Home · Iceland · Aviation · Bicycle · Sitemap · New
I'm including a number of relevant links at the outset because this page prompts the occasional enquiry about the Tu-144. These other pages should provide some additional information, and will probably correct some inaccuracies or omissions in the newsgroup postings further down on this page.
Disclaimer
The information in the postings below is not necessarily authoritative or completely correct -- the original purpose for the creation of this page was to make these postings available as part of a discussion in the rec.aviation.military newsgroup without having to post them to the group itself.
From: Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chizhikov@popmail.csuohio.edu> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/17 Maury Markowitz wrote: > Yes sales of even the most modern planes in their fleet are basically zero > outside it's former customer base. The latest Il plane is by all accounts > quite good, notably when equipped with RR engine options. Yet no sales that > I know of, and Aeroflot is flying a lot of Airbus these days. It is not correct. Most of the Aeroflot fleet is Russian planes. You also wrong about Il-96. Aeroflot already fly 6 of them, and it also put a firm order for 20 more. The other countries that fly Russian jets and probably would purchase another is China, India, Vietnam, and some more. Iran is also plan to do that. > Buying a CIS airliner is > something like buying an Italian car in Canada - sure you might get a good > deal on it, but when it breaks you're in TROUBLE. Nope. There is thousands of them flying, but mainly in less developed countries. The main reasons that they don't exist in the West, because of Cold War. First simply don't by from principle. Second, 44% tax + whole shitload of tariffs make it impossible to sell. By the way most of this taxes still blocking Russian products from Western markets. I thought we should be friends today, yet you prefer China :( However it seams that Russians getting break in the Pacific. China would need a lot of planes, and some other countries as well. > What I do find odd here it that's it's Su that's making this announcement. > Since when did they have any experience in this market? If if was Tu (ok, I > know) or Il making this announcement I wouldn't be terribly surpised, but Su? Actually most research for all this companies done in deferent research institutes like Gromov. They do not carry out full research and design by themself. So, Su have full excess to the know-how that accumulated over the years. Second, Su is NOT a lone. It is jointed by Kazan aircraft plan, that build Tu bombers. As well as Su have grip on factory that produce giant Antonovs. Su would not be able to start everything from scratch. Engine builders involved as well. > Was it ever for sale? I'd be surprised to learn it was. Concord only had been bought by Air France and British Airways, both government controlled airlines. Tu-144 was bought by Aeroflot, the same things. No body except producers bought those planes. > I'm sure breaking up over Paris had something to do with it - regardless of > the real reasons. Which was entirely fault of amateur French spy. The other reason, that this planes far from being a money machine. > I see your point here, but where is Su going to get the money? They said from Russian investors, and trust me Russian investors have money. Also two banks involved in this project. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
From: Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/20 In <3537D9FC.E140F981@popmail.csuohio.edu> Yevgeniy Chizhikov claimed: > > I know of, and Aeroflot is flying a lot of Airbus these days. > > It is not correct. Most of the Aeroflot fleet is Russian planes. That's not what I said. I said they are flying a lot of Airbus these days, I did not say they were flying more of them than any other airframe. I used to work right outside Shannon, the westbound Aeroflot port. We used to see the old Tu's > You also wrong > about Il-96. Aeroflot already fly 6 of them, and it also put a firm order for 20 > more. Aeroflot. You mean the CIS airline. How does this make me wrong? My statement was "Yes sales of even the most modern planes in their fleet are basically zero outside it's former customer base." Correctly me if I'm wrong, but Aeroflot buys CIS and Sov planes, right? So in other words, I'm right. > The other countries that fly Russian jets and probably would purchase > another is China, India, Vietnam, and some more. Iran is also plan to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of these countries flew older Soviet designs. So I'm still right. Can you name any countries that have NOT purchased Soviet/CIS designs in the past that are buying the Il now? No? Sheesh, you wonder why all your threads turn into flames? Here you say I'm