HomeEducationRelated VideosMore From: Mustard

Why You Wouldn't Want to Fly On The Soviet Concorde - The TU-144 Story

41626 ratings | 4734428 views
While the Concorde is often hailed as a triumph of modern engineering, the first supersonic transport to ever fly was actually Soviet-built. The Tupolev TU-144 flew even faster than the Concorde and it carried more passengers. What happened to this aircraft and why have so few heard about it? Getting the TU-144 built before the Concorde (and therefore proving Soviet superiority to the world) was allegedly a high priority for the Soviets. The plane was developed under a tight schedule and relied on a few less advanced aviation technologies. The TU-144 suffered three known crashes, the most famous being at the 1973 Paris Air Show (there are conflicting theories on the cause of the 1973 crash). In regular passenger service, the TU-144 proved unreliable. Only one flight a week was permitted on a single route between Moscow and Almaty, Kazakhstan. It is rumoured that Soviet leaders were nervous about the 144's airworthiness and ordered it's chief designer Alexei Tupolev to personally inspect every 144. Supersonic travel proved expensive and could only be offered as a 'premium' product in commercial airline travel. In west, the Concorde could be marketed as a luxury product to serve the wealthy and airfares could be sold at prices well beyond typical airfares. In the communist Soviet Union, where egalitarian principles demanded that displays of wealth or class be subdued, the TU-144 airfare had to be set similar to the typical Soviet airfare. This meant that the 144 had to be operated at a loss for Aeroflot, and Aeroflot couldn't wait to stop flying it. The TU-144 was removed from regular passenger service less than a year after it began (although cargo service was offered for a couple more years). In the 1990's, a modified version of Tu-144 was utilized by Tupolev, NASA, and other aerospace conglomerates as a research testbed for a second-generation supersonic jetliner. #Tu144 #Tupolev #Supersonic #Airplanes Want to help Mustard grow? Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MustardChannel
Category: Education
Get embed code!
Text Comments (7739)
Gerardo Garcia (20 hours ago)
Who’s here from stuff you should know?
Helle Lucy Thorning (1 day ago)
50 years later and the Chinese are still copy pasting everything.
MORDERN GAMING (1 day ago)
Toxichammertoe (2 days ago)
Polka music HEEEEEEY!!!!!!
Ernesto Sousa (3 days ago)
Just another useless video. Tu 144 is engineering marvel like the Concorde. Any aircraft engineer will tell you that.
Billal Hossain (3 days ago)
vara fouroneone (4 days ago)
Communism blows.
10z20 (4 days ago)
Comments full of salty ruskies. Stay mad Ivan, God Bless the United States of America.
Игорь Гуцаев (4 days ago)
Ох уж мне эта западная русофобия)
OG4R Gaming (5 days ago)
3:51 niiiggggggaaaaaaa
Crazy Funny Cats (5 days ago)
Cool thanks
Haziel Soberal (5 days ago)
cyka blyat
Bobby Paluga (5 days ago)
Yes the Americans were halfbaked and basically stupid. They choose not to build a supersonic aircraft that wouldn't sell even a SINGLE aircraft, while three governments spent billions to develop the Concorde and Concordski.
Robo Raptor (5 days ago)
The reason why you wouldn’t want to fly on a soviet concord 1: it’s a concord 2: it’s soviet
Eu (4 days ago)
Concorde killed way more people,the tu144 was used also by nasa until 2000
General Zhukov (5 days ago)
Glorious mother Russia produced the TU-144 before you capitalist pigs!!!!
Ultra Minecraft gamer 1701 (5 days ago)
The Soviet Concorde looks like the American one a little
Tyok Nugroho (6 days ago)
ah... cold war...
S S (6 days ago)
The Russians are masters at deceiving the world. This makes up for their lack of sense of humor. They probably even show plane crash in flight movies. Oh, that's right, this is Russia we are talking about. They don't have movies. I'm surprised there are seats. I would  expect them to stand at attention the entire trip.
Eu (5 days ago)
"They don't have movies and sense of humor" are you really that stupid to think that or you are just another russophobic racist idiot? https://youtu.be/eRhiXgtclmA
Nak Muay (6 days ago)
never cared about civil aviation until I found your channel. good job !
