Talk:Tupolev Tu-144

Verifiability

I've made an attempt to verify sourcing where statements diverge from the mainstream coverage (such as these BBC and CNN articles used as references). It appears that the article falls short of modern Wikipedia sourcing requirements.

Much of older material is based on primary sources. Fridlyander memoirs is full of grudges against Tupolev and, more importantly, is a book about aluminum alloys rather than airplanes. Valentin Bliznyuk et al book is likely to be reliable for facts, but, as a book written by the plane designers, it may suffer from the standard limitations of primary sources including a possible self-serving bias. I've also found substantial errors when it's quoted in the article, such as this one or this.

I have most concerns with the usage of the relatively obscure Howard Moon book "Soviet SST". References to it support WP:REDFLAG statements that diverge from conventional sources (such as aforementioned BBC and CNN), most of the material that uses this book as a reference doesn't have page numbers (despite being requested 13 years ago) and, judging by the material cited to it and the book title, the source would be primary with regards to the claims about "techno-politics". If someone has access to it, I think it would be beneficial to add missing page numbers and verify parts of the article referenced to Moon that already have page numbers. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. As a first I added a fact for the Mig-21I in a source that tells it explicitly, although I think all of us know it anyway that the results of a test aircraft, that flies only months before its "to-be-tested" a/c-concept flies, simply cannot have been used for this development.--Anidaat (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have the Howard Moon book, and I've been meaning to add page numbers to this article at some point, but I've had bigger fish to fry. For the most part, the book doesn't drastically contradict other mainstream sources in the article; the apparent contradictions stem mostly from incomplete or poorly placed inline citations and/or poorly written discussion of what the book actually says (which need to be rewritten). FYI the book is quite interesting in that it's primarily about the politics behind the airplane, not technical details of the airplane itself, and it was written before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, I don't feel that it violates WP:PRIMARY, as Moon writes purely from an analytical, historical perspective, he does a good job of explaining his sources, and as far as I can tell, he had no direct personal involvement in the Tu-144 nor the Concorde program. (The book also mostly steers clear of the overly broad, poorly sourced, and arguably speculative Concorde espionage accusations that have crept into mainstream media sources over time; it makes reference to some of the accusations, but Moon is careful not to imply that they're factual.) Carguychris (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! This was my impression as well once I discovered the Publishers Weekly review. Leaves an impression that the book is well balanced, unlike the way it's portrayed in the article. I've ordered it in a library and will try to find page numbers and review the way it's discussed in the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes based on the Howard Moon book. Please feel free to change if there are any errors in my interpretation; it was the first time I read it and I might have missed something due to the book being written in a non-linear fashion.

I tend to agree that it's mostly reliable and secondary, although I felt he tends to make rather sweeping statements at times, such as saying that stolen Concorde blueprints were "unintelligible to Soviet scientists" (based on a single interview with an unnamed source), or that the Soviet "shop-floor practice is frequently crude blacksmith work". PaulT2022 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean "Without an afterburner there was no variable nozzle already available."

At the end of Engines it says "The Kolesov RD-36-51 had an unusual variable con-di nozzle for the nozzle pressure ratios at supersonic speeds. Without an afterburner there was no variable nozzle already available. A translating plug nozzle was used.".

And, Did the Tu-144D need afterburner during Mach 2 cruise (as with the NK-144 engines on the Tu-144S) ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Tu-144S Specifications

As far as I can make out, the most important model was the Tu-144S. Nine of these were made and they were the only ones used for commercial passenger services.

However the specifications at the bottom of the article are for the later Tu-144D.

I think it would be interesting to have the Tu-144S specifications, which were quite different. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Failure to acquire western technology

A template I added to "Failure to acquire western technology" was removed by an IP, which was probably a good call. I'd like to preserve the reason from the removed template here as the section could use an improvement if a source with more details about French-Soviet collaboration emerges:

"This section appears to entirely rely on a single Aviation Week article as cited in Moon, 1989. The aircraft designers describe the plans for bi-directional exchange in technology between Tupolev and Aerospatiale, which were never implemented due to both Concorde and Tu-144 production ending. According to them, it was a result of a permanent workgroup set as a part of the technology exchange within the French-Soviet Aviation Industry Group, rather than a one-off request to fix the airplane before the Olympics [as interpreted by Moon]. Aviation Week mentions the existence of the group as well, but unfortunately doesn't offer any more details of its activities overall." PaulT2022 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing absence of spying claims

It has long been claimed that the Tu144 relied heavily on Soviet espionage yet this article presents a very different story, excising the widely-held view in the west that ‘Concordski’ was substantially the result of IP theft. Two spies miles in particular have been posited and in November 2023 the UK’s Channel 4 TV carried a documentary naming Ivor James Gregory as Agent Ace, the spy revealed by Soviet defector to have been stealing secrets from Concorde programme, including complex technical information from the engine manufacturers, Rolls-Royce. Source, The Times, 24 November 2023 176.25.29.186 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Times article this apparently refers to https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professor-unmasks-russian-spy-who-stole-the-secrets-of-concorde-kdmvgdlb2 --PaulT2022 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I added here. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how someone from BEA (which didn't operate Concorde) got hold of all this information on Concorde and its engines. In addition if the espionage occured in the 1970s, it can have little effect on the Tu-144 design, which flew in 1968. There has always been this sort of lazy assumption that the Tu-144 has to have been designed as a result of espionage, with very little linkage shown between the alledged espionage and actual engineering on the Soviet side.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the Times article is reporting on a TV documentary by Channel 4 which is yet to be broadcast - apparently it will be shown tomorrow, so it's unsurprising that the Wikipedia article doesn't fully reflect what's in the programme - and given that its a popular TV documentary, there's a decent chance that what's been said so far hasn't been correctly reported or is incorrect. We shouldn't be reporting on things that we haven't seen and haven't been published yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the researcher apparently discovered this in Vasili Mitrokhin archives, probably overblown. The Guardian, in particular, was skeptical about this source: intelligence analysts and some Soviet defectors have warned that the KGB seriously exaggerated the significance and number of its contacts and operations to impress the Soviet leadership – and increase its budget

I do note that The Times article I linked above doesn't support that Tu-144 design relied on espionage. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly written in a very biased fashion. The top section gives much weight to the nature of it being first, barely mentioning how rushed it was, resulting in two accidents, overall barely being used with its gigantic problems and as noted omits the tremendous IP theft. This article needs an overhaul. 79.166.53.199 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

TU-144D specifications

I think it is misleading to use the TU-144D specifications as the primary specs. People will inevitably compare passenger TU-144s with Concorde and come away with a false comparison. The TU-144D was a freight only aircraft and only a couple of TU-144D were constructed and were very short-lived. The in-service TU-144S specifications should be used. Completeaerogeek (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)