Thanks for posting. I'm impressed that the nose and canards are still operational given the apparent neglect.
@AstrogeoJay
12 жыл бұрын
Shame to see her rusting away in some yard like that, but amazing to see the nose and cannards still working, and that you were allowed to operate them. I hope you managed to get a go at the controls to, as you seemed to be the camera peron whilst your friend got to enjoy operating the controls!
@gmetalpre
13 жыл бұрын
Just another day in my backyard! A Tu-144 parked next to a MiG 25. Sad to see those legendary planes rotting there forgotten. Tho nice to see this bird still being partionaly functional. Thanks for this nice video!
@SerTahu
13 жыл бұрын
@hirvi221 to be fair, the weren't exactly competing with the US here. the Concorde was French and British. also, the shape was similar because that is the most efficient shape for supersonic travel.
@fanglethorpe
12 жыл бұрын
wish this plane was kept in a hanger, such a beautiful plane!
@Dochorahan
11 жыл бұрын
This is really sad. It should be in the smithsonian or something.
@alifshafari
13 жыл бұрын
Great video sir !!!!
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 Newer crashed in service! As a wrote many times. Concorde had just as many serious failures as 144. Also i have newer heard about waiting lists. Only when all flights canceled, and there was a chance that it will fly again. Once.... :( I did heard that people could not afford it, even that the ticket prices are way below Concorde tickets.
@poodumrover1
9 жыл бұрын
Wow Epic this is wonderfull to see after so many years wondering what happened to TU-144 thank you for your videos !
@TonyFirelli
15 жыл бұрын
Where is this I need to go there soon! is this in Kazakhstan? do you have to pay to get in or something?
@tomb8430
Жыл бұрын
Amazing. How did this aircraft end up in someone's yard? Would be great to know some background on this.
@djboydanny
13 жыл бұрын
and there's another classic on the ground beside it the "FOXBAT" or better known as the MIG-25, that was a fast plane Mach 2.8 - 3 and up to 27Km high
@rweghg3
11 жыл бұрын
Once you see it up close, it really doesn't look like the concorde at all (No disrespect to the British & the French) But this plane is far more striking & beautiful than the concorde...It deserves to be restored & placed in an Aeronautical or Aviation Museum before time & the elements turn a masterpiece of aviation history into a memory that can only be visited in videos & photographs from the past....It's a great video, but it makes me feel very sad to see the Tupolev TU-144 in this condition
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@themuffinman12345 Two small corrections; 144 is faster than Concorde. One crash and one crash landing. No crash with passengers on board.
@pabsan07
13 жыл бұрын
Truely amazing video. The retractable forward stabilizer had flaps for extra lift too? And they look like they stow really nice too. This aircraft needs to be perserved in a hanger. Thank you for posting. Please post more of this rare look at the TU-144.
@kirkconway
13 жыл бұрын
Hi Guy's are the battery's hooked up to power feature's on the 144? they appear to be, you were moving the canard 's in and out. i wish someone could get the 144 out of there, and put it in a museum and freshen it up.clean it up and make it nice for people to see.
@cybermarsactual
13 жыл бұрын
Bottom line is this was a masterful piece of engineering, It is truly a shame it's sitting in someones back yard and not an aviation museum.
@ManilvaRS
13 жыл бұрын
i was hoping they would put the nose down, great to see it still running live.
@themuffinman12345
13 жыл бұрын
@ beeroosterm: Despite superficial similarities, the buran was not, in fact, a copy of the US space shuttle, having it's main engines in a reusable booster rocket/tank, which took the place of the single-use external tank that supplied engines in the American shuttle's orbiter. It was, in fact, rather a better design. Although it lacked the space shuttle's arm, it both an escape pod and sealed ejector seats, the a feature that would have saved the lives of the killed in the Challenger accident
@_lcfiorini
Жыл бұрын
It also had a higher payload capacity and could temporarily take off on its own, when it was equipped with jet engines for testing purposes.
@cecilturtle
15 жыл бұрын
The Tu-144 is indeed a fantastic airplane! But...........did anyone notice the MiG-25 Foxbat under the port side wing? Now there is a piece of aviation history also!
@ImmortalSynn
13 жыл бұрын
it's so SAD that such a unique and rare aircraft had basically been allowed to rot.
@CrazyFriday93
14 жыл бұрын
@dray3x it was for passanger transports ;) it even had a first class^^
@JDF6897
12 жыл бұрын
...and something that lasts 27 years is a success!
@jvarela965
14 жыл бұрын
The original 1968 TU-144 was a beautiful design. I recall it as a child because it looked like the Pam Am Space ship in 2001 A Space Odyessey. The later model with the canards was ugly like most things from the 70s.
