Owen Lee - From Quora
Lives in The United Kingdom (2000–present)Apr 25
What is the worst plane ever made?
The Tu-144

This is what happens, kiddos, when you steal notes from the nerds
without doing any due diligence!

The Tu-144 was supposed to be the USSR’s answer to the Concorde and the
then-not-cancelled Boeing 2707. It was rushed into service, to allow the
USSR to get bragging rights over getting their sh!tbox into service
before Concorde. It was technically faster, and carried more passengers.

However, the plane’s flaws were manifold:

Firstly, the plane needed fuel hungry afterburners to stay at its Mach
2.2 cruising speed, which made its range absolutely hopeless; just
6,000km, which is simply not good enough for this type of plane.
Concorde, by contrast, had a range of well over 7,000km, allowing it to
fly across the Atlantic.

Secondly, the plane was hideously uncomfortable, with the plane’s rushed
roots resulting in a much more primitive cooling system that generated
phenomenal levels of noise; passengers recall being unable to talk to
the people next to them, being forced to either shout or otherwise pass
notes. You thought being on a 747 with a screaming baby was bad? The
Tu-144 will make that baby sound like Tchaikovsky by comparison!

Thirdly, it was hilariously unreliable. The plane only ever made 105
flights, and in those 105 flights, there were 80 of them where a major
mechanical malfunction occurred, with blind luck and/or the pilots
bravery being the only things that stopped the plane from becoming a
crater in Kazakhstan.

Finally, landing the beast was a complete nightmare, with a drogue
parachute being required just to bring the thing to a halt without doing
a runway overrun.

Note: If your plane requires bloody drogue parachutes for a scheduled
passenger service, you may want to rethink your design…

The 144 only ever had one scheduled route, from Moscow, Russia to
Almaty, Kazakhstan. And this route was only once per week, in spite of
there being 8 available aircraft. Yep, the Soviets claimed a “regular”
service was available, without mentioning that said service was the bare
minimum required to qualify as “regular”, much like the UK’s
parliamentary trains. Goes to show how little confidence even the
Kremlin had in this boondoggle of a plane.

But for the real kicker, the plane’s design was deliberately flawed. As
it turned out, the KGB’s Directorate T had spied extensively on the
Concorde program. Eventually, the French engineers were able to get a
rough idea of who the moles in their group were, and began using this to
their advantage, by supplying deliberately flawed blueprints to the
spies. Famously, a sample of “tyre scrapings” was given to a spy, who
didn’t know that, in fact, he’d been sold a dummy; the rubber sample
would, if brewed up in any significant quantities, have the consistency
of bubble gum.

All of this eventually led to the Tu-144’s biggest disaster, and on the
world stage: The Paris Air Show disaster.

In 1973, Concorde and the Tu-144 met in Paris for the biannual airshow,
in front of the cameras of the world. Concorde’s pilots put on a
fantastic show, with a daring manoeuvre at the end which pushed the
Concorde far beyond its usual comfort zone.

The pilot of the Tu-144 fired up his heavy beast, determined to outshine
the Concorde, and this is where things went wrong.

As it turned out, the pilot of the 144 pushed his plane to its absolute
theoretical limits in order to put on a better show; however, what he
hadn’t known was that his plane was simply not capable of going through
what he wanted it to do; as it turned out, the 144’s panels were, in
ground testing, failing at approximately 70% of their listed yield
values. His plane, made of substandard panels, simply disintegrated
around him, crashing to the earth in a gigantic fireball. All 6 on board
were killed, as were 8 on the ground; one victim, a 12 year old boy
practicing his violin, was decapitated by a piece of flying debris.

A plane which manages to have 2 crashes and 80 serious mechanical
failures in just 105 flights, over half of which were cargo-only due to
Soviet Leadership’s total lack of confidence that the plane would even
work after they ordered it rushed into service, must rank as one of the
worst planes ever built.

17K views484 upvotes6 shares13 comments
159.8K views
View 4,782 upvotes
View 18 shares
166 comments from
Chris Thomas
and more

Stephen Carey
· Wed
It always seemed more like a bomber to me than a passenger plane, albeit
a rather beautiful one.

Gerardo Aguirre
It does resemble Britain’s Vulcan bomber.

