Il TU144 detto anche il" Concordsky"

[Farfallina]

PS: si scrive Konkordski o Concordski

Concordosky

 

[iceman85]

Concordosky

scrivendo "Concordosky" su Google vengono fuori 2600 risultati. Con "Konkordski", i risultati sono poco meno di 18000!

 

[Farfallina]

scrivendo "Concordosky" su Google vengono fuori 2600 risultati. Con "Konkordski", i risultati sono poco meno di 18000!

Io l'ho sempre saputo Concordosky... e dovrebbe essere così visto che la logica è quella di "copiare" il Concorde nel nome.

 

[ZFox]

Sull'utilizzo NASA del Tu-144:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/TU-144/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/TU-144.html

 

[iceman85]

Io l'ho sempre saputo Concordosky... e dovrebbe essere così visto che la logica è quella di "copiare" il Concorde nel nome.

personalmente l'ho sempre conosciuto con Konkordski ed è la prima volta che sento "Concordosky". Sembra che ci sia una "o" di troppo...

 

[mediafx1]

Ma praticamente avevano realizzato un aereo da trasporto supersonico per poi scoprire che non c'era mercato in Unione Sovietica per quel tipo di voli?

 

[Francesco.B.]

Il concetto di mercato non era molto in voga in quel periodo a Mosca.

 

[feelgood]

chissa'se l'era dei supersonici prima o poi ritornera'

 

[mediafx1]

Mi riferivo a wikipedia:
Although the Tu-144 was technically broadly comparable to the Concorde, it lacked a passenger market within the Soviet Union[citation needed] and service was halted after only 102 scheduled flights (55 passenger flights, the rest cargo).

 

[BHA 604]

Ma praticamente avevano realizzato un aereo da trasporto supersonico per poi scoprire che non c'era mercato in Unione Sovietica per quel tipo di voli?

Esatto.....
Se non ricordo male la sua funzione principale doveva essere trasportare la posta da una parte all'altra della nazione.
Comunque Aeroflot non è stata l'unica ad usare i voli supersonici "a caso". anche Braniff utilizzò i Concorde sulla DFW-IAD e fu un completo insuccesso. Le leggi Usa infatti vietavano il volo supersonico sul loro territorio (ed infatti il volo supersonico durava qualche minuto ed era fatto solo sull'oceano atlantico - mi pare 3 o 5 minuti al massimo) e l'aereo era configurato come sola first class.

personalmente l'ho sempre conosciuto con Konkordski ed è la prima volta che sento "Concordosky". Sembra che ci sia una "o" di troppo...

Non essendo una parola russa (l'aereo in russo si chiama semplicemente Ty-144) tutte e due le traduzioni (la tua e quella di Farfallina) possono essere giuste.

 

[Dancrane]

Ma praticamente avevano realizzato un aereo da trasporto supersonico per poi scoprire che non c'era mercato in Unione Sovietica per quel tipo di voli?

Semplicemente, dovevano arrivare (e ci riuscirono) a farne volare uno prima degli sporchi capitalisti occidentali, freschi di conquista della luna. Con buona pace dei conti economici.

 

[iceman85]

Non essendo una parola russa (l'aereo in russo si chiama semplicemente Ty-144) tutte e due le traduzioni (la tua e quella di Farfallina) possono essere giuste.

l'avevo notato leggendo wikipedia ed altri articoli in russo...La parola "Concord*" viene riferito solo ed esclusivamente all'aereo francese. Gli altri sono nomignoli dati dagli Occidentali per la somiglianza col Concorde originario con un suffisso -ski che rende il nome vagamente russo

 

[mediafx1]

Semplicemente, dovevano arrivare (e ci riuscirono) a farne volare uno prima degli sporchi capitalisti occidentali, freschi di conquista della luna. Con buona pace dei conti economici.

Sì sì questo mi è chiaro. Peraltro lo stesso articolo di wikipedia (immagino scritto da più mani) ne parla dopo in termini piuttosto inquietanti, come quando dice che le autorità russe si aspettavano che prima o poi sarebbe crashato e quindi ne limitavano il più possibile i voli e il numero di passeggeri.

