This is now my third aviation comparison thread, and I want to know what people like better based on design, aesthetics, technology, designers: the supersonic, Olympus 593-powered Anglo-French Concorde, or the turbofan-powered Soviet sister ship, the Tupolev Tu-144, dubbed "Concordski" by the Western world?
Both aircraft were strides in aviation technology and excellence. However, Concorde was technologically superior - its complex delta-wing structure eliminated the need for flaps, slats, or even spoilers to assist in takeoff and landing. The Tu-144 used similar wings, some say superior, but required retractable "moustache" canards to increase lift o takeoff and landing. It also used a drogue chute, where Concorde pioneered carbon-based anti-lock brakes. Furthermore, there was much speculation about espionage against the Anglo-French design team on the part of the Soviet Union, allegedly attempting to make off with the complex braking system blueprints.
In a nutshell: both were loud, inefficient anywhere below Mach 2, both were aesthetically pleasing in a way most aircraft simply cnnot be, and both are greatly-missed technological marvels, symbolic of mankind's greatest tool: innnovation.
Feel free to state your opinions, stories, et cetera. I know this should belong in Airliners.net or someplace, but that site costs an arm and a leg, figuratively.
.
This is now my third aviation comparison thread, and I want to know what people like better based on design, aesthetics, technology, designers: the supersonic, Olympus 593-powered Anglo-French Concorde, or the turbofan-powered Soviet sister ship, the Tupolev Tu-144, dubbed "Concordski" by the Western world?
Both aircraft were strides in aviation technology and excellence. However, Concorde was technologically superior - its complex delta-wing structure eliminated the need for flaps, slats, or even spoilers to assist in takeoff and landing. The Tu-144 used similar wings, some say superior, but required retractable "moustache" canards to increase lift o takeoff and landing. It also used a drogue chute, where Concorde pioneered carbon-based anti-lock brakes. Furthermore, there was much speculation about espionage against the Anglo-French design team on the part of the Soviet Union, allegedly attempting to make off with the complex braking system blueprints.
In a nutshell: both were loud, inefficient anywhere below Mach 2, both were aesthetically pleasing in a way most aircraft simply cnnot be, and both are greatly-missed technological marvels, symbolic of mankind's greatest tool: innnovation.
Feel free to state your opinions, stories, et cetera. I know this should belong in Airliners.net or someplace, but that site costs an arm and a leg, figuratively.