@bdon661
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs It is a beautiful airplane and the comparison to the Concorde is irrelevant now. The Russian people care enough about their aviation artifacts to preserve them as best they can on a limited budget and even keep some of their systems working. The old gentleman who narrates in the cockpit, what was his role in the Tu-144 program and what has become of him since this video was made in 2008?
@bdon661
13 жыл бұрын
The older gentleman who is narrating is a retired test pilot, I think. What was his role in the Tu-144 program and what has become of him? My Russian is really bad, but from what I could pick up, he is telling an interesting story. Is it available in English?
@stmad36
12 жыл бұрын
Where exactly is that plane?
@Chrisy299
15 жыл бұрын
Thanks for that. I am sad that the machine looks so rusty. Can i buy it? :-D
@themuffinman12345
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs The Tu-144 was first, and it was not stolen technology. Form follows function, and as a result supersonic airliners are bound to look similar. But you can't possibly claim it was better than Concorde, which was as superb piece of engineering with an excellent safety record. In addition to being much less efficient, slower, and having a significantly shorter range, the Tu-144 flew only a few hundred times (only 102 times revenue, 55 times with passengers) and had two crashes.
@_lcfiorini
Жыл бұрын
Wing design is among the most important differences from Concorde, and in fact nobody could say it was copied because they are quite different. Rumors about industrial espionage during the Cold War are one of those things things we will never know for sure because of its national security and technological rush aspects involved.
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
The prototype is very different than the later types with canards. Like you say, no canards, smaller wings, different engines, engine layout, etc, etc. But still, no copy. Would you say something like, Airbus is copy of Boeing? They are much more alike. But since aerodynamic does not depends on brands, they still need wings, etc. At that time, this design was the best possible way. There was no variable wings, and much less electronics. Not yet. Everyone was using delta wings. It is all the same
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 Most of the peoples do not use the word "often" as it happened once. Any plane would fall apart, when overstressed. It has nothing to do wit metallurgy or design. Do think that neather 144 or concorde was a failure. Bough are beautiful aircrafts.
@slickstrings
13 жыл бұрын
@beeroosterm Although im positive some designs get copied, you might find that many can only be built in one shape. Due to the operational factors. for example, the concorde looks a lot like the tu-144 because it wouldnt work if it was shaped any differently. It has to have a long, slender low drag body and swept wings. same as the SR-71 blackbird. Same reason supercars are all low and flat. They are forced into that shape.
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 Just sayed that Concorde had just as many problems. Not only at "the end". All the way! Are you saying that when a control surface falls of is normal? Or when there is huge hole on the wing? Even Concorde had cracks on its wings. Be aver this. Bough planes had serious problems. The main difference is that CCCP was not able to keep 144 in the air, do to financial problems. Meanwhile Concorde went trough continuous modernizations. Metallurgy and space programs, have nothing to do with this
@fredericia01
13 жыл бұрын
An amazing aircraft - sorry to see it rotting away .
@Chrisy299
15 жыл бұрын
its so a nice aircraft and i whould like it to see the TU again flying. Ok I can see in my safe if i have some money :-)
@fredericia01
13 жыл бұрын
An amazing aircraft - sorry to see it rotting away . Credence to the Tupolev Design Bureau.
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Dookiedolf So. Let us draw lines. TU-144 and Concorde are not really comparable. Because of the countries it was made in. Like ticket prices, cultural differences, etc. Tu was the first. It was much bigger. It was faster. Reliability, hmmm... will newer know. But this could be a good starting point: Airbus A310 One crash per: 1 067 700 flying hours Tu-134 One crash per: 1 087 600 flying hours Boeing 737 JT8D One crash per: 507 500 flying hours Tu-154 One crash per: 1 041 000 flying hours
@bofty
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs TU-144 flew first, but a rushed development program (to beat the Concorde into the air) meant a severely flawed plane and ultimately a huge failure. Sometimes patience is paramount as proved by Concorde
@_lcfiorini
Жыл бұрын
Yes. In fact, there was an incident with Aeroflot's Director in Paris highly suggestive of industrial espionage when this plane was under development.
@CrazyFriday93
14 жыл бұрын
good old concordski love that plane its much cooler then the concorde
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 Sure, it is true. CCCP had no money to keep 144 in service. At that time ticket prices in CCCP was a fraction of the price of English or French... Referring on the failures; the trough is that Concorde had just as many problems. Like what made it go down, happened many times before. Once there was a hole on its wing big like a melon! Also upper and lower rudder control surfaces separation, landing gear problems, engine failures, vibrations, etc,etc. So I say Concorde was a lucky plane.