 

[LIMJ_APP]

Per conto mio è sempre stato un aereo "raffazzonato" in fretta e furia per battere sul tempo i competitors occidentali nella corsa al supersonico civile. I primi motori non reggevano il volo a mach 2 senza postbruciatori (che il Concorde spegneva a mach 1.7), limitando moltissimo l'autonomia. A basse velocità era poco manovrabile per via dell'ala a doppio delta (piuttosto tagliata con l'accetta, se paragonata al doppio delta gotico del Concorde, che aveva buone prestazioni e manovrabilità anche a bassa velocità).

Particolarità e pregi: con la seconda motoristica era più veloce del Concorde (mach 2.2 e oltre di crociera contro 2.02) / il canard retrattile era un discreto prodigio tecnico che consentiva miglior manovrabilità alle basse velocità e soprattutto una minor velocità di avvicinamento) / il costo del biglietto, nei pochissimi voli passeggeri effettuati (tutti rigorosamente interni), era in linea con quello di un normale volo Aeroflot (no, il concetto di "mercato" non era molto in voga a Mosca, in quel periodo).

Tragica curiosità: il primo incidente del Tu-144 avvenne al salone del Bourget del '73 durante un volo dimostrativo, uccidendo equipaggio e alcune persone a terra. 27 anni dopo il Concorde si sarebbe schiantato a pochissimi chilometri di distanza, a Gonnesse, proprio mentre tentava un atterraggio di emergenza al Bourget dopo il decollo da Roissy.

 

[OneShot]

Ripesco questa discussione in quanto quest'anno si celebrano i 50 anni dal tragico evento che vide il TU144 spezzarsi durante l'esibizione a Le Bourget.
Un intéressante articolo di FlightGlobal cerca di chiarire le cause del tragico evento: ne verrebbe fuori che un antesignano del MCAS sarebbe stato l'unica spiegazione plausibile, dopo aver scartato congetture di ogni tipo, a causare la fatale perdita davanti a migliaia di spettatori.

. Tu-144 crash puzzle persists 50 years after fatal Paris display
Le Bourget was the scene of gladiatorial supersonic spectacle 50 years ago when a Soviet Tupolev Tu-144S sought to outperform the rival BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde at the 1973 Paris air show, only to splinter into fiery rain over the suburb of Goussainville.

Cold War secrecy and reticence obscured the investigation. Eight months after the loss of the aircraft, its six crew and eight people on the ground, a brief communique stated that French and Soviet investigators had “unanimously concluded” that “no abnormality” had been found in the Tu-144’s design.

“Intervention of the human factor is therefore most likely,” it added, postulating possible scenarios but ultimately remarking that the cause should be “declared unidentified”.

Allocated a display slot to fly after Concorde on 3 June, the Tu-144 was supposed to perform an 11min sequence, taking off from runway 03 and accelerating for a return pass, before a slower second pass with its nose and undercarriage lowered. It would extend its characteristic canards, behind the cockpit, to aid low-speed lift, then circle again to land.

But during the approach the Tu-144 crew – perhaps emboldened to end the tame sequence with a flourish, and steal some of Concorde’s spotlight – cleaned the configuration, powered up the Kuznetsov NK-144 engines and thrust the airliner into a full-afterburner climb, levelling at about 4,000ft.

It then arched into a steep dive and, as the Tu-144 attempted to round out at 400ft, its entire left wing outboard of the left-hand engines broke away. The aircraft snap-rolled left and inverted, overload stresses fracturing its slender fuselage forward of the wing. Fuel vapour ignited and the supesonic jet disintegrated.
Site nameMast navigation
Subscribe
Register
Newsletters
Sign In
Search our site
Search our site
Search our site
SEARCHMenu

Safety
Tu-144 crash puzzle persists 50 years after fatal Paris display
By David Kaminski-Morrow, Paris and Goussainville20 June 2023

Save articlePlease Sign in to your account to use this feature
Le Bourget was the scene of gladiatorial supersonic spectacle 50 years ago when a Soviet Tupolev Tu-144S sought to outperform the rival BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde at the 1973 Paris air show, only to splinter into fiery rain over the suburb of Goussainville.