wrong and then AGREE with my statement! > > Buying a CIS airliner is > > something like buying an Italian car in Canada - sure you might get a good > > deal on it, but when it breaks you're in TROUBLE. > > Nope. There is thousands of them flying, In Canada? Not a single one that I'm aware of, although some of the An-124's showed up when we were giving away grain to the CIS because their own was rotting. > but mainly in less developed countries. Let me ask you this, where in North America can I fly a Il and get it fixed? No where. That means that if it breaks I'm in trouble, right? > The main reasons that they don't exist in the West, because of Cold War. So what? That's over and yet I still don't see people lining up to buy the Il except for their former "Soviet aligned" customers. When a major western nation buys one then it's news. > simply don't by from principle. Second, 44% tax + whole shitload of tariffs make > it impossible to sell. By the way most of this taxes still blocking Russian > products from Western markets. I thought we should be friends today, yet you > prefer China I'm Canadian, please be sure to check your statements. > Actually most research for all this companies done in deferent research > institutes like Gromov. They do not carry out full research and design by themself. So, Su have full excess to the know-how that accumulated over the > years. Second, Su is NOT a lone. It is jointed by Kazan aircraft plan, that build > Tu bombers. As I understand it there's a three way system, the technology institutes, the design firms, then the factories. This system was used by all of the powers in WWII that I am aware of (although perhaps not Italy) but only in the CIS was it already in place and survive after the war. Still the middle link is an issue. Su has (AFAIK) designed only one heavy in the past, the S-100. The fact that they have access to the data is not terribly relivant, an issue that Lockheed nearly went bankrupt on. There's more to the plane than the design, and I think MiG has learned this lesson best. > Concord only had been bought by Air France and British Airways, both government > controlled airlines. Tu-144 was bought by Aeroflot, the same things. No body > except producers bought those planes. That's what _I_ said. > > I'm sure breaking up over Paris had something to do with it - regardless of > > the real reasons. > > Which was entirely fault of amateur French spy. The other reason, that this > planes far from being a money machine. WHAT? Are you claiming that the breakup of the plane was due to a French spy? > They said from Russian investors, and trust me Russian investors have money. Also > two banks involved in this project. The US has proven incapable (or unwilling) to support more than a single large aircraft designer, Boeing. Boeing/McD now has an annual income that likely registeres as a fraction of the entire CIS GNP. Sorry, but I'm still skeptical. After all, where are the Su supersonic pax jets they were talking about a few years back? Maury
From: Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chizhikov@popmail.csuohio.edu> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/20 Maury Markowitz wrote: > WHAT? Are you claiming that the breakup of the plane was due to a French > spy? French Mirage was on the collision course, and it scared Russian pilot, that was not aware of the French Mirage, until it pop out of the cloud few hundred feet from the Tu-144. French, try to photograph Tu's canards. (Fuck, they could not steel it, what a primitive country). There were NOTHING wrong with the plane, pilot simply push aircraft over the limit. You can do it with ANY airliner. The problem was that if Soviets would start to blame French, French would claim that aircraft was crapy. Soviets dumb, most of the people believed that already. > The US has proven incapable (or unwilling) to support more than a single > large aircraft designer, Boeing. Boeing/McD now has an annual income that > likely registeres as a fraction of the entire CIS GNP. Sorry, but I'm still > skeptical. After all, where are the Su supersonic pax jets they were talking > about a few years back? They still working on it. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
From: Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/21 In <353BF926.23A593A5@popmail.csuohio.edu> Yevgeniy Chizhikov claimed: > French Mirage was on the collision course, and it scared Russian pilot, that was > not aware of the French Mirage In every other report of this incident I've read the plane in question did not "pop out" of clouds but "cut in" on the circuit. > from the Tu-144. French, try to photograph Tu's canards. Balogna, they could have walked up and taken a picture of them on the ground where it was parked. Indeed I've seen many pictures of the plane at that airshow and the canards can clearly be seen in all of them. I don't believe this story for a second. > steel it, what a primitive country). There were NOTHING wrong with the plane, > pilot simply push aircraft over the limit. The fact that he could while in the circuit indeed suggests there may have been something wrong with the plane. > You can do it with ANY airliner. I don't believe that either. I doubt you can do it on many, if any. Anyone know for sure? Will max instant control input on, say, a 747 exceed load limits? > They still working on it. I'm not holding my breath. Maury
