Tu-144: busting myths

[bf109xxl]

The discussion was started here, this is my reply on the cammerjeff's post.

Concordski.

With all due respect, it is a very arrogant and completely undeserved nickname.
Of course, it is foolish to deny the facts of espionage - moreover, may be not all of them are still connected with the Tu-144 development. For example, the information on the aerodynamics of the Mirage IV seems to have played a certain role for the optimizing of the aerodynamics of the Tu-144. Nevertheless, the huge amount of original research was incomparable to what was obtained by espionage.
The Tu-144 was larger than the Concorde, had similar (if not better!) aerodynamic performance, its main problem were engines (unreliable, with too high SFC) - indeed, there were many problems, but the others were not as crucial. Additionally, the reasonability of its exploitation in the conditions of the USSR was not obvious. Nevertheless, it was (and remains) an outstanding achievement of the Soviet aircraft industry.
Surprisingly enough, there was some cooperation besides espionage - for example, an official exchange of samples of alloys used in the design of Concorde (AU2GN) and Tu-144 (AK4-1) was mentioned, now I am trying to verify this information.
Here is a book (album) on the history of the Tu-144, 550 pages:

The book provides some ideas (but in my opinion, insufficient) on the amount of research carried out during the development of the Tu-144. It also contains some information about heat protection and the cabin air conditioning system.

Now I would like to see the Soviet cooling solution in diagram for the Concordski.

Other sources could be mentioned, but since they are in Russian, they are unlikely to be of interest to the audience.

I understand the noise it transmitted to the passenger cabin was most unpleasant!

According to feedback from Tu-144 passengers, the noise level was very high only in the rear compartment of the cabin, in the front compartment it was much lower.

 

[nuuumannn]

A few things, "Concordski" was a nickname by a member of the British press when the Tu-144 made its debut at the Paris Airshow and might just have been associated with its appearance rather than espionage attempts. The Tu-144 was a big achievement but to claim it had "had similar (if not better!) aerodynamic performance" doesn't quite make sense - what exactly do you mean by aerodynamic performance? To be clear, the Concorde was far more sophisticated aerodynamically, its wing was a carefully designed ogival shape with a constantly changing aerodynamic profile across its chord, whereas the Tu-144's wing was a simple double delta planform and was more crude than the Concorde's. Any examination of images of the two aircraft will affirm this.

Many of the criticisms of the Tu-144 and the elevated noise levels again come from British aviation journos' press reports who got to fly on board one and who had also flown aboard Concorde, so there might have been a bit of bias, but their expectations were shaped by their experiences with the Concorde.

For further information, have you read Gordon and Rigmant's book Tupolev Tu-144 Russia's Concorde? It is quite detailed and goes into the development of the aircraft in considerable detail. There is an assessment of the Tu-144LL that was evaluated for research by the US, and it mentions French engineers working with the Russians and trading information about Concorde operations for comparison. It is interesting to note that on the ground the Tu-144 did not leak as much fuel as the Concorde!

A photo I took of a Tu-144 at Monino many years ago. It is a rather beautiful aircraft with undeniable presense.

Tupolev Tu-144 Charger

 

[bf109xxl]

A few things, "Concordski" was a nickname by a member of the British press when the Tu-144 made its debut at the Paris Airshow and might just have been associated with its appearance rather than espionage attempts.

That's no reason to keep using that nickname.

The Tu-144 was a big achievement but to claim it had "had similar (if not better!) aerodynamic performance" doesn't quite make sense - what exactly do you mean by aerodynamic performance?

Lift-drag ratio (LDR) at cruising speed.

To be clear, the Concorde was far more sophisticated aerodynamically, its wing was a carefully designed ogival shape with a constantly changing aerodynamic profile across its chord, whereas the Tu-144's wing was a simple double delta planform and was more crude than the Concorde's. Any examination of images of the two aircraft will affirm this.

Both airplanes had about the same aerodynamic complexity, as they used similar principles to achieve high values of LDR at cruising speed. Wing shape (ogival or double delta) was not decisive. The prototype ("044", "CCCP-68001") had an ogival wing, this was abandoned in production aircraft, with the double delta wing an aerodynamic quality of 8 was achieved, which was higher than that of the Concorde.