Cold War secrecy and reticence obscured the investigation. Eight months after the loss of the aircraft, its six crew and eight people on the ground, a brief communique stated that French and Soviet investigators had “unanimously concluded” that “no abnormality” had been found in the Tu-144’s design.

“Intervention of the human factor is therefore most likely,” it added, postulating possible scenarios but ultimately remarking that the cause should be “declared unidentified”.

Allocated a display slot to fly after Concorde on 3 June, the Tu-144 was supposed to perform an 11min sequence, taking off from runway 03 and accelerating for a return pass, before a slower second pass with its nose and undercarriage lowered. It would extend its characteristic canards, behind the cockpit, to aid low-speed lift, then circle again to land.

But during the approach the Tu-144 crew – perhaps emboldened to end the tame sequence with a flourish, and steal some of Concorde’s spotlight – cleaned the configuration, powered up the Kuznetsov NK-144 engines and thrust the airliner into a full-afterburner climb, levelling at about 4,000ft.

It then arched into a steep dive and, as the Tu-144 attempted to round out at 400ft, its entire left wing outboard of the left-hand engines broke away. The aircraft snap-rolled left and inverted, overload stresses fracturing its slender fuselage forward of the wing. Fuel vapour ignited and the supesonic jet disintegrated.

FULL SCREEN IN POPUP
PreviousNext













1/6SHOW CAPTION
The joint inquiry offered scant detail on the circumstances, either unable or unwilling to explain the fatal dive or ill-fated recovery, resorting to a hypothesis that the crew had unexpectedly encountered a Dassault Mirage IIIR reconnaissance aircraft on the left as it climbed, and reacted instinctively with an evasive manoeuvre – even though there was no collision threat.

One unofficial theory for the Mirage’s presence posited that it was tasked to photograph the canards, although this seems curious, given the canards were deployed in full view on the ground.

Similarly questionable was the inquiry’s suggestion that one of the crew, engineer Vladimir Benderov, dropped a TV camera during the unexpected manoeuvre, which then jammed pilot Mikhail Kozlov’s control column – hindering his arrest of the dive until the aerodynamic force required was too much for the airframe.

Benderov’s son, Valery, pursued his own probe into the accident, expressing doubt about the official explanation to Russian publication Kommersant in 2000, arguing that the negative-g physics of the dive would have thrown any loose object in the cockpit upwards and backwards.

The inquiry admitted its hypothetical scenario remained a theory, as it found no material evidence either to support or refute it, and the absence of clarity inevitably led to conjecture, including wild suppositions of sabotage in more extreme media circles.
Site nameMast navigation
Subscribe
Register
Newsletters
Sign In
Search our site
Search our site
Search our site
SEARCHMenu

Safety
Tu-144 crash puzzle persists 50 years after fatal Paris display
By David Kaminski-Morrow, Paris and Goussainville20 June 2023

Save articlePlease Sign in to your account to use this feature
Le Bourget was the scene of gladiatorial supersonic spectacle 50 years ago when a Soviet Tupolev Tu-144S sought to outperform the rival BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde at the 1973 Paris air show, only to splinter into fiery rain over the suburb of Goussainville.

Cold War secrecy and reticence obscured the investigation. Eight months after the loss of the aircraft, its six crew and eight people on the ground, a brief communique stated that French and Soviet investigators had “unanimously concluded” that “no abnormality” had been found in the Tu-144’s design.

“Intervention of the human factor is therefore most likely,” it added, postulating possible scenarios but ultimately remarking that the cause should be “declared unidentified”.

Allocated a display slot to fly after Concorde on 3 June, the Tu-144 was supposed to perform an 11min sequence, taking off from runway 03 and accelerating for a return pass, before a slower second pass with its nose and undercarriage lowered. It would extend its characteristic canards, behind the cockpit, to aid low-speed lift, then circle again to land.

But during the approach the Tu-144 crew – perhaps emboldened to end the tame sequence with a flourish, and steal some of Concorde’s spotlight – cleaned the configuration, powered up the Kuznetsov NK-144 engines and thrust the airliner into a full-afterburner climb, levelling at about 4,000ft.

It then arched into a steep dive and, as the Tu-144 attempted to round out at 400ft, its entire left wing outboard of the left-hand engines broke away. The aircraft snap-rolled left and inverted, overload stresses fracturing its slender fuselage forward of the wing. Fuel vapour ignited and the supesonic jet disintegrated.