@_lcfiorini
Жыл бұрын
It remained successfully in service for all those years because of a combination of (much) higher flight ticket prices and a detailed maintenance program to closely watch and correct all these weaknesses. Tu-144 was said to have regular ticket prices and the prohibitively expensive maintenance costs probably greatly contributed to its short operational history, which in turn was probably abbreviated even more after the second accident with fatal victims in 1977.
@seamat
15 жыл бұрын
Why is this not in a museum? It looks like it has just been left to rot. I thought the USA had bought them to mess about with?
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@ImmortalSynn It is. :( But there is always a chance for bough! Concorde, and 144 also! ;)
@benspreen
13 жыл бұрын
The canards make It look like a sad puppy. I feel sorry for it
@TurbineProductionsX
12 жыл бұрын
yes i agree they differ but the basic design concept is copied also the Tupolev has Foreplanes not cannards.. theres a difference since Cannards provide pitch & roll and foreplanes provide only Pitch.
@TonyFirelli
13 жыл бұрын
@beeroosterm That's right, the Kazahks old hangar that they never maintained collapsed on the worlds best reusable space craft... yet.
@TonyFirelli
15 жыл бұрын
That would be awesome!
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
@aspiringdrummer17 It was the first. So it did win the race. Also, if the ticket prices could have been the same, than i think 144 could be the winner in every ways. But this, we will newer know...
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
@MrWoodoop If the Mirage story is false, than it was pilot error. Not the plane. Why should it take much more g force than any other passenger plane? (Include Concorde) If it is true, than it was trying to avoid collision with a Mirage. The crash landing is true. The fuel system failed. (It happened to Concorde also.) Nasa did not by Tu-144. Concorde crash was cased by the lack of fuel tank protection. (Was fitted with after) Tha same thing happened before, and they did nothing...
@Dookiedolf
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs What am I talking about? Id be happy to explain why its IDENTICAL even though differant size/wing shape/engine placement/speed. I wont as your comments indicate u no knowledge on these matters . #1 Better landing gear, no anti lock brakes or reverse thrust,3parachutes much better Before I make #2 clear a silly point. Your driving a car & you hit a piece of metal that fell off a lorry, it punctures the radiator, engine now overheats & fails. Is that a car design fault ?
@xoio
12 жыл бұрын
WOW, I'm surprised the cockpit hasn't been raped of its instruments, for sale to collectors.
@modellerman
13 жыл бұрын
YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE Boeing sst ONE (:
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 It is true. Also you should look after Concordes problems. Did you? Hmmmmm......
@florky_01
3 жыл бұрын
imagine it is still flying today bcoz of the good condition of the plane
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Dookiedolf Sure it is. It is normal, that there a screws, dust, parts, on every runway! The first part of your post is... Hmmm... Think of it reversed. If you really know what you are talking about, you should see the difference. But as you do not... ;) Also, just take a look at the landing gear. What difference do you see? Just asking... Parachute is jus as good, but complicated to use. That is why 144 was planned to equip with thrust reversers. But the project was stopped before this.
@aleksandrpovaznyi7052
3 жыл бұрын
Ещё живой ТУ 144 а сечас паметник былой эпохи вырвали двигатели и салона всю обшивку один фезюляш пустой остался.
@Hunter17D
9 жыл бұрын
Where is it?
@focustc2000
15 жыл бұрын
Poor tu-144 are destroyed,why??
@rustemibatulinn4529
8 жыл бұрын
still this plane has a lot of original differences in comparisson to concorde
@swagons529
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah differences that make it inferior.
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@prblock I see your point, and why you saying that. First of all It is true, that the prototipe that did fly before Concorde, was not as good as Concord became later. But we are talking a bout a prototype. It is very important in this case, because there was not only one TU-144! Like TU-144, TU-144S, TU-144D, and TU-144LL! The later types became totally different than the prototype was. And they fixed all the problems they had. Few people know this. I think because of western propaganda, but....
@dray3x
14 жыл бұрын
Not the luxury jet plane like British airways & Air France. I don't think the USSR use this jet for passengers. It was for their military. Cool jet plane none the less.
@fanglethorpe
11 жыл бұрын
is it the one nasa had them fix up and use?
@ksarvind7259
6 жыл бұрын
fanglethorpe yeas
@Hello_there_obi
12 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs concordes crash was not its own fault. the tu144s crashes were. the fact that it was such a terrible plane is proven by its short service and nasa abandoning it in their research for future sst aircraft. and nasa bought the tu144 because concorde was not available as it was too busy actually working and being a success. even today the remaining concordes are not available.
