The secret of Concorde's supercruise allowing very low fuel consumption at M2 and 60,000 ft is the intakes, mostly. Ted Talbot's book is well worth a read on that.

Having been able to park my ample but firm rear end on the sumptuous Soft grey leather seats just rear of the port side wing on Concord, I marveled at the feel of acceleration to reach the ability to throttle back so as not to blast eardrums of mere earthling looking like ants below us, but once high enough to pass over 2x Mount Everests I read that the air intakes at supercruise presented air to the engines as though it was only doing 300knts, all done with baffles and trapdoors..
I am sure somebody will be able to jump on me to correct this, for like my Winkle Brown book I cannot put my hand onto that Concord publication.

But to the rest of the World.."Eat ya heart out Baby", the Brits and the Froggys developed an aircraft that broke all records

Good Eh
Peter R-B
..Lancashire where the first Jet engine in the World was built, not copied!:D

view of Tu-144 intakes at Sinsheim
 

You're correct there. Peter. Mach 2 airflow, slowed to about 300kts at the engine face, and a great deal of energy extracted from slowing that air down converted directly into forward thrust - pressure recovery!

Above M1.3 the ramps were moved hydraulically by the intake computer (the only digital one on the aeroplane) to maintain the intake shocks in the right place. The combination of the intake shape, boundary layer diverter, and the computer control system and software that controls the ramps, is what the Russians (and the US with the B1 - read Ted's book) couldn't get right.

Above M1.7 the intakes were providing so much power that the afterburners could be switched off, and the aeroplane would continue to accelerate and climb to M2 at 60,000' in dry power. Only skin temps prevented higher speeds, and certification for dealing with the possibility of decompression of the cabin limited it to 60,000'.

What a fabulous aeroplane! I flew in it just once, but I did get the jump seat T/O to landing!

Hi SSD

I was wowed out by the curvature of the Earth, with dark blue to black above and the most brilliant Azure blue below, and then Stars, no longer twinkling, no turbulence, only a slight bump when M2 was arrived at, quiet enough to hold a normal conversation I still cannot really believe we had that in the 1970's What a piece of Kit, after landing on the run out and taxi back I also remember seeing hundreds of faces all looking and waving at the A/c I was arriving in, what an experience..!! it will be in my mind till the lamps go out..

Peter R-B :ok:
Lancashire

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.

Actually they were fairly clear from early on that the US SST would be titanium based to avoid stagnation temp issues. The side effect of that was they were looking at a 600,000lb AUW.
The basis of the protests against Concorde on either side of the pond was primarily sonic booms. Research from Langley into the kind of overpressure that would result from a 600,000lb aircraft at M3 told them that the public would never accept it. The USAF was already paying several million in compensation for sonic boom damage back in the early 60s from small fighters.
The administration eventually pulled the plug rather than face the growing political opposition.

Mine too!

I remember taxying out at Manchester for 24 (as it was then) past the Airport Hotel, its back garden packed with people who'd come to see the beautiful white bird, all waving like mad. The crew were too busy to wave back, so I did as I was seated next to the cockpit side window, just behind the captain. They were jumping up and down and the waving was manic!

We were only going to Paris (via Biscay for M2 and 60,000') so were lightweight. The acceleration zero to 250 mph on the runway was sensational - well under 30 seconds to rotation! Soon after T/O the nose and visor were raised, and the cockpit became eerily quiet. We were on a Brecon SID cruising down over central Wales at M0.95 (even subsonic she was quick!). I remember looking out of the front windows at about 50,000' and seeing the Severn Estuary lined in bright yellow (the beaches), Devon and Cornwall beyond, and the Channel in the distance. If was a lovely August day in 1999 and the few cu clouds so far below they looked like white splodges on the ground. I heard in my headset "Speedbird 123 if you look up now you will see you are about to be overflown by Concorde". I looked out and down and Speedbird 123 was a little minnow scurrying over the landscape far, far below us.

M2 was a non event - no bumps or bangs, just rock solid quiet smoothness, with that black sky, dark blue lower, and the curvature of the Earth. And all the pax coming forward for a look at the amazingly complex analogue flight deck (it is an old aeroplane!).

Power off, height maintained for the decel, approaching Cherbourg subsonic and descending, the wakes of the ferries in and out the port looking like white chalk marks on a blackboard.

Cabin secure, three thumps as the gear went down (4 greens - Concorde has a tailwheel!) coming down the ILS it looked like the sort of power-off steep approach I favor in the Chipmunk, but it was 3 degrees of course; it just looked steeper because of the high alpha required to make that lovely wing produce lots of vortex lift at 185 kts approach speed.

We greased onto CDG's runway, the nose wheel was landed, the captain applied full forward stick as reverse was selected which, along with the super-powerful carbon brakes had us vacating at an exit I'd though far to close for us to use as we swung out over the grass being about 40' in front of the nose wheel. Then that strange bouncy ride (that 40' overhang again) to the gate and shut-down.

Wow! As you say, it'll be etched in my mind 'till the lights go out!

