Tu-144 question

Nathan · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:21 pm

Are these still flying?

James D · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:40 pm

No. Last one flew in 1997 according to....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

Nathan · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:47 pm

Darn! Would have loved to photograph that bird.

Any other obscure Russian built aircraft still flying?

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:11 pm

An-2s

Seriously though, I think one or more of the Ekranoplans might still make runs now and again. Other than that, the Beriev Be-200 is still operated by the Russian State Ministry for Emergency Situations or some such.

dors · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:32 pm

One of my favorites, the TU-22M Backfire, is still operational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:38 pm

it's amazing the amount of aircraft the russians have copied off of the u.s. since ripping off the b-29 bomber design which is a no brainer of how they got it by a crash landing in then soviet territory. as to the lend lease deal.... that's a no brainer too. then enter the cold war when we didn't share designs as they were the enemy, enter the mig 15 which resembles the sabre, & then the bear compared to the b-52 minus the props. & then the the f-111 which looks damned near identical to what's ever it's name is in the version of the soviet clone. then there is the russian version of the old sst supersonic airliner, the russian version of the space shuttle, mig 29 / f-15 on & on. all have the lines of western technology. has our security been long comprimised as to technology & in security of our methods?? where is the intrepid homeland security??

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:43 am

tom d. friedman wrote:

it's amazing the amount of aircraft the russians have copied off of the u.s. since ripping off the b-29 bomber design which is a no brainer of how they got it by a crash landing in then soviet territory. as to the lend lease deal.... that's a no brainer too. then enter the cold war when we didn't share designs as they were the enemy, enter the mig 15 which resembles the sabre, & then the bear compared to the b-52 minus the props. & then the the f-111 which looks damned near identical to what's ever it's name is in the version of the soviet clone. then there is the russian version of the old sst supersonic airliner, the russian version of the space shuttle, mig 29 / f-15 on & on. all have the lines of western technology. has our security been long comprimised as to technology & in security of our methods?? where is the intrepid homeland security??

Sigh.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:49 am

james, please elaborate on the sigh!!

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:37 am

tom d. friedman wrote:

james, please elaborate on the sigh!!

The B-29 discussion has been covered here several times. There's a lot of rubbish written about it, which was discussed here.

The Tu144 'Concordski' was a failure, but unlike, say, Boeing's effort, it flew. There's an argument that role dictates configuration, and thus 'look'. On the other hand, look doesn't dictate copy - the 'Russian F-111' is a different size to do a very different job, no evidence, I understand of any copying.

Look up the Yak 3 and 9 for types often given as 'the best' (or among the best) fighters in W.W.II - owing nothing to the US or west.

Likewise the Polikarpov I-16 - "couldn't be Russian, therefore must be a copy", a 'Boeing'. Just happened to be the best in its day.

Quote:

as to the lend lease deal.... that's a no brainer too.

Yup, losing the war on the Eastern Front would have been a disaster.

But it's not like we gave them our best aircraft, either. Most Russian lend-lease stuff was second level gear.

Quote:

enter the mig 15 which resembles the sabre,

Er, no it doesn't. The British designed engine was a quick leg up, but again the MiG 15 was the best in its class.

Quote:

& then the bear compared to the b-52 minus the props.

Nope.

Quote:

mig 29 / f-15 on & on. all have the lines of western technology

The strength of the MiG 29 is it's lack of 'western technology', and to see it as an 'F-15' takes a pretty biased eye, IMHO.

Quote:

has our security been long comprimised as to technology & in security of our methods?? where is the intrepid homeland security??

As to the first question, no. As to the second, pushing paper. Like most secret services, they are poor performers without (by the nature of their jobs) proper oversight and without any possible measure of success except what doesn't happen. For the no politics reason I won't go further.

Yes, there was some copying by the Russians of US and other designs. No, not as much as the Hitler channel etc. would have you believe. Funnily enough as I travel the world I'm amazed at the number of places that think they invented all the good stuff, the others copied them, and if it wasn't invented here it can't be much good. That attitude gets you December 7th 1941, because, for instance, the Japanese weren't just copying 'our' designs...

Don't believe your own propaganda.

So, in short, *sigh*

And you know better, I hope!

Cheers,

EXPAT0149 · **Joined:** Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:44 am **Posts:** 163

The only one i'd agree on copying is the B29-TU 4...
As for the Concordski the name gives it away i think!!!!!

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:54 am

Coupled to the fact that the TU-95 evolved from the TU-4 so, yes it's grandpa was a B-29, but I know of no other turbo prop aircraft that operates for hours on end at the speeds of the TU-95.
The Mig 15 owes more in design to the Ta 156 HUKABEE than the F-86 (which started out as a straight winged design, and actually got to fleet service as such).
I suppose the next type brought up will be the Tu-204 which looks a great deal like the Boeing 757, but the 757 greatly resembles an earlier BAE 199 airliner offered in the late 60's with 2 very high bypass R/R engines and around 150 or so seats.
THe Il-62 resembles the VC-10, the Mi-4 looks like the Sikorsky S 55, the Blackjack bomber looks like the B-1B (only much bigger!), etc. etc.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 am

OH, yeah- the Soviets had people working inside the CONCORDE program so stealing the plans was easier than expected, the Russians tried to get some tire rubber samples for the Tu-144, a clever chemist devised a formula that, if reproduced, gave the Russians very sticky bubblegum type rubber that was worthless. The Boeing 2707 was cancelled by the Congress at the urging of R. (I'm not a crook) Nixon.

Mgawa · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:00 am

The man who give nick "Concondorski" is cinik or what? Tu-144 was first take off in the same time as the Concorde and everybody know that development could not be done in just few days. Tu-144 wsa developed as result of abandoned nuke bomber.

Also note- there is fashion in the aviation design and in one moment all planes look similar. This is result of many things. Did any of you spot that Bf109 used possibly Soviet airfoil? In the early '30 Soviets are published book with airfoils and curves and they was public avilable. Strange- in that time you could also by Enigma, which was credited for use in business corespodence.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:09 am

...and so on. Good post Mgawa.

The Lockheed Constellation 'looked' very like the pre-war Fairey airliner design that got to wind-tunnel tests. Any copying? I don't think so. As Mgawa says, fashion is aviation designs dirty secret. No one admits to it, but it's as much a factor in aircraft design as aerodynamics.

Cheers,

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:18 am

The Inspector wrote:

OH, yeah- the Soviets had people working inside the CONCORDE program so stealing the plans was easier than expected...

Quote:

A third theory relates to deliberate misinformation on the part of the Anglo-French team. The main thrust of this theory was that the Anglo-French team knew that the Soviet team were planning to steal the design plans of Concorde, and the Soviets were allegedly passed false blueprints with a flawed design. The case, it is claimed, contributed to the imprisonment by the Soviets of Greville Wynne in 1963 for spying[5][6]. Wynne was imprisoned on 11 May 1963 and the development of the Tu-144 was not sanctioned until 16 July. In any case, it seems unlikely that a man imprisoned in 1963 could have caused a crash in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

The actual aerodynamic and technical differences between the Tu144 and the Concorde point to either very indifferent spying (fuel as coolant, Ogee wing l/e camber, which even I could comprehend without a spy camera) or actually a different technical approach.

'Looky likey' isn't a very technical measure of copying.

Regards,

Warbird Information Exchange

Tu-144 question

Who is online