Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't be afraid. I assure you, your fears are absolutely groundless. Because you yourself demonstrate a vivid example of a biased approach and completely unfounded statements. You have not read the books I refer to and cannot judge the reliability of these sources. Your only argument is "these Russians could not write anything truthful!". If you do not speak Russian, use automatic translators. Books are quite available in libraries. If you have claims to the figures, I am ready to listen to them and even to change my point of view, but only if you provide references to sources of similar level - memoirs of developers, research articles or reports, articles in mass-media are beyond the consideration. So far you have not substantiated your doubts in any way, and they do not represent the slightest value within the discussion, not even reaching the one of the hip pocket.I'm afraid you are the one making unsubstantiated statements, if the TU-144 wing was superior to that of the Concorde provide references and analysis, a book printed by Russians in the Russian language is of absolutely no use, a hip pocket in a singlet is of more use.
...who were Russian!Report made by NASA test pilots...
Heavy control was a typical for the majority of Soviet airliners. This drawback is not always related to aerodynamics, although the connection is quite common. And this drawback - as well as many others - is fairly well described in the sources I mentioned. But you have not read them and do not know what is written there. So you cite the same information as some kind of revelation, which amuses me personally. I read NASA reports available on the Internet, written from the words of Russian pilots, who were these "NASA test pilots". Hence the conclusion: you have not read these reports by yourself.painted a crude aircraft system wise, throttle forces were so high that only two could be moved at a time
It has nothing to do with aerodynamic quality., brakes had to be heated prior to take off, engines had to undergo a 30 minute ground run prior to take off, and repeated again after 90 minutes if take had not been made in time, control forces and harmony left a bit to be desired.
Totally agree. Let's discuss verifiable facts relevant to the core of the problem. You have not provided any such facts. But you can try again with at least one. I doubt you'll succeed.Lets have verifiable facts please
Oh, yeah, they got to hold the wheel as co-pilots in three flights.The NASA test pilots were Russians? I'm sure Gordon Fullerton and Rob Rivers would be surprised to hear that.
I hate to disappoint you but Sergei Borisov and his crew did the whole job.I hate to disappoint you but Sergei Borisov is not a NASA employee.
I've already done that. It's not my fault that you don't understand printed text well. Once again: the Tu-144 had a higher L/D ratio at cruising supersonic speed than the Concorde. That indicates its higher aerodynamic quality as an SST. If you have other figures supported by sources, please cite them. If not, your opinion will be considered unsubstantiated.I've certainly not read the books but all you have made are assertions. In fact, you present an extremely biased view of the 144, if you say the 144 was "better" than Concorde in some aspect please tell us why it was "better" with a technical analysis.
It's just a lie. You've not cited a single substantive fact within the scope of the discussion.You yourself demonstrate a vivid example of a biased approach and completely unfounded statements
I've already done that. It's not my fault that you don't understand printed text well. Once again: the Tu-144 had a higher L/D ratio at cruising supersonic speed than the Concorde. That indicates its higher aerodynamic quality as an SST. If you have other figures supported by sources, please cite them.
Nope. You just don't understand the subject. Wait your time - you will get an adequate answer for your rudeness.We've been over this.
Nope. You just don't understand the subject. Wait your time - you will get an adequate answer for your rudeness.
I am afraid that I don't have access to those books atm, any chance you could me the the L/D ratio for the Tu144 at design cruise and the L/D ratio for Concorde at its design cruise? It would help to compare if you also posted weights and speeds. I expect that the weights vary quite a deal between TOC and TOD, so ideally the figures will allow apples to apples comparison.
So everything I said is wrong? Ok. I'm cool with that. I concede all points to you sir. Bravo! I never knew what a world beater the Tu 144 was. If only huh? Humanity weeps I'm sure.
Prove it. If not, your opinion will be considered unsubstantiated.
Six flight and two ground experiments were conducted during the program's first flight phase, which began in June 1996 and concluded in February 1998 after 19 research flights. A shorter follow-on program involving about seven flights began in September 1998 and concluded in April 1999. All flights were conducted in Russia from Tupolev's facility atNo they didn't, the sole reason for the NASA pilots was so they could make handling assessments of the aircraft ie they were flying the thing hands on, and duly wrote up their assessments, which are available on the web.
Lies again.You've not cited a single substantive fact within the scope of the discussio
Don't bother telling me anything. I've already realized that you don't understand anything about the subject.Actually, I'm gonna tell you to pull your head in and grow up. There is no need for such behaviour, mate. No one is being rude. You need to calm down.
The food was better on the Concorde too. Everyone forgets that.We've been over this. That figure amounts to nothing if the aircraft's range is poorer. Concorde had a greater range that the Tu-144, so regardless of that L/D ratio figure, it is worthless as a measurable metric simply because it amounted to very little in the real world. The Tu-144 did not enjoy as long a career as Concorde, its "superior aerodynamics" did not help it achieve the necessary performance, reliability or longevity in service, therefore it is a pointless metric. Clearly the Tu-144's aerodynamics were inferior, why redesign it following the prototype? Why the need for high lift devices retro-fitted aft of the cockpit if its aerodynamics were superior to the Concorde's? The Concorde didn't require anything like that and its design remained the same throughout its career. You're gonna have to let this go. It is simply and demonstrably not true.
And the cabin stewardesses were better on the Tu-144!The food was better on the Concorde too. Everyone forgets that.
Your jokes are predictable? What am I, chopped liver?Ouch...I'm burned.
Why are you so modestly silent on the sources? Or were you afraid that they were not too reliable? That's right.