John Gateleyy
· Wed
Translate into Russian: “ Why was the flight delayed by 6 hours?” “ Well
Sir, the pilot heard a knock in one of the engines.” “ And??” “ It's
taken nearly 6 hours to find a pilot who couldn't hear the knock.”

Eric Clayton
· Wed
Is that a Soviet knock knock joke?

Andrejs Urdevics
· Thu
As always a Soviet “knock off joke”.

Russell McGregor
· Wed
It was such an obvious knock-off that it was routinely referred to as
“Concordsky.”

Simon Hayes
· Thu
A Russian jet 🛩️ is called a jetski

Windy Wilson
· Wed
Now that you say that, I remember that nickname.

Stephen Grimmer
· Wed
Amazing how the only two* crashes were both in Paris, one at the start,
the other at the end of a career. You can see them together at the
Sinsheim Technikmuseum in Germany.

*Tu144 & Concord, the 2nd Tu144 loss was really a forced landing due to
an onboard fire.

Bill Murphy
· Fri
Sinsheim is a wonderful museum. The Concorde and Concordski
unfortunately are not particularly disabled friendly. You have to climb
steps to the roof, up spiral stairs into plane and the floor slopes
upwards as both are mounted in a dramatic take off position. I loved the
dummy passengers in the sea…
(more)

John Smith
Yes, the museum is spectacular, and indeed, it was a bit of a challenge
to explore those jets, you needed shoes with good grip. There is also a
cockpit of 747, i was shocked how small it is.
Profile photo for Stephen Bitmead
Stephen Bitmead
· Thu
this picture is very good at showing you the different wing shapes. the
144 more a “double delta” so not a good job at copying there