Bengali Warrior (6 days ago)
Bangladesh is inventing it's own Concorde
Lyndon Lucier (6 days ago)
my grandma flew on the concord in the late 90s cost $1000 she was poor as dirt dont know how she ever aforded it
Bulging Battery (6 days ago)
Sipping on Vodka and playing the accordion music.
JaKiT0 (7 days ago)
When you said is from russia i already knew what was going to happen
Simon Bird (7 days ago)
Why would anyone in the Western World fly on anything made in a 3rd world county!!
p cts (3 days ago)
Hahahaha ask NASA astronauts then, Nice try tho.
some boi (3 days ago)
It’s a 2nd world country...
TRXP RFT (6 days ago)
Russia isnt a 3rd world country....
Nick Stalburg (7 days ago)
This might be a rant, but, why could not they fly the Concorde in supersonic mode over the ocean, and in normal mode over cities...
Nick Stalburg (2 days ago)
+Zuul Gatekeeper Yeah, you are right, but making it larger would help. Also, the non supersonic mode would be used mainly when either flying over cities or flying to inland airports.
Zuul Gatekeeper (2 days ago)
It could but it all comes down to economics it would have been insane to use Concorde overland it's speed was it's advantage & well-off people would pay for that convenience over oceans but over land it could fly no faster than any other airliner & each jet would cost an operator 3 times the price to buy one with a capacity of just 100 passengers. A 747 in comparison could accommodate 400 passengers & cost the airline far less maximizing profits.
Original Prankster (7 days ago)
Concorde was a marvel of engineering.The most successful, commercial supersonic plane ever.
Clare Atkinson (7 days ago)
Instead of sipping champagne you would be sipping vodka and be listening to some Russian hardcore
Joseph Chen (7 days ago)
Too expensive
Chris Doukas (7 days ago)
this technology is over 60 years old ....WTF are we doing today? saving fuel costs by flying faster planes, slower....wow how exciting....
The Pandora Guy (7 days ago)
I choose the crazy older sister :D.
JL Multiverse (7 days ago)
I would want to fly it
skotiskiller (7 days ago)
Anticommunist propaganda once again.Whoever knows anything about this and the english-french one can't really say which is thebetter.After all both had fatal accidents and both had very short lives.
Zuul Gatekeeper (5 days ago)
The Tu-144 lasted just a few months it made just 55 flights before being withdrawn from passenger service after it suffered over 250 in-flight faults 80 of them serious enough to bring the aircraft down & meter long cracks started to appear in the fuselage. Concord operated for 27 years before being retired it flew over 50,000 flights in that time & the only crash was due to a foreign object hitting the wing. Fair to say we can gather which of the two was the better aircraft.
Albin Norman (8 days ago)
whats the name of the song att 0:23
Leslie Fulton (8 days ago)
Damn.. 37 roubles for a ticket, I would risk it and bring ear protection for a ride.
uh wot (8 days ago)
god the soviet union, it must be like breathing in fart directly from the asshole of capitalism. lmfao. its better to be a capitalist than a stinky communist.
Etienne Ouellet (8 days ago)
Fucking spies
Ditlev Egeskov Brodersen (9 days ago)
Yet it was the Concorde that crashed with passengers...
Ben Davis (7 days ago)
And it was tyre debris that brought the French one down, nothing mechanical. Unlike the many Russian crashes within its year of service unlike the one crash at the end of Concorde's 27yrs.
Ben Davis (7 days ago)
Still rather fly on Concorde than anything Russian. Russian stuff is just dodgy.
mark jones (9 days ago)
It doesn’t hold a candle to Concorde nothing does We’ve just gone backwards
GoatGaming (9 days ago)
What Was Teh Intro Song?
Jdalaigh2017 Jeremy Dawley (9 days ago)
Acid Commander (9 days ago)
Nice research!
Shane Freeland (10 days ago)
"Soviet ingenuity and, oh yeah, they stole a bunch of ideas..." Isn't that the same thing?
