Jump to content

Talk:1973 Paris Air Show Tu-144 crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis on unsubstantiated theories

[edit]

The article over-emphasizes the unsubstantiated "Mirage" theory because it's controversial (industrial espionnage) despite not having any reliable source (besides a TV show named NOVA and a times.com story) and even tries to justify it saying "French and Soviet governments colluded with each other to cover up such details" ... When there is an official investigation report that concludes to a last minute technical modification that allowed flight parameters to be exceeded, combined with improper actions from the crew (wasted time with a camera that fell in the cockpit, extension of canards outside of their operation parameters which broke and punctured a wing and a fuel tank). The conclusions of the investigation are also consistent with the footage from the accident and ocular witnesses.

The Mirage theory relies on the source [5] that says "The full report from a French-Soviet investigation was never disclosed. At the time, there were rumors of a botched espionage attempt by the French, mistakes by the crew, and mechanical failures." However, the report has been disclosed since, and sources that rely on "rumors" are not acceptable sources for wikipedia.

The NOVA source [14] is not much better: "NARRATOR: Jean Forestier's revelation that the Soviet crew was not warned of the Mirage was excluded from the government statement. There is speculation that the French neglected to admit this breach of regulations because the Mirage was on a clandestine mission to photograph the TU-144 in flight. In particular, the French wanted detailed film of the canards, the insect wings behind the cockpit. Flying at a height of approximately 4,000 feet in and out of the clouds, the Mirage tracked the TU-144 through its routine. As the Soviet plane climbed on a trajectory which would cross the Mirage's flight path, the pilot, Koslov, was not aware that the French jet was flying directly above him."

The narrator of the NOVA show saying "there is speculation that the French neglected to admit this breach of regulations ..." is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:AB9:DA00:15E6:1D0F:C564:697B (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]
User created profile of flight and crash

Do we want to use File:Le Bourget 1973 en.jpg? Fences&Windows 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of amateur videos on YouTube taken at Paris in 1973 that shows the very steep Concorde climb (at the end of the clip) that preceded the accident to the Tu 144:[1] and the accident itself [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde

[edit]

I vaguely remember that a contemporary account described the Concorde display as being not very exciting, and speculating that the Tu-144 pilot was out to surpass it, but over-did it. I'll look for that...--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filmed accidental deaths

[edit]

This page appears to qualify for the above category, but I do not know how to add it. --81.23.54.142 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration flight first.

[edit]

The "Accident" section mentions: 

 "performed its demonstration flight first."

I think 'first demonstration flight' is more accurate. This was not Concorde's first flight. The current wording makes it sound like it had its first ever flight and that that was done under demonstration conditions..

Disagree. It is accurate to state that the Concorde performed its flight first, this communicates order within the context of the day and does not imply anything regarding the flight being an inaugural flight for the Concorde. Retswerb (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

flame-out

[edit]

In a PBS Nova show some years ago, the suggestion was made that in response to seeing the Mirage, the Tu-144 pilots might have made a maneuver that caused engine flame-out. That the fix for such flame-out in flight is a steep dive to get enough air though the engines to restart them. I only know this from the Nova show, and don't have any other references, such as where the show producer learned this. If there are references, should this be added to the theories section? Gah4 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that one reference is here. Gah4 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what happened, Gah4. The reason can be found in the report of the aviation safety network. Mismanagement by the political leadership of the Soviet delegation resulting in an over-ambitious change of the planned display lead to a misconfiguration of the flight control system. The differences of the elevon angles limitations with ex-/retracted canards were unknown to the PIC and the politically correct technician acting in Paris. The competent technician had to stay in Moscow, whatever the reason was. The Russians later on declared, he or she took vacation before the journey (Ääh?).
The Tu-144 (77002) apparently coming in for landing, after the officially announced display seemed to be over, made a very slow flyby just a little bit faster than the stall speed instead, followed by a steep climb under full thrust. After reaching an altitude of about 3,000 feet the PIC tried to bring the nose down coming to a level flight. For that he tried a full AND (A_irplane N_ose D_own) and he retracted the canards (the canards would be torned off, if extracted at higher speed to be reached on level flight some moments later) at the same time, violating the sequence given in the manual. Obviously he tried (or was driven to do so) this to impress the audience. Until this moment the flight control system had suppressed the maximum AND to -5 degrees of the elevons (exactly as the limit for extracted canards was implemented), but after retraction this filter lost its effect, the limit changed immediately to -10 degrees (as implemented for retracted canards). The nose came down much more abruptly than the crew expected and the jet skipped into a steep dive. What the crew did now, could have possibly saved them, the lives of eight others on the ground, and the jet, if they wouldn't overdo this action. The pilot tried to pull out the plane of the nosedive, but he or another crew member additionally extracted the canards again. Meanwhile the speed limit of the canards' hinges has been exceeded. Now in a very fast sequence jet and crew lost their fight. Under the rapidly growing air speed in minimum one of both canards teared of and got ingested by one or two engines on the port side. And now a kind of the flame out came as an explosion of the port engine(s), completely cutting off the port wing first. The plan rolled on the back, disintegrated in the air and burst off in flames. This was the end, finally killing 14 people. --de:TK-lion (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-lion (talk • contribs)
Is there evidence that there was, or was not, a flame-out before crash? There are enough stories about engine flame-out with unusual flight conditions. As I understand it, the best recovery is a dive to get enough air through the engines, to restart them. Gah4 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, Gah4. Why there should be a flame-out? The AoAs were not so unusual, the main sequence I mentioned above seems to be what happend. I meanwhile found a description in very detail, but it is in Russian. You can find it here on two consecutive pages
The pages decribe in very detail more or less what I mentioned. Even they are a kind of semi-private website, all this sounds technically and politically consistent. In case your knowledge of Russian is not extensive enough, try to use the artificial brain
for it. That's it for today, have fun while reading --de:TK-lion (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) de:TK-lion (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The most plausible explanation for the accident is that in an attempt to outdo the previous Concorde display (which had involved a very steep climb out from the runway) the Tu-144 pilot did the same but did not allow for the low ceiling of the cloud base which had developed. During the steep climb out the pilot noticed they were rapidly approaching the base of the low cloud and in an attempt to prevent the aircraft entering the cloud (and so not being visible to the spectators on the ground) he pushed the control column hard forward to arrest the ascent and commence a shallow descent. This caused sudden negative G which caused all four engines to flame out due to temporary fuel starvation. In an attempt to re-start the engines he then had to drive sufficient airflow through the engines which could only be done in a dive. While in a dive and attempting to re-start the engines the flight crew were preoccupied with the engine re-start until the pilot looked out of the windscreen and saw how low they were. He pulled back hard on the control column and thereby exceeded the airframe strength limit and the aircraft broke up
There was no Mirage spying on the Tu-144. People would have heard and/or seen it. It was an air display with thousands of spectators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1973_Paris_Air_Show_Tu-144_crash&oldid=1196078385"