Many of the criticisms of the Tu-144 and the elevated noise levels again come from British aviation journos' press reports who got to fly on board one and who had also flown aboard Concorde, so there might have been a bit of bias, but their expectations were shaped by their experiences with the Concorde.

The noise level in the front and rear cabins of the Tu-144 differed significantly - in the front cabin it was not so high. However, anyway, in the Concorde it should be lower due to a larger distance of the engines from the fuselage - it should be noted as an important advantage of the chosen scheme.

For further information, have you read Gordon and Rigmant's book Tupolev Tu-144 Russia's Concorde?

I've read even more informative sources in Russian - in particular, the memoirs of Georgy Cheryomukhin, who was the Tu-144's lead aerodynamicist. The excellent book by Gordon and Rigmant (the latter was an employee of the Tupolev design bureau), which I also read, is nothing new compared to the Russian-language sources.

A photo I took of a Tu-144 at Monino many years ago. It is a rather beautiful aircraft with undeniable presense.

Agree. Unfortunately, its development was rather a matter of Soviet prestige than an economic need. In addition, this airplane never received engines with the required characteristics.

 

[Capt. Vick]

If I may, a first class passenger aircraft in a supposed class-less society? Ideologically it makes no sense.

Not to mention mechanical unreliability, a backup aircraft was often available to keep any hope of regularly scheduled service.

A complete redesign of the prototypes.

Excessive fuel consumption, and the afore mentionion cabin noise and A/C issues.

I recommend the following book for anyone interested in the ill fated Tu 144.

Rushed into service to prove the superiority of the soviet system it was a case of can we do it, not should we do it. A second space race if you will.

Love the fact that members of the soviet delegation that visited the French factory wore gum shoes to pickup any metal alloy chips to analyze. Evidently the French were on to this and deposited some red hearings.

 

[bf109xxl]

If I may, a first class passenger aircraft in a supposed class-less society? Ideologically it makes no sense.

There were first class seats on some airliners in the USSR. This in no way contradicted the declared classlessness of Soviet society.

Not to mention mechanical unreliability, a backup aircraft was often available to keep any hope of regularly scheduled service.

The Tu-144 made one flight per week on the Moscow - Alma-Ata route. I have never seen any complaints about the reliability of the Tu-144. What sources confirm this negative assessment of reliability?

I recommend the following book for anyone interested in the ill fated Tu 144.

How is this book better than the book by Gordon and Rigmant published much later? And I'll note again that the Russian-language book I mentioned in my initial post is much more informative than Gordon and Rigmant's book.

Rushed into service to prove the superiority of the soviet system it was a case of can we do it, not should we do it. A second space race if you will.

Not really. There were those who considered the operation of the Tu-144 justified even under the existing economic constraints. But there was also an anti-Tu-144 lobby headed by the Minister of Civil Aviation, who tried their best to "bury" the project, as it required a new level of ground technical service.

Love the fact that members of the soviet delegation that visited the French factory wore gum shoes to pickup any metal alloy chips to analyze. Evidently the French were on to this and deposited some red hearings.

This "spy story" has been quite popular in different eras. The earliest version I heard was about Artem Mikoyan's visit to the UK.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Tu-144 will be remembered as the Concordski, regardless of what is posted here or chronicled by aviation journalists.
The B-52 is neither fat nor ugly. The PBY will always have the nickname "Dumbo". There are probably better examples of aircraft with undeserved nicknames.

I always called the Tu-144 the "Topple-over 144". It was the Cold War and I ain't taking it back.

 

[Capt. Vick]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

That's no reason to keep using that nickname.

Why not? The only person it offends is you. Remember, it is okay to be offended, but that isn't reasonable justification why others should stop doing something.

Both airplanes had about the same aerodynamic complexity, as they used similar principles to achieve high values of LDR at cruising speed. Wing shape (ogival or double delta) was not decisive. The prototype ("044", "CCCP-68001") had an ogival wing, this was abandoned in production aircraft, with the double delta wing an aerodynamic quality of 8 was achieved, which was higher than that of the Concorde.