From: tay <leyb@shani.com> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/20 Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> wrote in article <6hfdlk$c4a$12@ns3.vrx.net>... >In <3537D9FC.E140F981@popmail.csuohio.edu> Yevgeniy Chizhikov claimed: > > Which was entirely fault of amateur French spy. <snip> > WHAT? Are you claiming that the breakup of the plane was due to a French > spy? Hi Maury, I think that what he meant was the French Mirage III that had taken off a short while before the Tu-144 and was seen maneuvering close to the Tu, allegedly photographing the Tu canards (then - a new thing) in flight. A television documentary claimed the Tu-144 crew weren't notified of its presence and had to duck to avoid mid air collision. The documentary also said that while doing it, the Tu passed its structural limits and disintegrated. Then the documentary went into an unsubstantiated speculation that the combined Franco-Soviet board of investigation was a cover up. IMHO, if the story was true, the French had every good reason to hide it, but the Russians ? Tay
From: Patrick Hayes <Patrick.Hayes.CAP_SESA@renault.fr>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet.
Date: 1998/04/22
A universal Xenophobe <y.chizhikov@popmail.csuohio.edu> uttered the following statement:
> Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> > WHAT? Are you claiming that the breakup of the plane was due to a French
> > spy?
>
> French Mirage was on the collision course, and it scared Russian pilot, that was
> not aware of the French Mirage, until it pop out of the cloud few hundred feet
> from the Tu-144. French, try to photograph Tu's canards. (Fuck, they could not
> steel it, what a primitive country). There were NOTHING wrong with the plane,
> pilot simply push aircraft over the limit. You can do it with ANY airliner. The
> problem was that if Soviets would start to blame French, French would claim that
> aircraft was crapy. Soviets dumb, most of the people believed that already.
A Mirage was present: Fact (admitted by recent French governments).
On a collision course: Supposition (nearby certainly).
Scared the pilot: Supposition (but highly likely).
Took pictures: Fact (admitted by recent French governments).
They couldn't steal it: Immaterial as the design originated in France/UK (but
France was curious about the canards).
France primitive: False (design originated in France/UK).
NOTHING wrong with plane: Supposition (Proof missing).
aircraft over the limit: Supposition (Though given that limits are much closer
in a SSL on a low alt, low speed, high AOA pass, it
is very likely -- proof missing).
Soviets dumb: Supposition (I happen to disagree except for the
xenophobes).
2 facts, 6 suppositions and one manifest falshood. Par for the course for the
xenophobe...
Pat
From: Jeff Noakes <jnoakes@chat.carleton*.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. (long) Date: 1998/04/21 Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote: > > Maury Markowitz wrote: > > > WHAT? Are you claiming that the breakup of the plane was due to a French > > spy? > > French Mirage was on the collision course, and it scared Russian pilot, that was > not aware of the French Mirage, until it pop out of the cloud few hundred feet > from the Tu-144. French, try to photograph Tu's canards. (Fuck, they could not > steel it, what a primitive country). There were NOTHING wrong with the plane, > pilot simply push aircraft over the limit. You can do it with ANY airliner. The > problem was that if Soviets would start to blame French, French would claim that > aircraft was crapy. Soviets dumb, most of the people believed that already. > This subject came up a while ago in this NG - there was a discussion of the Tu-144 crash and its causes. There was more to the accident than the presence of the Mirage - the whole situation was badly handled by the airshow organizers. I'm reposting what I contributed at the time. There's a reference to another thread on compressor stalls, which some people suggested as a possible cause of the accident. I still don't have any answers to the questions I asked in my original post about the crash report, and about more information on the Mirage. Does anyone have this answer? <begin repost> Brian Thomas wrote: > > Mathew Saroff wrote; > > Hi, > I just finished watching