Pyrus Rex (10 days ago)
it amazing that something that looks so similar to the beautiful Concorde could be so f*ck ugly
bboy random (10 days ago)
Are we gonna act like Concords never crashed?
bboy random (3 days ago)
ionizedbeam808 seems legit i trust you
ionizedbeam808 (9 days ago)
Concorde, only one crashed in 20 years As mentioned elsewhere: TU-144: 2 crashes in 102 flights = 1.96% fatal failure rate Concorde: 1 crash in 64000 flights = 0.0015625% fatal failure rate 1.96 divided by 0.0015625 is 1254.4. In other words, the 144 was about 1250 times more dangerous.
Arya Dwitama (10 days ago)
"Brutally hard landing and even required a parachute" *poop* *parachute deloyed*
dislecksick (10 days ago)
the russians bullshit more than north korea. Whether it's an unwillingness to admit to failing, suken submarines or botched space flights....laughable
Richard Melkus (11 days ago)
Die Entwicklung der TU-144 begann lange vor der der Concorde! Technisch war sie wesentlich ausgereifter, der Bericht ist ein Hohn! The development of the TU-144 began long before the Concorde! Technically, she was much more mature, the report is a mockery!
Έκτορας Κουφοντίνας (11 days ago)
Pure anti communism.
Karlo Gašparček (11 days ago)
Whats the music plaing in the intro
William Baynes (12 days ago)
Bryan Elwell (12 days ago)
Just got my TU-144 shirt in the mail, it was a good day.
Jose Peixoto (12 days ago)
In style ...while throwing BIG money out of the window...and champagne (well this is only 5 dol. a bottle...).
Mark Sturdey (12 days ago)
Pile of Russian crap compared with Concorde.....!!!,!
Eu (4 days ago)
Used by nasa until 1999 ,faster bigger and didn't kill a lot of passengers like the concorde. Now you can cry russophobic pos.
thegladio64 (12 days ago)
Arya Dan Teman (13 days ago)
What is the diferent 🤔
John Hudson (13 days ago)
I'm English and in my 70s and I followed the supersonic race with great interest. And I vividly remember the Russians bragging how theirs was the winner, so to speak. So all eyes were on this amazing TU-144 when it appeared on TV at the Paris Airshow. Surprise surprise..the resemblence to the Anglo/French Concorde which we'd already seen was EXTREMELY noticable, which made everyone both sides of the Channel very angry because we all then knew they'd stolen the plans - the thieving bastards! But then, what they didn't get to steal - hence theirs turned out to be a noisy old bone-shaker, and the wing fell off at the Paris show - were all the fine calculations re stress etc. Anyway. Our reward came when the beautiful Concorde finally took to the skies and the whole world was admiring this wonderful British/French joint acheivement. As a matter of interest, the fair at the time was some 20% above first class. However you did get a speed clock to watch as you went through the sound barrier!
James Simmons (13 days ago)
People like you typically put down anything that the Russians build. Must be fun for you huh? Ever even been close to one of these or is your source what others like you have said in the past? OK one of these crashed at the Paris Air Show. That was pilot error. He was showing off and tried for a too severe angle of attack on takeoff and stalled. Not the airplane designer's fault except that more advanced avionics might have prevented human error. This would be a valid argument. It was, and still is, a fine airplane that I would happily ride on if it was still in service. The one criticism I will aim at the Russians is that they are well known for being copy cats. I can't help but to remember their version of the Boeing B29 long ago. And during ww2 we gave them a Convair PBY put together with nuts and bolts so they could take it apart and put it, piece by piece, into production. This they did and they did it pretty well. I remember those times. I do wish they'd try to avoid copying though. Makes them look bad.  The trouble with all these SST types is that they were grossly inefficient. There is an airspeed which limits because beyond that point the ratio of effort to result changes too drastically. The only way to beat ordinary planes is to develop the suborbital kind. These will beat that limit but they will still have to carry hundreds of people to be viable. It will be done. Bet on it. And when it is the Russians will compete successfully. Believe it.
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
Well considering the U.S is developing the SR-72 which will be a drone capable of carrying bombs and flying at Mach 6, you have a long way to go.
Internet Explorer (13 days ago)
*This looks like the super sonic bombers the russians still use in their military idk what it's called*
Trigger (12 days ago)
Internet Explorer the bombers and the plane were made by the same people the bombers are Called tu-160
Oleg Kalashnikoff (13 days ago)
Tu-144 was essentially a prototype of the future Tu-160 bomber. And it is magnificent and the only supersonic which flies nowadays/
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
There are actually a lot of of supersonic aircraft, if your talking about bombers there are less but still plenty.