I would like to see your sources to back the statement that the ogival wing was "not decisive" up. Using L/D ratio to state the Tu-144 is more aerodynamically efficient doesn't paint an entire picture. It also doesn't explain why the Tu-144 changed from having an ogival wing to a double delta. The Tu-144 prototype was a demonstrator only and again, its ogival wing was in profile not as sophisticated as the Concorde's and because of inefficiencies, the plan form was changed to the double delta in production aircraft, according to Gordon and Rigmant's book, "if fact it was totally new from a structural standpoint". There were significant changes, from undercarriage retraction and design to the wing plan. That doesn't bode well for the aerodynamics of the type, in fact it suggests they got it wrong the first time round. Also, the addition of canard surfaces aft of the cockpit also plainly point to inefficiency of the wing. The wing on Concorde by contrast was designed for low speed efficiency as well as high speed efficiency without the need for leading edge high lift devices that added complexity and weight. There was never any need to add canards or any other modifications to the wing on production examples once the design was finalised on the drawing board. Let's not forget that the Tu-144's range was far less than Concorde's, even once it was re-engined.

The noise level in the front and rear cabins of the Tu-144 differed significantly - in the front cabin it was not so high. However, anyway, in the Concorde it should be lower due to a larger distance of the engines from the fuselage - it should be noted as an important advantage of the chosen scheme.

The noise complained about by the British journos in that case was not the engines but the air conditioning systems. The journo noted that the general noise level within that Tu-144's cabin was significantly higher than Concorde's.

Given that you have access to "superior" sources on Tu-144, you will be aware of the myriad problems that the aircraft had in development, which were not shared with Concorde, although Concorde did have issues of its own, but these did not require complete redesign or re-engining. To compare the two is unfair really, since you can make whatever claim you like about the efficiencies of the Tu-144, its tenure in service was terribly brief, it had a larger number of hull losses, fewer were built and its development was a constant state of flux with continual improvements to the design, engine changes and what have you to make it more efficient and even still did not have as long a service career and as many in airline service as Concorde. It is worth noting that Concorde remained accident free for the majority of its long service career and the only frame loss in service came more than 20 years after the Tu-144 was retired from airline service. Despite what the popular press and opinion states, British Airways actually managed to make a profit from its Concorde operations. It created a niche market that was keenly exploited and gave BA (and Air France) a unique selling feature. A classic Niche airline business model example that worked. The same cannot be said for Aeroflot and the Tu-144; it's airline career was brief and underwhelming.

 

[SaparotRob]

So everything I said is wrong? Ok. I'm cool with that. I concede all points…

Well, you are married.

 

[bf109xxl]

So everything I said is wrong?

Almost. It's hard to expect otherwise when the sources are books from the 1980s. Publications based on more reliable sources appeared only in the mid-1990s-2000s.

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?

It doesn't matter what you personally knew or not. It is important that the myths do not spread further.

Humanity weeps I'm sure.

Humanity doesn't care. People don't need the truth at all, they need convenient myths conforming to their political beliefs.

 

[bf109xxl]

Why not? The only person it offends is you

Not only me. But I realize no one cares. Just expected a slightly higher standard of discussion within this forum.

Remember, it is okay to be offended

It is not ok at all.

but that isn't reasonable justification why others should stop doing something.

Remember, having stereotypes and offensive names is not a reasonable justification to use them in discussions within this forum.

I would like to see your sources to back the statement that the ogival wing was "not decisive" up.

According to the detailed recollections of the leading aerodynamicist of the Tu-144.

Using L/D ratio to state the Tu-144 is more aerodynamically efficient doesn't paint an entire picture.

This is the major criterion for evaluating the aerodynamic quality of the SST.

It also doesn't explain why the Tu-144 changed from having an ogival wing to a double delta.

This explains exactly why the ogival wing was abandoned. The production machine used double curvature of the wing surfaces, different washout, etc. In the absence of suitable engines, the Soviets were forced to improve aerodynamics extremely to achieve the required range.