an episode of Nova, and the > Tu-144 crash in the early '70s was explained as a botched > espionage attempt by the French. > Apparently, a Mirage was sent up before the flight > display to photograph the Tu-144 (particularly the canards). The > Soviets were NOT notified of this, as they would have objected to > the photographs (similar photo flights with the Concorde had > warning given). > When the Tu-144 broke through the cloud cover, it came > very near to the Mirage, and took evasive manoeuvers (probably -1 > G), would likely have caused compressor stalls in some or all of > the engines. The pilot had to put the nose down to air-start the > engine, and then over stressed the air frame while attempting to > recover before hitting the ground. > According to NOVA, the Soviets and the French cut a deal, > where the French would not reveal their culpability in exchange > for the accident report making no reference to mechanical > failure. > Anyone out there have any other sources on this? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Here's an eyewitness account from an eminently qualified witness, Bob > Hoover. I copied the following from Bob's Autobiography, "Forever > Flying". The year was 1973 and Bob wrote; > > "The last day of the Paris Air Show was called the Public Day. More than > a million people were on hand to view the air displays. > On the Saturday night before Public Day, the French held a reception for > all of the pilots flying in the show. Throughout the first ten days, > there had been a fierce competition between the French Concord and the > Russian TU-144, both supersonic transports. > I believed the Russian pilot was exceeding his flying capabilities. On > one landing, he over-shot the runway and had to execute a go-around > (aborted landing). On another he landed short. > At the reception, he boasted that on Sunday he would. outfly the > Concorde. That day, the Concorde went first, and after the pilot > performed a high-speed flyby, he pulled -up steeply and climbed to > approximately ten thousand before levelling off. > When the TU-144 Pilot Performed the same maneuver he pulled the nose up > so steeply l didn't believe he could possibly recover without out a whip > stall. I was observing the flight from the deck of the Bendix chalet > with members of the Press. I yelled, "Get your cameras. He isn't going > to recover." > When the pilot stalled, the nose of the plane pitched over violently > into a steep dive, As he attempted to pull out o the dive the airplane > started breaking up, and pieces of burning debris rained down on a > French village nearby. Miraculously, no one on the ground was hurt. > All on board the TU-144 perished." > > I thoroughly enjoyed the book and recommend it to all aviation buffs. > > Regards, Brian Thomas. Howard Moon's Book _Soviet SST: The Technopolitics of the Tupolev-144_ discusses this accident at some length. According to Moon, "The fatal flight followed a spectacular ten-minute demonstration by the Concorde, which the TU-144's crew witnessed as passive spectators while waiting for takeoff. According to some reports, the TU-144 crew was under pressure from Moscow to stage a spectacular flying display. The ensuing exhibition featured the 144 swaying from side to side, with steep banks and turns at very low altitude. Mikhail Kozlov, its pilot, had told colleagues two days before, 'We have a few tricks. We have more power than the Concorde.' After these passes, described by one onlooker as 'spectacular' and 'over-done,' the 144 indulged in a low-speed exhibition of the superior low-speed handling provided by the canards. This was described as a low-speed 'worm-burner' skim over the grass at minumum altitude. Immediately following this low-speed pass, and with canards and landing gear still extended in low-speed trim, Kozlov swung the 144 into a steep climb with all afterburners lit. The 144 climbed to about 3,000 feet and then experienced what appeared to be a full classic stall, wobbling on three separate axes, slewing to the left and then diving steeply. Some witnesses said that two pieces separated from the craft at this point, possibly the canards, which led some to conclude that the winglets' debris had pierced the wings or possibly entered the engines. But most believe that the canards were still out and did not break off. Other onlookers suggested that the fatal stall was induced by fuel starvation owing to the steep climb and relatively empty fuel tanks. The steep dive that followed indicated that the 144 was in mortal peril, for there was only 3,000 feet to recover - and the 144 was a large and heavy craft. Kozlov came close to leveling out the 144 after an almost-perpendicular drop of several seconds, but the recovery was too abrupt, with the right wing breaking off at the root and the subsequent roll breaking off the other wing. Two