Andrew Kraus (13 days ago)
concord did not fail because it was too expensive (it was profiting more than 50million/year), it failed for a very unfortunate event. The one concord crashed due to a piece of metal on the runway which punctured its tire and debris hit the fuel cell in the wing, thus catching fire. All of the planes were pulled and equipped with new tires made by michelin which were puncture resistant and safer fuel tanks despite it not being a direct plane fault causing the crash. Once the planes were ready, concord launched a press day offering free rides and what not to journalists to advertise the plane. This day of course was on september 11, 2001. The concords rerelease was masked by 9/11 and no one wanted to fly much after that anyways. This brought the fleet to fizzle by 2003, only a few years later.
Genius44 (14 days ago)
The Russians can only copy ... but the TU-144 crashed because it was Russian technology ..are soon worse than the Chinese. haaahaaahaaa
SoLeiL BLeU (14 days ago)
DeekaCinema (14 days ago)
Blyat jet
Lalo Loya (14 days ago)
Petko Petkov (14 days ago)
Cheap propaganda. We all remember the deadly crashes of Concorde...
uh wot (8 days ago)
yeah except the concorde was obviously a superior aircraft.
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
+DAR 4K Actually, at the Paris airshow crash the Tu-144 killed 14 people, 6 in the plane, 8 on the ground. Also destroyed 15 houses.
R C (9 days ago)
DAR 4K (10 days ago)
+Trigger but the Concorde crashed with passengers and the Tu-144 killed no one passenger.
Jack Fuller (11 days ago)
Concorde crashed once and it was because of the negligence of Air France and debris on the runway, had nothing to do with the design.
ShadowYeeter542 (14 days ago)
Ye hell i want
Сергей Калинин (14 days ago)
TU 144 began to fly before the Concorde.... More nonsense about the stolen documents... TU 144 had better aerodynamics and quality of the wing. AngloSaxon all demonize Russia and Russians. The Russians soon realized the lack of commercial prospects for supersonic aircraft. For that moment. Аll lies from start to finish.
Citizen Snips (8 days ago)
+mxkv67 And you enjoy your Soviet knockoff that failed even more spectacularly, and who's only use was to look ugly on propaganda films.
mxkv67 (9 days ago)
Touchdown is same comfortable when it done at proper speed, only roll out is longer if speed is higher. As for cost, Russians don't care about it, difficulties with Tu-144 quickly converted it from the business to the ideological project. But for Concorde it was fail because it was not profitable. In fact, all supersonic passenger jet projects failed. And if you enjoy the fact, that the fail of Concorde more comfortable, I'll not object )))
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
​+mxkv67 Actually, the sonic boom of Concorde was not problematic, it only created a psf of 2, most buildings can withstand 11 psf. And you do realize the low landing speed was not out of necessity, but it made for a more comfortable touchdown right? And the difference in cost is why the Tu-144 was even more of a failure, it wasn't enough per ticket to pay for the aircraft. And yes, if you have the blueprints and specifications for a plane that can fly at supersonic you can use its design to make an aircraft similar to it, of course the Soviets couldn't copy the supercruise engines (they STILL can't figure it out). The inescapable truth is, the Tu-144 was a less comfortable, less cost effective, less efficient, and less reliable wannabe of the Concorde. The only thing it did better was speed and altitude, but that doesn't matter much if your customers are uncomfortable the whole ride.
mxkv67 (9 days ago)
Your point of view is too narrow, you think if get blueprints you can make supersonic jet? Try it ))) Plus Tupolev already made supersonic jets, yes, military, but it still very valuable experience. And you comparing level of comfort in the plane where you pay $10500 for the flight with the plane where you pay 68 (sixty eight!) rubles, seriously? Tu-144 simply was designed for different customers and for different conditions: operates only in 18 airports, so low landing speed was not necessary; but fly over surface, not over Atlantic, which requires much higher altitude to avoid sonic boom.