I was once fortunate enough to be seated on G-BOAG from Heathrow to Barbados (& back).
Heathrow was in cold, grey & dismal November. Barbados was 5(?) time-zones away, and tropical: and all I'd done was have an excellent lunch. Maybe with more wine.
The overwhelming feeling on arrival (because it was only then that exactly how far we'd travelled finally sank in) was, why aren't there hundreds of these things around: why do we bother with anything else? (though I think the normal airfare may have had something to do with it)

I remember when Concorde entered service the feeling was "yes, it's only 100 seats, it's noisy (from the outside), it's expensive to fly on, range of only just over 4,000 miles but it's amazing. A couple of SST generations down the line from this, UK to Spain will be an hour, Australia a handful of hours. Everyone will fly supersonic. It's the future".

Unfortunately it didn't happen and in the second half of the second decade of the 21st century it takes as long to get to New York as it did in the 1950s.

Between 1976 and 2003 it took 3 hours.

Peter-RB
By birth and upbringing, I'm a Brit too. I look back, with sadness and maybe a little bitterness, at the decline of Britain after WW II, and think of several reasons. One, of course, is the bankrupting of Britain by the war, the result of a conscious decision by Churchill (the right decision, by the way) and various actions by the US, a combination of anti-Imperialism and Anglophobia. Perhaps it was easier for Churchill to take a broad view of "the English-speaking peoples" because he was, after all, half American.

A dreadfully inadequate system of technical education, which made it very much second best to humanities subjects (I studied humanities myself, no sour grapes).

A very destructive rigidity in the class system, which explains both the poor standing of technical education, and the state of warfare that existed within industry a lot of the time.

Appallingly inept management. How did Britain lose a whole car industry?

Appallingly negative and destructive trades unionism.

A failure to come to terms with reality: in aviation, far too many prototypes and not enough concentration on getting one or two things right. And a hopeless desire to keep up with an imperial past, and an industrial pre-eminence that was gone by the second half of the nineteenth century. Why was France's aviation industry so successful, when Britain's struggled, at best?

In the face of all this, although it's certain that some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party were communist agents (as were, doubtless, some members of the Conservatives), you don't need conspiracy theories to explain the decline.

SSD: Thanks for the Eric Brown book recommendation!

A few years ago I won a signed book on Concorde in an Aeroplane magazine competition, dead chuffed as I never win anything!

Sounds oddly familiar, did you write the trip up for Pilot magazine?

Hi SSD,

Good picture, I was surprised upon seeing those Ram Horns, I thought they would have been a more normal(if thats the word) type of hand operated joystick, but the Captain I spoke with on my school boyish type visit to the pointed end replied they were quiet comfortable to work with.
In your picture were you turning to S/B the AH says you were tilting, or was it switched off.
Also a question I didn't ask when there looking at all those analogue dials was, where on the instrument panel was the ASi,? and can it be seen in your picture.

what an aircraft..more really, it was a piece of flying Art, I think ranking with the icons of flying such as the Spitfire, Phantom, Lightening, Hunter, Typhoon, but thats just my thoughts....a great loss to have scrapped and withdrawn it.

Peter R-B

I did. Good memory Dr. J! It must have been late 1999 or probably early 2000 when James Gilbert published my piece in 'Pilot'.

Peter - the aircraft was in a left turn. The ASIs are quite big on Concorde, with the smaller mach meters below.

I always tell visitors to G-BOAC that that wonderful shape is purely the result of the job the aircraft had to do - no part of it came from any stylist's pen - it's form following function which is why it still looks as good today as it ever did. Art in its purest form.

Flightless P,

To a great extent I feel all Brits of around your and my age will also agree with many of the things you say, I am a product of the returning Service men from the WW2 era, my old Dad was ex Raf and when home at last decides he was going to work for himself, which he did all his life, to some extent people of my age are really the last of the Dinosaurs Baby Boomers, we can still see Icons of the past (read Relics) and we can see a brave new World in the future (from now on) the fifties and Sixties, were really 20 years of mixed and valueless problems caused in my mind by a sad situation caused by "Them and us attitudes" the Political jealousies of the Left always blaming the right being stirred up by the sad bastards who did betray our country by taking the communist shilling, but generating unrest that, allowed by very weak politicians lost such gems as our Car and Lorry, ships and Aircraft building companies to fall by the wayside due to communist inspired and funded Unions. I doubt we (the Brits) will ever know just how much we paid to the US for their help in WW2
I am happy with my lot, but I fear for my Grandchildren, for despite what we have had, standards, and the ethos of what we call normal life does seem to be changing..sadly not for the better.
But without causing to great an insult, will Iraq,Syria Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia and all the other failed states that have been militarily helped, by the US, UK and varied EU countries make any repayments for our lost souls, efforts and hardware given, and used, as it seems the UK paid to the US for their help in WW2..? is there ever a profit to be had from War and Conflict, well if you look Westwards I would say "Yes" there is sadly.

Allegedly a lady said to Sir George Edwards after one of the early Concorde passenger test flights:

"But Sir George, it's just like any other aeroplane."

To which he replied:

"That, madam, was the difficult part!"

If it's not true it deserves to be.

scotbill.

:D:D:D:D

"As long as grandma doesn't spill her G & T when an engine surges at M2."

Or something like that.