Do u belive in SST??

Question

if ud have a choice of taking a 747 or a tu 144, which 1 would u fly? pls tell me how u feel about tu 144 and if u thing if it will fly again and stuff like that. thx

guys, dont write me a bunch of info i already kno. and if ull look into record 2 tu 144s disappeared from it and no1 knos what the **** happened 2 them. what i think is that russian government got their hands on them and spend a couple billions and turned it into an evacuation transport 4 president and his cabinet in case of nuclear war

4 real ppl, i proly kno more about russian planes than any of u here so pls pls pls dont write any info unless its something u think i dont kno alredy. thx

Answer 1

There is no question in not believing in SST. It existed till a few years ago and was functional. Only the economical aspects took them off the skies.

You make the options rather tough. The B747 is the reigning queen of the skies and Tu-144 is a shocker of its time. I havent flown in either, but between them I'd go for the Tu-144, Mach 2 is something worth bragging.

I dont think the Concordski will fly again commercially. Too old, too heavy on the pockets and not all are fascinated by beating the timezones these days.
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
Skytrain, sir, 16 Tu-144s were made and there were scheduled passenger flights for a while. So if the Concorde (20 units made) was a passenger, so is the Tu-144.

pearcey606, its a popular misconception that the Tu-144 is a Concorde "knock-off". As a matter of fact, the Tu-144 flew first, was faster and used a different set of aerodynamics and avionics than the Concorde.

Answer 2

I would choose the 747 because it's comfortable and current. If someone offered me a flight , today, in the TU 144 I would have to decline as it's not been operational for more than 20 years. There was a flight witnessed in '81 and '88.

It will probably never fly again commercially because like the Concorde it's technology is out dated.

By the way the TU 144 first and went into scheduled service before the Concorde. Although it began service as a transport it was the first SS Airliner.

The US attempt did not mature because of the 1974 oil crisis and objection to sonic booms over continental US. TWA and Pan Am canceled orders for the Concorde. So it wasn't for lack of technology.

In fact the SR-71 was delivered more than a decade earlier and JFK said the SST would be a national effort proved the capability if there had been a market.

USSR had some very good Aeronautical Engineers, the TU 144's Canard controls are still considered an significant achievement, but without a budget you can't do much.

Hope I answered your question.

Answer 3

SST's where retired for a reason. They were expensive to maintain. They where thirsty fuel wise and supersonic flight introduces a new set of inspections and standards.

If some one offered me a ride I would take them both!! I love aviation and I love both of those planes. The TU-144 was a great aircraft. It was faster than the Concorde. If the Russians weren't in such a hurry, they might have built a terrific aircraft.

More than likely, both Concorde and the TU-144 will not fly again. But commercial supersonic travel is not over. Small jets ( 6-8 seats) are already on the drawing board. With there engines being smaller, they are easier to maintain and engine dynamics has improved greatly trough out the years. This means more fuel efficiency. It may not be in the way Concorde was but supersonic commercial flight will surley survive.

Answer 4

On Style alone probably the TU 144 but it was never really an economically viable option. The 747 gets my vote as the queen of the skies is still going strong after, what must be about 40 years. Also it was a completely original and unprecedented design of aircraft and not just a slightly cheaper russian knock off of a previously flying plane, obviously Concorde.

Answer 5

The Tu-144 will never fly again. The one flying example was leased by NASA by in the 90s for research but the aircraft is no longer flying. The results of the NASA research concluded that supersonic passenger travel is not economically feasible. I'll take that 747.

Answer 6

Let's face facts, the TU-144 is a copy cat ripoff of the U.S. SST design. The Russians are known for technological copying for almost the last half century. They even copied rivet for rivet the Boeing B-29. It would have taken them twenty years to explode their first Atomic Bomb if Klaus Fuchs hadn't shipped the all the plans and manufacturing techniques. Having said that, to their credit, they did fly the SST for research purposes, but alas all that fell on hard times.

A choice between a 747 and a 144? Knowing how good Boeing builds its planes, and the problems the Russians have maintaining theirs, my body would count on the 747. Discounting dangers, I'd love a ride in the 144. It's a shame the environmental pukes and the sonic boom are to loud for trans-continental flights. It looks like we are doomed to sub-sonic speeds.

Answer 7

The main reason why Supersonic Transports never caught on is because the sonic boom effect causes problems for people living underneath their flight paths. So the only places such aircraft can fly supersonic are either sparsely-populated areas (say, Siberia) or over the oceans. That limits their economic potential, and therefore, their usefulness to an airline.

Answer 8

It depends. If you are in a hurry (and have the money), then the TU-144 is better. If you want to pay less, then the Boeing 747 is a better choice.

Answer 9

It is a bit of an academic question as the TU144 really never got into production as a passenger aircraft. Boeing tried to come into the SST age with the Boeing 2707 but that came to nothing.
NASA used the basic TU144 as a high speed test vehicle.
The only SST that can be classed as a true passenger aircraft is the Concord.
Vale Concord.

Answer 10

The next supersonic civilian jet will likely be a private jet, i.e., a business jet.