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
You do comprehend that they make specification documents and blueprints before they build the actual aircraft right? Its absolutely plausible that the design was influenced by stolen documents meant for Concorde. And there is no doubt the Concorde was a better plane than the Tu-144, the Concorde was a comfortable, pleasant ride for passengers. The Tu-144 on the other hand, was like riding in a bucking bull filled with incredibly loud engine noise in tiny cramped seats, I don't care if it barely flew faster at supersonic, if you would rather fly in that uncomfortable hunk of junk than the Concorde be my guest.
aydan khaliq (14 days ago)
When it goes Mach 2 you can hear a humm of the Russian anthem
Jim Wallace (14 days ago)
Piece of junk, did it run on vodka like the rest of the Russian piss heads?
Scott Dee (16 days ago)
Couldn’t be any worse than the French.
Eu (17 days ago)
Russian jets are the best in the world. There is no jet that can compare with beasts like the su35,the su34,the tu160 .
Citizen Snips (4 days ago)
+Eu Yeah I know, its amazing that this jet with such better statistics was invented decades earlier, but that's the way it goes. It was replaced by the F-15E Strike Eagle with even better performance. Your claim on missile technology has no backing, the U.S is about to send people to mars and has been sending rovers there for over a decade. Not to mention you have not brought any sources on how Russia has better A/A missiles than the U.S, you realize that the Soviets even admitted they were decades behind in missile technology until they salvaged an AIM-9B from a downed Taiwanese F-86 Sabre in Korea. Their entire missile program was jump started by U.S technology. Second of all, explain how stealth is a myth? Its a system that works well, and has been proven to work in Red Flag, where the F-35 and F-22 gained a 20-1 kill ratio in their favor. The red jets couldn't even touch them. Third of all, the jet shot down by Serbia was a first generation stealth F-117, the F-22 and F-35 are 2nd Generation stealth, more advanced, more effective. And what is the range of Photonic radar, is it long range enough to catch a raptor before it launches its missiles? And thermal sensors don't work well on the F-35 and F-22, the F-22's super cruise engines allows it to fly at supersonic without afterburner, no afterburner means less heat, it also has anti-thermal coatings and engine nozzles designed for minimal heat. The F-35 has very similar designs but is more classified. The R-40 is too large and moves too fast to have the maneuverability to hit a fast evasive target, obviously you don't understand the physics of how momentum effects ballistics. And a Missiles range is only as good as its radar, and with the U.S Stealth + Radar combo, it allows first shot first kill capability. If the Russian plane is even able to get into close quarters with the F-22, it can employ the AIM-9X, which coupled with the JHMCS allows the F-22 pilot to lock on and fire at targets well outside of boresight. So far you Russians have not provided proof of your wild claims that you can beat the F-22, only claims that your missiles and radars could. And don't even get me started on the F-22 "picture", this was close enough to see the damn thing with your own naked eyes. If there was a war going on and it wasn't peace time this wouldn't of been possible. The F-22 would of been on full alert searching for targets.
Eu (4 days ago)
+Citizen Snips ok so: the f111 was used from 1967 to 1998,the su34 entered in service in 2014 ,so yes no us jets like the su34 in use (and the tu160 was modernized last year). The new engines are called saturn 30 izdelye. Just type on google f22 or f35 in rain and you will see,the jet becomes unmanouvrable,no stealth anymore and must be repainted to become stealth again. Yes missiles are important,us is 20 years behind Russia in missile and rocket technology (nasa will buy rd180 russian rocket engines until 2028,they also can't put a man in the iss without Russia). Supermanouvrability is pointless only for usa,different approach to russian,full stealth is a myth,that's why a f22 will never fly in countries that have modern radars ,in serbia the have taken down stealth jets using 80s soviet radars,stealth jets are good only for attacking poor countries,that's the difference,Russia builds jets for defence. About radars,Russia uses also photonic radars (search how a su35 photographed a f22) modern aircraft thermal sensors can detect the heat of the engines of another aircraft, at a distance of about 30-35 kilometers...) And modern aircraft radars, L-range, installed on the latest Russian versions of aircraft, can detect absolutely any American stealth aircraft at a distance of more than 100-150 kilometers, up to 200 kilometers, while the range of Russian missiles, 1.5-2 times more than American..., and melee missiles, standing in service of Russian fighters and interceptors, they have high maneuverability, and flight speed, more than 5000 km / h (for example, the R-40 family of missiles)... In close combat, against Russian aircraft..., no chance... The radar range is comparable, but the Russians have l-band radars that see all the planes, missiles that fly farther and faster...