On 5/1/23 11:55, a425couple wrote:
> Owen Lee    - From Quora
> Lives in The United Kingdom (2000–present)Apr 25
> What is the worst plane ever made?
> The Tu-144
>
>
> This is what happens, kiddos, when you steal notes from the nerds
> without doing any due diligence!
>
> The Tu-144 was supposed to be the USSR’s answer to the Concorde and the
> then-not-cancelled Boeing 2707. It was rushed into service, to allow the
> USSR to get bragging rights over getting their sh!tbox into service
> before Concorde. It was technically faster, and carried more passengers.
>
> However, the plane’s flaws were manifold:
>
> Firstly, the plane needed fuel hungry afterburners to stay at its Mach
> 2.2 cruising speed, which made its range absolutely hopeless; just
> 6,000km, which is simply not good enough for this type of plane.
> Concorde, by contrast, had a range of well over 7,000km, allowing it to
> fly across the Atlantic.
>
> Secondly, the plane was hideously uncomfortable, with the plane’s rushed
> roots resulting in a much more primitive cooling system that generated
> phenomenal levels of noise; passengers recall being unable to talk to
> the people next to them, being forced to either shout or otherwise pass
> notes. You thought being on a 747 with a screaming baby was bad? The
> Tu-144 will make that baby sound like Tchaikovsky by comparison!
>
> Thirdly, it was hilariously unreliable. The plane only ever made 105
> flights, and in those 105 flights, there were 80 of them where a major
> mechanical malfunction occurred, with blind luck and/or the pilots
> bravery being the only things that stopped the plane from becoming a
> crater in Kazakhstan.
>
> Finally, landing the beast was a complete nightmare, with a drogue
> parachute being required just to bring the thing to a halt without doing
> a runway overrun.
>
>
> Note: If your plane requires bloody drogue parachutes for a scheduled
> passenger service, you may want to rethink your design…
>
> The 144 only ever had one scheduled route, from Moscow, Russia to
> Almaty, Kazakhstan. And this route was only once per week, in spite of
> there being 8 available aircraft. Yep, the Soviets claimed a “regular”
> service was available, without mentioning that said service was the bare
> minimum required to qualify as “regular”, much like the UK’s
> parliamentary trains. Goes to show how little confidence even the
> Kremlin had in this boondoggle of a plane.
>
> But for the real kicker, the plane’s design was deliberately flawed. As
> it turned out, the KGB’s Directorate T had spied extensively on the
> Concorde program. Eventually, the French engineers were able to get a
> rough idea of who the moles in their group were, and began using this to
> their advantage, by supplying deliberately flawed blueprints to the
> spies. Famously, a sample of “tyre scrapings” was given to a spy, who
> didn’t know that, in fact, he’d been sold a dummy; the rubber sample
> would, if brewed up in any significant quantities, have the consistency
> of bubble gum.
>
> All of this eventually led to the Tu-144’s biggest disaster, and on the
> world stage: The Paris Air Show disaster.
>
> In 1973, Concorde and the Tu-144 met in Paris for the biannual airshow,
> in front of the cameras of the world. Concorde’s pilots put on a
> fantastic show, with a daring manoeuvre at the end which pushed the
> Concorde far beyond its usual comfort zone.
>
> The pilot of the Tu-144 fired up his heavy beast, determined to outshine
> the Concorde, and this is where things went wrong.
>
> As it turned out, the pilot of the 144 pushed his plane to its absolute
> theoretical limits in order to put on a better show; however, what he
> hadn’t known was that his plane was simply not capable of going through
> what he wanted it to do; as it turned out, the 144’s panels were, in
> ground testing, failing at approximately 70% of their listed yield
> values. His plane, made of substandard panels, simply disintegrated
> around him, crashing to the earth in a gigantic fireball. All 6 on board
> were killed, as were 8 on the ground; one victim, a 12 year old boy
> practicing his violin, was decapitated by a piece of flying debris.
>
> A plane which manages to have 2 crashes and 80 serious mechanical
> failures in just 105 flights, over half of which were cargo-only due to
> Soviet Leadership’s total lack of confidence that the plane would even
> work after they ordered it rushed into service, must rank as one of the
> worst planes ever built.
>
> 17K views484 upvotes6 shares13 comments
> 159.8K views
> View 4,782 upvotes
> View 18 shares
> 166 comments from
> Chris Thomas
>  and more
>
>
> Stephen Carey
>  · Wed
> It always seemed more like a bomber to me than a passenger plane, albeit
> a rather beautiful one.
>
> Gerardo Aguirre
> It does resemble Britain’s Vulcan bomber.
>
> John Gateleyy
>  · Wed
> Translate into Russian: “ Why was the flight delayed by 6 hours?” “ Well
> Sir, the pilot heard a knock in one of the engines.” “ And??” “ It's
> taken nearly 6 hours to find a pilot who couldn't hear the knock.”
>
> Eric Clayton
>  · Wed
> Is that a Soviet knock knock joke?
>
>
> Andrejs Urdevics
>  · Thu
> As always a Soviet “knock off joke”.
>
> Russell McGregor
>  · Wed
> It was such an obvious knock-off that it was routinely referred to as
> “Concordsky.”
>
> Simon Hayes
>  · Thu
> A Russian jet 🛩️ is called a jetski
>
> Windy Wilson
>  · Wed
> Now that you say that, I remember that nickname.
>
> Stephen Grimmer
>  · Wed
> Amazing how the only two* crashes were both in Paris, one at the start,
> the other at the end of a career. You can see them together at the
> Sinsheim Technikmuseum in Germany.
>
>
> *Tu144 & Concord, the 2nd Tu144 loss was really a forced landing due to
> an onboard fire.
>
> Bill Murphy
>  · Fri
> Sinsheim is a wonderful museum. The Concorde and Concordski
> unfortunately are not particularly disabled friendly. You have to climb
> steps to the roof, up spiral stairs into plane and the floor slopes
> upwards as both are mounted in a dramatic take off position. I loved the
> dummy passengers in the sea…
> (more)
>
> John Smith
> Yes, the museum is spectacular, and indeed, it was a bit of a challenge
> to explore those jets, you needed shoes with good grip. There is also a
> cockpit of 747, i was shocked how small it is.
> Profile photo for Stephen Bitmead
> Stephen Bitmead
>  · Thu
> this picture is very good at showing you the different wing shapes. the
> 144 more a “double delta” so not a good job at copying there

also

Judy Corridon
· Wed
I was told by a security training officer at a British Airways training
day that when Concorde was first introduced (not sure whether it had
actually been built then) at the Farnborough airshow, there were
diagrams of its design in the stand and some parts had been deliberately
altered (as you say above) so it was sabotage, but who could blame them?

Profile photo for Wal Laver
Wal Laver
· Sat
Yes I met an engineer at a charity dinner and as an engineer myself got
to discuss his role on the development of concord de described a similar
alteration to the specification on display at that show, I did wonder
why the Russian engineer's didn't work out the problems for themselves
and correct them. Just like everything Russian very low standards.