FULL SCREEN IN POPUP
PreviousNext













1/6SHOW CAPTION
The joint inquiry offered scant detail on the circumstances, either unable or unwilling to explain the fatal dive or ill-fated recovery, resorting to a hypothesis that the crew had unexpectedly encountered a Dassault Mirage IIIR reconnaissance aircraft on the left as it climbed, and reacted instinctively with an evasive manoeuvre – even though there was no collision threat.

One unofficial theory for the Mirage’s presence posited that it was tasked to photograph the canards, although this seems curious, given the canards were deployed in full view on the ground.

Similarly questionable was the inquiry’s suggestion that one of the crew, engineer Vladimir Benderov, dropped a TV camera during the unexpected manoeuvre, which then jammed pilot Mikhail Kozlov’s control column – hindering his arrest of the dive until the aerodynamic force required was too much for the airframe.

Benderov’s son, Valery, pursued his own probe into the accident, expressing doubt about the official explanation to Russian publication Kommersant in 2000, arguing that the negative-g physics of the dive would have thrown any loose object in the cockpit upwards and backwards.

The inquiry admitted its hypothetical scenario remained a theory, as it found no material evidence either to support or refute it, and the absence of clarity inevitably led to conjecture, including wild suppositions of sabotage in more extreme media circles.

Perhaps the most convincing analysis of the accident sequence appears in a Russian memoir, The Truth About Supersonic Passenger Aircraft, which features a collection of contributions from senior figures attached to the Tu-144 programme, including Valentin Bliznyuk, Yuri Popov, Vladimir Vul and Alexei Tupolev.

It refers to a flight-control stabilisation system which had previously been installed on a Tu-144S test aircraft, 77101, and was also fitted to the Le Bourget aircraft, 77102. The system, in a panel behind the pilot’s seat, contained 20 toggle switches. One of them provided more lateral stability during roll through a signal to the rudder. An adjacent switch was intended for a future longitudinal stabilising signal but, on 77102, this channel was unprocessed.

The memoir indicates this system was not supposed to be used at Le Bourget, and had been covered and sealed. But in the cockpit wreckage the panel was found unsealed and open – not the result of impact – and both the lateral and the longitudinal stabilisation toggles had been switched on.

While the lateral toggle activation might have been deliberate, the memoir suggests the longitudinal toggle was switched on inadvertently, since the signal was unprocessed. It also points out, crucially, that this signal would have been inhibited while the Tu-144’s canards were deployed – as they were when the lightly-laden aircraft entered its powerful end-of-display climb.

Just before levelling, the crew started retracting the canards. After a few seconds of horizontal flight the canards were fully stowed, and the longitudinal channel – with unregulated sensors set for maximum output – triggered instant deflection of the elevons a full 10° downwards, pushing the jet into a descent.

This caught the crew by surprise and the pilots’ attempts to counter by pulling the control column were insufficient. As the aircraft neared the ground, the crew redeployed the canards – instantly inhibiting the stabilising system and causing the elevons to respond immediately to the pilots’ commands by deflecting upwards.

With the aircraft travelling at some 350kt, this abrupt change in forces overloaded the wing structure and the Tu-144 began to break up.
According to the memoir, which backs up its account with flight data from the aircraft, the engines remained operational, contrasting with speculation that an evasive manoeuvre had interrupted the air or fuel flow to the powerplants. The stabilisation system was subsequently modified, it adds, reducing the elevon deflection severity, while measures were taken to improve the Tu-144’s overall structural strength.

If this analysis has a convincing aura, it is nevertheless unlikely to satisfy everyone who, half a century on, still ponders the Tu-144’s destruction. The memorial stone which stands on a quiet corner in Goussainville symbolises the persistence of an enigma as much as it commemorates one of Le Bourget’s darkest moments.

Tu-144 crash puzzle persists 50 years after fatal Paris display

Le Bourget was the scene of gladiatorial supersonic spectacle 50 years ago when a Soviet Tupolev Tu-144S sought to outperform the rival BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde at the 1973 Paris air show, only to splinter into fiery rain over the suburb of Goussainville.

www.flightglobal.com