From the BBC. And the Concorde was an astounding succes and had no flaws whatsoever. /s
Concorde had its faults (and obviously the crash was a terrible incident and the nail in its coffin), but it was a staggering achievement to make a supersonic airliner that worked in a regular, scheduled manner. The engineering challenges that it faced were immense, and I've heard it said (can't find the source) that it was considered by many to be more of an achievement than landing on the moon because it made travelling across the Atlantic at Mach 2 'routine'.
Concorde made nearly 50,000 flights. The Tu-144 made 55. The TU-144 had a significant number of failures, including the two crashes (Paris Air show, delivery flight). I really think it's difficult to see the two as being anywhere near the same league.
I really don't understand why it's difficult to you. 55 flights aren't a success by chance. What you've said about staggering achievement fully applies to Tu-144. The creators were facing same challenges, and had to solve them in the same time - and got the plane flyable, if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s.
We can say that Concorde had less technical flaws than Tu-144, clear in hindsight, but I don't see how that makes them incomparable.
It was clear 40 years ago. those who understood the area knew it had 0 chance at being a competitor. was the tu-144 a success? by many metrics yes. was it at all comparable to the concorde? absolutely not.
> "if not efficient and safe enough, to be used by NASA in 2000-s."
Nasa has to re-fit the craft, including engines.
But if you compare reliablility, security and practicability than the Concord is just hands down a much better airplane. Because a 4% chance to crash with the plane is just abysmal.
Not so much against the TU-144, but to the Russians in general. The eagerness from particularly the US to paint the Russians as aggressor in the last years concerns me. I hear drums beating. And wherever the US goes ...
I am not arguing the rest of your points : fair enough.
That makes absolutely zero sense in the context of the article you were lambasting without supporting argumentation. Rather, it comes across as a cheap bailout excuse for your original comment. What would any US effort to paint Russia as an aggressor, have to do with what you said about the BBC + the Concorde vs the Tu-144? Where would anything to do with being an aggressor, play into that?
Please take a look, a look at how silly our enemy is.
edit: a bit like a (PG) submarine
I don't see how that relates to US accusations of Russian aggression and the quality of the Tu-144 that the BBC article is discussing. For example, you haven't refuted anything about what the article actually says regarding the plane's deficiencies.
If one were to follow your premise here to its logical conclusion, it would lead to this: you can never negatively critique anything created by the Soviet Union, or you're working for the US in a PR war against modern Russia.
- http://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-...