The Tu-144 prototype was a demonstrator only and again, its ogival wing was in profile not as sophisticated as the Concorde's

Please provide a clear sophistication criterion. Specify in what exactly the Concorde wing was more sophisticated.

and because of inefficiencies, the plan form was changed to the double delta in production aircraft, according to Gordon and Rigmant's book, "if fact it was totally new from a structural standpoint".

Studies have been conducted showing that better results can be achieved with a different wing geometry with a different curvature of the forward "delta" surface and elevon position in the cruising configuration. As a result, a higher LDR was achieved, which for the Tu-144 was critical because of the worse engine parameters.

There were significant changes, from undercarriage retraction and design to the wing plan. That doesn't bode well for the aerodynamics of the type, in fact it suggests they got it wrong the first time round.

It wasn't wrong, it wasn't effective enough.

Also, the addition of canard surfaces aft of the cockpit also plainly point to inefficiency of the wing. The wing on Concorde by contrast was designed for low speed efficiency as well as high speed efficiency without the need for leading edge high lift devices that added complexity and weight.

The end result - a higher LDR - indicates the opposite. The use of the "canard" scheme allowed for a higher aerodynamic perfection.

There was never any need to add canards or any other modifications to the wing on production examples once the design was finalised on the drawing board. Let's not forget that the Tu-144's range was far less than Concorde's, even once it was re-engined.

Due to a higher SFC of its engines. The only real flaw of the Soviet designers was the geometry and location of the engine nacelles.

The noise complained about by the British journos in that case was not the engines but the air conditioning systems. The journo noted that the general noise level within that Tu-144's cabin was significantly higher than Concorde's.

I'm not going to argue - I haven't heard it personally.

Given that you have access to "superior" sources on Tu-144, you will be aware of the myriad problems that the aircraft had in development, which were not shared with Concorde, although Concorde did have issues of its own, but these did not require complete redesign or re-engining.

Because the Concorde initially had suitable engines, and the combined power of both the research base and the production of the Anglo-French alliance was really higher.

To compare the two is unfair really, since you can make whatever claim you like about the efficiencies of the Tu-144, its tenure in service was terribly brief

It has nothing to do with its aerodynamics.

it had a larger number of hull losses

What do you mean exactly?

fewer were built and its development was a constant state of flux with continual improvements to the design

This is quite normal for the first airplane of a completely new class of airliners, which was created in great hurry (yes, the political factor played a negative role).

engine changes

It has nothing to do with its aerodynamics.

and what have you to make it more efficient and even still did not have as long a service career and as many in airline service as Concorde.

Please don't twist my words. I claimed that AERODINAMICALLY the Tu-144 could be better - at least its LDR was higher. It does not mean that it was more efficient or successful overall.

It is worth noting that Concorde remained accident free for the majority of its long service career and the only frame loss in service came more than 20 years after the Tu-144 was retired from airline service. Despite what the popular press and opinion states, British Airways actually managed to make a profit from its Concorde operations. It created a niche market that was keenly exploited and gave BA (and Air France) a unique selling feature. A classic Niche airline business model example that worked. The same cannot be said for Aeroflot and the Tu-144; it's airline career was brief and underwhelming.

It has nothing to do with aerodynamics.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Well, you are married.

Good point Sir!

 

[Capt. Vick]

Humanity doesn't care. People don't need the truth at all, they need convenient myths conforming to their political beliefs.

I see humor and sarcasm are not your strong points.

Oh, and i totally agree with the second sentence. Never has that been more clear to me than with a recent "event". Sad, depressing, infuriating & hysterical.
I also agree with the whole "If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth" mantra.

Everything you say may be correct, though statistically you should allow for the occasional outlier that you may be wrong. Honestly I haven't followed this conversation from the beginning so I don't really know how you ended up here. Just throwing in my 2 cents. However, your debate style is most off putting, you seem to take any disagreement with what you say as a personal attack. It may be hard to win over your opponents that way. Try more, "yes, but" or "I understand what you are saying, but recent evidence suggests".

Anyway, I'm sure you will take fault with what I wrote, so I look forward to your notes on what I wrote here.