Profile photo for Judy Corridon
Judy Corridon
· Sat
You know Wal, it sickened me that people died, but as you say, why
didn’t they the Russian engineers do checks?

Profile photo for Robert Stirling
Robert Stirling
· Sat
They're not allowed to think for themselves. Anyway, as a lowly engineer
or aircraft fitter you'd never be allowed to fly on it anyway.

>
>
>
>
>

"a425couple" wrote in message news:kWT3M.44278$qjm2.13301@fx09.iad...

---------------------
Very bad, but not the worst:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Christmas-Bullet.html
"William Christmas, of Warrenton, North Carolina, was perhaps the greatest
charlatan to ever see his name associated with an airplane."

On 5/1/23 15:02, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple"  wrote in message news:kWT3M.44278$qjm2.13301@fx09.iad...
>
> ---------------------
> Very bad, but not the worst:
>
> http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Christmas-Bullet.html
> "William Christmas, of Warrenton, North Carolina, was perhaps the
> greatest charlatan to ever see his name associated with an airplane."
>

"One problem was that the doctor couldn't find a pilot. One by one
they looked it over, tried the controls and walked away shaking
their heads."

Was this the origin of the phrase, "I've seen better ways
to die than that!"

"a425couple" wrote in message news:nYa4M.50657$qjm2.25271@fx09.iad...

On 5/1/23 15:02, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple" wrote in message news:kWT3M.44278$qjm2.13301@fx09.iad...
>
> ---------------------
> Very bad, but not the worst:
>
> http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Christmas-Bullet.html
> "William Christmas, of Warrenton, North Carolina, was perhaps the greatest
> charlatan to ever see his name associated with an airplane."
>

"One problem was that the doctor couldn't find a pilot. One by one
they looked it over, tried the controls and walked away shaking
their heads."

Was this the origin of the phrase, "I've seen better ways
to die than that!"

---------------------------------

Not the worst, the designer was very competent and experienced, but in the
running for the oddest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

Pan Am consultant Charles Lindbergh called this a Flying Lumber Yard and
requested something better:
https://sikorskyarchives.com/home/sikorsky-product-history/american-flying-boats-and-fixed-wing-aircraft/sikorsky-s-38/

He got this beauty:
http://www.everythingpanam.com/M130.html

On 5/2/23 10:29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple"  wrote in message news:nYa4M.50657$qjm2.25271@fx09.iad...
>
> On 5/1/23 15:02, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "a425couple"  wrote in message news:kWT3M.44278$qjm2.13301@fx09.iad...
>>
>> ---------------------
>> Very bad, but not the worst:
>>
>> http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Christmas-Bullet.html
>> "William Christmas, of Warrenton, North Carolina, was perhaps the
>> greatest charlatan to ever see his name associated with an airplane."
>>
>
> "One problem was that the doctor couldn't find a pilot. One by one
> they looked it over, tried the controls and walked away shaking
> their heads."
>
> Was this the origin of the phrase, "I've seen better ways
> to die than that!"
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Not the worst, the designer was very competent and experienced, but in
> the running for the oddest:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60
>

Yes. Not too long ago I picked up a magazine
that had a story and pictures of that one.

> Pan Am consultant Charles Lindbergh called this a Flying Lumber Yard and
> requested something better:
> https://sikorskyarchives.com/home/sikorsky-product-history/american-flying-boats-and-fixed-wing-aircraft/sikorsky-s-38/
>

Seems pretty good to me!
"Within eight weeks after publication of the official performance
data the first series of ten aircraft were sold."

> He got this beauty:
> http://www.everythingpanam.com/M130.html
>

I think one of them got caught out at the western end of the
run when WWII in Pacific broke out. I was decided safest
to just keep going west. It eventually got back to NY.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:dHd4M.2634816$iU59.1779926@fx14.iad...

I think one of them got caught out at the western end of the
run when WWII in Pacific broke out. I was decided safest
to just keep going west. It eventually got back to NY.

-----------------------

That (Boeing 314) was unintentionally the first commercial flight around the
world.

Lindbergh and his wife had scouted the routes and safe landing spots in
this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tingmissartoq