Citizen Snips (4 days ago)
+Eu You think that a lack of 3d thrust vectoring makes a plane loose all maneuverability? That is a laughable claim at best. Second of all, we DO have planes like the Su-34, we have the F-111 Aardvark and planes like the Tu-160 are pointless in a modern world, easily intercepted by SAM's and Interceptors. Nuclear bombers like the Tu-160 are a thing of the past. And where do you get the claim that the F-22 can't fly in the rain? Show your sources, because I have seen them fly in a downpour. Would you like to actually tell us what the new Russian super cruise engine is called? And is it mounted in any new planes? And we DID have 3D thrust vectoring aircraft, experimental prototypes of the F-16, F-15, and F/A-18 were equipped with such nozzles, but the idea of super maneuverability is pointless in a modern dogfight where missiles can make a 180 deg turn and slam into you. And I love how you don't bring up the F-22's main selling point, it's stealth and electronics. The F-22 has a powerful radar and stealth that allows it to engage the Su-35 from BVR distance before it even realizes a Raptor is nearby. Stats: Top Speed: F-111 Aardvark Mach 2.5+ | Su-34 top speed: Mach 1.8+ Ceiling: F-111 Aardvark 20,000 meters | Su-34: 15,000 meters Range: F-111 Aardvark 2,500 nautical miles | Su-34 2,100 nautical miles
Eu (4 days ago)
+Citizen Snips the f22 has only 2d thrust vectoring,no manouvrability at all,also: Fuel Capacity: f22 18,000 pounds,su35 25,353 pounds Speed: f22 Mach 2 ,su35 Mach 2.25 Range: f22 More than 1,850 miles ferry range with two external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles),su35 Maximum of 2,800 miles. Ceiling: f22 Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers),su35 Above 59,000 feet (18 kilometers).
Eu (4 days ago)
+Citizen Snips ps there are new engines 😉
John Smith (17 days ago)
I want to fly.
Kevbo75 (17 days ago)
Typical Russian trash, just another poor copy.
Rodri Aló (17 days ago)
Hey, does anyone here knows any decent freeware tu-144 for x-plane 11 ? Plz i want to try it but i dont find anything
Александр Бирюков (18 days ago)
Concorde- 113 casualties Tu 144 no casualties on the exploitation! One on test flight and one on the air show! What a propaganda mess is this video!
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
Except every single one of those deaths were from a single crash, the ONLY Concorde to ever crash. And when the Tu-144 crashed in the air show it killed 14 people, all 6 people on the aircraft and 8 people on the ground. It also destroyed 15 houses. So no, both have casualties, it was just unfortunate that the Concorde crashed with more people aboard.
Paul Byron (18 days ago)
This video has helped me realise that Russia is crap and the west is really cool. It isn't propaganda at all. And I am not an idiot at all. #Trump2020 #TedCruz2024
Max Paschke (18 days ago)
I don't know why Mustard didn't use any of the 3-D animation for this video??!!!
joseph hardwicke (14 days ago)
This is an old video. Before they started doing that.
AbgebeSpermium (18 days ago)
On the other hand, there was a not-widely-known cooperation between NASA and Russian space agency to get this airplane working as an atmospheric laboratory. That was between 1990-1999. And it worked.
TheDazzler420 (18 days ago)
Soviet music was great
william york (18 days ago)
There has been public sourced information that Concord and SST data was intentionally leaked to the Soviets. Why? The data and technical specifications were intentionally falsified and incorrect. Just sufficient to lead the Soviets down a set of wrong paths that created a flawed aircraft, and as it turned out, a death trap.
Eu (15 days ago)
Lies,different engines,also the tu144 was used even by nasa and retired later than the concorde.
Abraham Aguilar (16 days ago)
Always trying to make the U.S look better than every other countries when we all know that Russia/Soviet Union has always been better at everything else than the US, even winning WW2.