@tehkursovod
15 жыл бұрын
Надо же, братское видео =)
@Eazyislandcoolboy
15 жыл бұрын
whats that at 5:52?
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@XLC54 Are you angry at TU-144? :D
@aspiringdrummer17
12 жыл бұрын
Like I said, how can it be considered a sucess if it remained in service for only 3 years? Russia and the USSR has built some very good planes over the years but the Tu-144 isn't one of them.
@charlesdikkema5800
11 жыл бұрын
There's still one left my friend
@rustemibatulinn4529
8 жыл бұрын
yes... but still it is a great plane... it did not succed commercialy not because the plane was wrong...the wrong was the soviet system, which had a goal just to demonstate other countries its power but not to develop for its own purposes
@_lcfiorini
Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately the way it was developed - in a hurry just to be the very first airworthy supersonic passenger plane - rendered it too problematic and with reliability issues.
@КАТ-ф3ф
Жыл бұрын
@@_lcfiorini well yes, there is a film "Battle for supersonic" which shows without any propaganda only documentalistics how it was made. Soviet government hurried up the proccess and constructors were under pressure not to let the western block to win in this competition which will fly first. It would be not correct to deny that the soviet engineering was great - there was a great school because of lots of tallented and enthusiastic people.... and when oftenly someone says that : all this stupid and evil communism and everything in this stupid USSR had a stupid airplanes and so on - I would say despite the system and isolation, soviet engineering deserves to be considered as outstanding - many machines continue to work even now after 50-60 years and tu144 would fly if was used
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Dookiedolf It is plane failure. It was a known problem. A flat tire should never kill anyone! The same happened many times! Like once there was a hole on Concorde wing big like a head! Upper and lower rudder controll surfaces separation, landing gear problems, engine failures, etc, etc. Concorde was a lucky plane! Also Concorde and TU-144 statistics are not comparable, on the reason you just wrote down. Could be that you ar right, but if you look at other Tupoljevs statistics, than.... :)
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
Even if they did spying, just like USA, England, France, etc... (Everyone did back than. Everyone wanted to know what the other is doing.) the two planes are not even alike. They differ in many things. Like totally different engines, engine layout, landing gears, canards (most advanced of its time), The nose, the wings, structurally, on board equipment, etc, etc.... Not even the same size. Concorde is much more like Lockheed L-2000.
@TheSeaShark
15 жыл бұрын
Hey i would as well :D
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Dookiedolf What the h. are you talking about? :) It is a totally different plane! Different in size, wing design, actually much better landing gear, why would they use Concordes, that actually killed many passangers!? Also different in structure, engine layout, like if Concorde had the same layout, it could have landed! Concore was actually slower. Many crashes? It is the same as Concorde. One controversial crash i know of. Also a crashlanding. Concorde had just as many problems. Read more...
@stmad36
12 жыл бұрын
This plane is so badly rusted
@global001
12 жыл бұрын
The Tu-144 flew first by only 2 months 2 days before the Concorde so it doesn't prove that the Russians didn't steal the structural design of Concorde. Saying that the theft of the design was a western conspiracy to justify investment doesn't make sense because the investment had already been made by the time the Tu-144 flew! You don't build an aircraft like this in 2 months from scratch! The Soviets rushed out a inferior product to be first.
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
@vecuccio Do i have to answer to this? :D If you only see the spelling in this, than read something else, like Shakespeare... ;)
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
Well, The plane itself the proof that it was not a copy. Totally different. Like differ in size, structure, wing design, landing gears, engines, engine placement, speed, load, range, etc, etc....
@Raine-Cat
12 жыл бұрын
Don't you find it amazing what some people will throw away.
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
:D Now i understand why you say it is a copy. :D You don't really know any of this planes. Just take a look at the engines again. ;) If Concorde had the same layout than it would never crashed! Actually the canards are the most advanced of its time. There is a theory that 144 is crashed because of a mirage that was assigned to take in flight photos about it. Modification? Not even alike! 144 was withdrew on the same reason as Concorde. The timing was different because of different economic...
@Dookiedolf
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs Yes 5 versions to Concordes 2. Thats because the French fed false information that was stolen. Flawed wing designs - hence they broke off. Stolen anti lock brakes - hence parachutes to stop the damn thing. Engines although faster were too fuel thirsty and too heavy so had to be underslung to fuselage, inferior to Rolls Royce engines. Inferior plane rushed from stolen designs which is why after so many crashes it was scrapped in 1983. How many Concordes crashed from design fail ? NONE
@dlcrt
13 жыл бұрын
in russia, people fly over planes
@TonyFirelli
15 жыл бұрын
few million dollars how about that?