engines were quickly engulfed in flames. Several explosions rocked the stricken craft, and it tumbled to the earth in incandescent lumps of titanium and steel. Many expert witnesses agreed that the 144 had been taken beyond the limits of its flight envelope. It had no "G-leveling" device that prevented it from being maneuvered beyond the strength of its robust airframe. The explosive disintegration was the result of a desparate, foredoomed attempt at recovery." (1) The wreckage hit the village of Goussainville; in addition to the six crew on the TU-144, eight French citizens on the ground were killed, and sixty injured, many of them suffering from burns. There was a Franco-Soviet inquest, but as of 1989 its full report had not been published. Does anyone know if it's been released since then? Moon concludes that the root cause of the accident was the rivalry between the Concorde and the TU-144 - the French cut back on the carefully rehearsed Soviet demonstration flight at the last minute and extended the demonstration flight made by the Concorde. The crew on the 144 were forced to improvise a landing and apparently tried to land on the wrong runway. As they went around to make another landing attempt, they were not in touch with the control tower and found themselves on a collision course with a French Mirage III. To complicate matters, the co-pilot had been given a TV camera to shoot film for a French TV station during the flight. The negative-G avoidance maneuver threw him on the controls, and the camera may have fallen into the control-stick well in the cockpit floor. By the time it was removed the only option was a violent recovery attempt, which led to the failure of the starboard wing. According to Moon, a Soviet simulator ran this scenario, and it duplicated the events at Paris. Despite this and other theories about technical problems (disintegration of the canards, stalled afterburners, and fatigue cracks in the wings), Moon is convinced that "technical factors were peripheral to the fate of 77102. The precipitating factor in the disaster was political. The 144, whatever its failings as an airliner, was basically airworthy, even in the risky conditions of 77102's last moments. It was flying low and slow over a huge crowd in congested flying conditions that put it on a collision course with a French Mirage fighter. Its safety margin, however, was probably greater than that of the Concorde, which did not have canards to cut down landing and maneuvring speeds. The TV camera that apparently fouled the controls symbolizes the dangerous intrusion of publicity, but the one event that made the crash unavoidable was the decision to cut short 77102's demonstration flight, practiced at least six times in the USSR. This left a disoriented pilot and crew above a strange airfield, in an aircraft with notoriously poor cockpit visibility. It is understandable that Kozlov attempted to land on the wrong runway. What seems less excusable was that a second aircraft in the area forced a series of violent evasion maneuvers which even the robust 144 airframe could not withstand. Their boorish pressuring in the joint commission notwithstanding, it is hard to establish much Soviet responsibility for the crash. Errors may have been made in the demanding flying conditions over a crowded air show, but the sloppy air control of the airport, the straying fighter, and the truncation of the 144 flight routine were the precipitating, critical events. The managers of the air show appear to be chiefly responsible for the disaster." (2) Moon doesn't discuss the Mirage and why it was where it was - it could have been an airshow participant, or a platform for photographing the TU-144, as suggested above. It seems to me, though, that there might be better aircraft to take such pictures from than a Mirage III. Unless it was the 2-seat trainer version or a reconnaissance version specially equipped to take close up air-to-air pictures, taking pictures of the TU-144 while flying a fighter low and slow would seem to be a risky undertaking. Did the TV program provide any information about the Mirage that might help clarify this point? There's also the issue of compressor stall, which Moon doesn't really discuss in his analysis. This ties in with another thread in this NG, and based on my limited technical understanding of the subject it could be a possible cause for the crash. According to Moon, one of the major problems encountered with the TU-144 was inlet design. (It was one of the major design problems with the Concorde, too - half of its wind-tunnel time was devoted to solving this problem.) In 1977, the USSR approached the Concorde consortium for help with inlet design and control systems, but was turned down because of the military applications of the technology. (3) In any case, the TU-144's less sophisticated and effective inlet