Bill Boyles (19 days ago)
"The French and the British sank billions into the Concorde knowing they wouldn't be able to sell enough jets to make that money back, but the Tu-144 was only used for propaganda and prestige" I don't know what better defines a propaganda and prestige project than sinking billions into a jet you know you won't make your money back on
xpeterson (19 days ago)
Not that I'm a fan of bureaucracies, but it sounds like the American bureaucracy kept us from making a much more expensive mistake by pouring money into something that ultimately the world wasn't ready for or had a need of. In other words, it sounds like they did their job for once. I personally love any modern marvel of engineering, even if they don't survive a cost-benefit analysis, so I would have liked to see an American version as well. But I can't fault others for rejecting it.
Matt G (19 days ago)
Uk and us have superior tech
Eu (17 days ago)
Sanoc the hedgehog gamer (19 days ago)
The make me *LAUGH* is the *FACE LIKE A BIRD!*
Gordon Ferrar (19 days ago)
Brute force and bloody ignorance like everything the Soviets knocked out.
Team TV (20 days ago)
1973 Tu-144 plane crash in Paris 2000 Concorde plane crash in Paris!
Eclipse2 YT (20 days ago)
In soviet russia Concorde flys you to the ground >:D
fibbo obbif (20 days ago)
Wow, and what was again the reason to stop the Concorde flying? Why would anybody want to burn more comfortable than in a TU-144 after some little failure? :-)
Hawks Fan (20 days ago)
Because anything made by the Soviets is junk.
Eu (15 days ago)
+Hawks Fan yes sure,that's what your propaganda tells you,meanwhile nasa will use russian rockets and soyuz until 2028,truth hurts?
Hawks Fan (16 days ago)
+Apache Helo Copto Because the US retired the space shuttle which is old technology. SpaceX and other US companies will soon take over those missions. They only use russian rockets currently because its cheaper.
Apache Helo Copto (16 days ago)
Why do they still use soyuz capsules and rockets to get to the international space station?
Eu (17 days ago)
helicopters,space rockets,space stations,satellite,periodic table of elements, television,transformers,Electrically-powered railway wagons,solar cells and other things,all created by soviets you racist idiot,and usa didn't invent nothing ,not even hamburgers 😂
TheNo1l (20 days ago)
Why you so stupid? TU-144 based on TU-135 Project.
Simon Gills (20 days ago)
Just include a parachute and a pair of Russian balls below every seat. No Blyat required.
Apache Helo Copto (16 days ago)
A awp under each seat
Tirah5 (20 days ago)
The good old western propaganda never stops bickering. It became boring back in early 2000. Westerners need to catch up.
Not my Real Name (20 days ago)
the Concordeski
Cascade Analog (20 days ago)
American propaganda at its best !
Syngamerpro YT (21 days ago)
Soviet Anthem Plays
vanstry (21 days ago)
The reason the one in Paris disintegrated was that when the French and British discovered soviet spies were stealing their plans, they set up a trap, giving them a set that had a fatal engineering design flaw. All of the TU-144's were built with this flaw, and it only became apparent during the exhibition at Paris. After that, the plane could only fly under a very limited flight parameters. That's what killed it. They couldn't fix the problem and the money they wasted was so much they couldn't start over again. They only kept them flying on that one route as a matter of national pride. All of the airframe design was stolen.
Filipe Sales (21 days ago)
Ben Is Alive but he is not (21 days ago)
KINGMJ1990 (21 days ago)
The 144 was launched before the Concorde. It did not copy the Concorde. When it came to Mechanical Engineering, the Soviets were miles ahead of the West.
Zuul Gatekeeper (21 hours ago)
It was a cheap knockoff they rushed to get in the air for propaganda value before Concorde but it wasn't ready for passenger service until 1977 years after Concorde. Even then it was withdrawn from service after just 5 months & 55 flights suffering over 220 faults 80 of them mid flight & serious enough they could have brought it down & meter wide cracks started to appear in the fuselage coz it couldn't handle the stress of repeated supersonic flight. Not only was it flying death trap it was deeply flawed as a commercial aircraft it's engines were primitive & drank fuel limiting it's range to around 2000 km in passenger configuration compared to Concorde's 7,250 km range so it could only do short hops over land certainly would never have made it over the Atlantic or Pacific.
Citizen Snips (9 days ago)
Matthew Wilson (12 days ago)
Hahaha, good joke!