@ValiantXD818
12 жыл бұрын
Is this the last one to survive?
@benzinbruder96
12 жыл бұрын
Где находится Туполев?
@Dookiedolf
13 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs Crashes same as Concorde ONE controversial crash ( your refering mirage ) same as Concorde. TU144 1st Flight 1968 last flight 1978. Concorde 1st flight 1969 last flight 2003. 10 vs 34 years Concorde 1st Crash - 2000. NOT PLANE FAILURE, plane hit debris that shouldnt have been on runway. TU144 1st Crash - 1973. PLANE FAIL - WING SNAPS OFF. May 23 1978 INTERNAL SYSTEM FAIL crash landed & fatalities Another crashed rumoured 1976 Problems & crashes same NOT. & I need to read more? Bah
@darkalligator
13 жыл бұрын
2 people doesnt like supersonic speeds
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@Zooni2 Let me answer post, by post. My first react was; Heeee???? Ok. I am not russian. Also, i do not really like Russia as my country was occupied twice by CCCP. I am looking at this plane separated from any feelings, so pls. don't write things like "waving the Russian flag". thx. Also TU-154 has nothing to do with this. But as you brought it up; 154 has better statistics than some Airbus, and Boeings.
@TonyFirelli
13 жыл бұрын
@beeroosterm I'll send a messege >:)
@TonyFirelli
15 жыл бұрын
:) i'll help lol
@JDF6897
12 жыл бұрын
OK I guess I was pretty ignorant because this plane never had time to show how good it really was. I guess I was brain-washed by the American propaganda.
@ponca1128
11 жыл бұрын
Is it going to be a house
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
@beeroosterm Are you angry? :D
@Modellpecs
11 жыл бұрын
Why is it ignorant to write facts. I have another: It was able to fly supersonic without afterburner. Only early models not.
@vova08081
12 жыл бұрын
no, 7 planes were be saved
@Modellpecs
12 жыл бұрын
Absolutely not. You just wrote that i am ignorant, and "DEAD wrong" but also you wrote things that are not true at all! :D Like it can't maintain supersonic speed without afterburner ;) Who is really wrong now? Which type are you talking about at all? The prototype? Tu-144S, Tu-144D, Tu144LL? Just a simple example; Go take a look at bough planes structure, you will notice that not even alike! Only their shadow is alike... Than go take a look at a Boeing, than an Airbus. Which one is the copy? :D
@etfsx7629
8 жыл бұрын
The TU-144 is a complete copy.concorde started the project about 10 years after WWII, and Concorde had the ideas of the drooping nose. So Concorde is the original and better
@Modellpecs
13 жыл бұрын
None of them are copy. Neather Concorde, or TU-144. Western propaganda, made the people think that TU-144 is a copy of Concorde. They needed a this to justify the lot of money thy have spent on it. And the fact that they missed the moment to be the first. So they tried to shadow the Russian succes. Actually they did a pretty good job. People liked to think, this way. But the fact is, TU-144 was the first. True that it was not better, but later the upgraded versions became better than Concorde.
@stuartmiller7419
2 жыл бұрын
...so much better, in fact, that it was in service as a passenger aircraft for less than a year, compared to Concorde's 27 years. Still, worth rushing out a crap plane just to be able to say it came out two months before the non-crap plane. 🙃
@global001
12 жыл бұрын
LOL the plane itself is in fact proof that it IS a copy; visually 92% identical. The nose, brand new invention. Engines are in the same place but inferior because had to invent them themselves. The canards added because their engine wasn't powerful enough to fly stable at slower speeds. They didn't get 100% of plans. Modifications made to make it fly with inferior engines which eventually didn't work as it crashed & withdrew it from service while Concorde continued to fly for another 30 years!
@themuffinman12345
13 жыл бұрын
@beeroosterm a) I know what happened to the Buran. The cold war ended and the program was canceled. This aside, it was still a good design. b) the Buran and the Tu-144 are very different cases and I will be first to admit that the latter was disfunctional garbage of the "me too" school. It cannot even be compared to Concorde. c) It's hilarious that you assume I'm Russian...I'm not. I live in Chicago. I'm going to guess that you're American, though. People like you give our country a bad name.
@aspiringdrummer17
12 жыл бұрын
@Modellpecs 'Tried to shadow Russian success'. Anything that remains in service for just 3 years cannot be considered a success.
Пікірлер: 112