design could have led to compressor stall as a result of its sudden maneuvers to avoid the Mirage. This wouldn't really affect Moon's interpretation of the root cause of the accident, though. The compressor stall wouldn't have occurred if the 144 hadn't had to avoid the Mirage while dealing with the situational factors mentioned above. With regards to the inquest, it seems reasonable that the French would not want their role in the accident made public. The presence of the Mirage, either deliberate or accidental, would not have looked good. This would hold true if it were there to take photographs or simply there as the result of an air traffic control error. Other actions by the airshow organizers that contributed to the crash would also not have reflected well upon the French. The Soviet desire for silence could have been a coverup of technical problems with the TU-144, or just a knee-jerk security reaction - the Cold War certainly saw enough of those. I really enjoyed Moon's book - I picked it up secondhand a few years ago. He provides a lot of information on the TU-144 and its development, but goes beyond the aircraft itself and discuses Andrei Tupolev's career. He also discusses the development of Soviet civil and military aviation, the develpment of the Soviet SST programme, and how the Soviet state came to be so heavily involved in this project. Hope this information is of some use. Jeff Noakes NOTES: (1) Howard Moon, _Soviet SST: The Technopolitics of the Tupolev-144_, New York: Orion Books, 1989), 156-158. (2) _ibid._, 162. (3) _ibid._, 119-121. <end repost> Hope this helps. -- Remove the * from the "reply to:" field to reply by e-mail.
From: Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. (long) Date: 1998/04/21 In <6hhu7a$7rc$1@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Jeff Noakes claimed: I'm curious about the thread of reports you posted (all excellent BTW), as none of the eyewitness accounts mention the Mirage at all. In both cases they see the 144 "showing off" low and fast then doing a very sharp pullup with the plane stalling at the top. Maury
From: Jeff Noakes <jnoakes@chat.carleton*.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. (long) Date: 1998/04/21 Maury Markowitz wrote: > > In <6hhu7a$7rc$1@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Jeff Noakes claimed: > > I'm curious about the thread of reports you posted (all excellent BTW), as > none of the eyewitness accounts mention the Mirage at all. In both cases > they see the 144 "showing off" low and fast then doing a very sharp pullup > with the plane stalling at the top. > > Maury Yes, they're not very clear about this, and Moon isn't, either. Not having seen the Nova episode, I can't comment on whether it dealt with this issue. A theory that seems to fit with the information in these posts and in Moon's book is that the final low-level pass was improvised during the go-round after the aborted landing. This would make sense when it is remembered that Kozlov (the pilot) had planned to put on a spectacular show, and that Moscow may have exerted pressure to stage an impressive performance. Such an improvisation also seems likely since the original demonstration had been cut short by the airshow organizers, and the crew was forced to modify their flight plan on very short notice. In any case, the Tu-144 was at low altitude, in low-speed trim, and still had its landing gear extended during this pass, a condition which it would have been in during (and immediately after?) the abort. At this time, a decision could have been made by the crew to turn the go-round into another pass to impress the crowd. At this point, the Mirage and the TV camera enter the picture. According to Moon, Michel Tauriac, the French TV journalist whose camera was being carried on board, "confirms that radar imagery revealed the 'sudden proximity' of a Mirage III fighter in the 144's flight path, precipitating the first of its abrupt maneuvers. He believed it probable that the TV camera was wrenched from Benderov's [the Chief Engineer for the Tu-144 flight testing program] hands and fell into the control-stick cone in the floor, blocking the controls."(1) Moon isn't entirely clear what or when the "first of its abrupt maneuvers" was - it might seem that the afterburner climb fits the situation, but he states that "the nose was put down in an avoidance maneuver, throwing the copilot on the controls. The copilot had been given a TV camera, and this possibly fell into the funnel-shaped control-stick well in the cockpit floor. Removing this absorbed valuable seconds that necessitated a violent, last-ditch recovery which saw the starboard wing fail."(2) So it looks like the climb was not an avoidance maneuver; what seems more likely is that the attempt to avoid the Mirage took place immediately before the stall, and could have caused it. (A question for people with a better knowledge of aerodynamics than mine - would a sudden negative-G maneuver at a high angle of attack and relatively low speed be likely to have caused this stall or a phenomenon with similar effects?) The first post mentioned that the Tu-144 "broke through the cloud cover" just before spotting the Mirage and moving to avoid it, which implies that the avoidance maneuver took place near the top of the climb. On the other hand, the eyewitness report that was posted makes no reference to cloud cover, and does not mention the 144 being hidden by clouds, although broken clouds or haze remain a possibility. I have no idea what the weather was like at the airport that day - the relevant pictures in Moon's book _seem_ to show some ground haze and possilby an overcast sky, but they're black and white and aren't of the highest quality, so I might be reading too much into them :) If we go with the account that the TV camera jammed the controls, then it definitely contributed to the Tu-144's inability to recover from the stall; depending on the time when it jammed the controls, it may even have contributed to the stall. In any case, it certainly didn't help matters. Please bear in mind that these are _suggestions_ about what might have happened, which manage to incorporate the Mirage. They seem to fit with the available information, but if anyone was there or has more information that can support or contradict them, I'd be more than happy to see it. Hope this helps. --Sources-- (1) Howard Moon, _Soviet SST: The Technopolitics of the Tupolev Tu-144_, (New York: Orion Books, 1989), 161. (2) ibid., 160-161. -- Remove the * from the "reply to:" field to reply by e-mail.
From: Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.istar.ca> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/22 In <6hjpes$q5h$1@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Jeff Noakes claimed: > So it looks like the climb was not an avoidance maneuver; what seems > more likely is that the attempt to avoid the Mirage took place > immediately before the stall, and could have caused it. Facinating. Thanks again for providing this information, I appeciate it. > (A question for > people with a better knowledge of aerodynamics than mine - would a > sudden negative-G maneuver at a high angle of attack and relatively low > speed be likely to have caused this stall or a phenomenon with similar > effects?) On a normal plane most likely not, but on a delta this could lead to the distruption of the overwing-vortexes responsible for their low speed behaviour (that's why the Concorde's wings have the leading edge shape at the front, and the reason for LEXX on modern fighters - LEXX gets you some of the advantages of a delta without the disadvantages). Can't say for sure, but I'll bet Mary can. Mary, if you see this, care to comment? Maury
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: Re: Sukhoi plans to build superjumbo jet. Date: 1998/04/23 maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) writes: > In <6hjpes$q5h$1@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Jeff Noakes claimed: > > So it looks like the climb was not an avoidance maneuver; what seems > > more likely is that the attempt to avoid the Mirage took place > > immediately before the stall, and could have caused it. > > Facinating. Thanks again for providing this information, I appeciate it. > > > (A question for > > people with a better knowledge of aerodynamics than mine - would a > > sudden negative-G maneuver at a high angle of attack and relatively low > > speed be likely to have caused this stall or a phenomenon with similar > > effects?) > > On a normal plane most likely not, but on a delta this could lead to the > distruption of the overwing-vortexes responsible for their low speed > behaviour (that's why the Concorde's wings have the leading edge shape at the > front, and the reason for LEXX on modern fighters - LEXX gets you some of the > advantages of a delta without the disadvantages). > > Can't say for sure, but I'll bet Mary can. Mary, if you see this, care to > comment? It's the high alpha more than the negative g. Moving the control surfaces on a delta wing changes the shape of the wing, affecting the flow over it. If you're at high alpha already this would, obviously, be more critical. Additionally, the maneuver to avoid the Mirage would, if it were a pull-up, increase alpha and would, if it were a roll, increase alpha on one wing. Either could cause a stall. Only a push-over with _no_ roll would ensure a decrease in alpha on both wings. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Aviation Pages
Index ·
Avro Atlantic ·
Tu-144 Crash ·
Links
Coastal Command Index ·
CC Tactical Instruction 41 ·
CC Liberator Standards ·
CC ORBAT
Home · Iceland · Bicycle · Sitemap · New
Last updated 16 January 2004
JDN