Was This The Most Dangerous Airliner Ever?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2022
- Watch 'Tip of the Spear: The B-2 Spirit' here: nebula.tv/videos/mustard-tip-...
Watch More Mustard Videos & Support The Channel: nebula.tv/mustard
Support Mustard on Patreon: / mustardchannel
Mustard Merchandise: www.teespring.com/stores/must...
Instagram: / mustardchannel
TikTok: / mustardchannel
Facebook: / mustard-109952378202335
Twitter: / mustardvideos
Website: www.mustardchannel.com/
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s the Soviet Union was in critical need of newer, more modern civil airliners. Existing aircraft like the Lisunov Li-2 (a license-build derivative of the Douglas DC-3) and Ilyushin Il-12 were small, slow, and outdated when compared to their western counterparts. Travelling across the vast expanses of the Soviet Union was measured in days due multiple refueling stops, and often unpredictable weather.
By 1953 plans were underway to solve the Soviet Union's airliner shortfall, but one pioneering aircraft designer named Andrei Tupolev was committed to propelling Soviet civil aviation well into the future. By 1953, the British de Havilland Comet was beginning to prove itself in passenger service. It flew nearly twice as fast as the latest generation of piston powered airliners, and much higher. With its speed and ability to fly above most weather, the Comet was proving to be much more convenient and comfortable. Tupolev was convinced that jet power was exactly what the Soviet Union needed, but Soviet leadership was skeptical. Jet engines were relatively new and unproven. There were lingering questions about long-term reliability, fuel consumption, and whether the resources needed to retrain Soviet pilots could be justified. More modern piston airliners seemed to be a more sensible path forward.
Realizing that Soviet leadership would be unwilling to commit significant time and resources required to develop a jet airliner like the de Havilland Comet, Tupolev proposed an alternative approach. Having just finished designing the jet-powered Tu-16 heavy bomber, Tupolev proposed converting the aircraft into an airliner. Doing so would save significant engineering time, allowing for the airliner to be introduced within just 3 years. It would also be far less expensive, as factories were already configured to manufacture Tu-16 components that could be reused on the airliner, like engines, wings, landing gear and avionics. The approach would allow the new jetliner to enter service in 1956 - years ahead of the Americans. It was an irresistible proposition, but like the British, the Soviets would pay a heavy price for being the first to introduce jet travel.
Thanks for watching!
The pilot reporting all the details before the crash is a hero.
Yes indeed! Max respect to that guy!
He is the superior pilot westoid pilots could never be as good as him
Truly a testament to the dedication, expertise, and skill of Soviet pilots.
@@vangard9725 lol what a dumb vatnik
My other favorite crash heroism from the soviet union is the water landing on the neva.
The Soviet Union's motto could just be: "Safety is secondary, superiority is priority"
Great comment. Though 'apparent superiority (don't read fact-based reports) is priority' is closer to the truth, sigh.
Da, comrade
Or 'why worry about something thats never going to happen...'
Might aswell be McDonnell Douglas' motto.
@@extremegrieferbible and now Boeing
Like many early jets, like the B-47 and B-58, the pilots would often take the handbook landing speed, and add 5 knots for the wife and 3 for each child.
Wow!...you learn something new everyday. On the TUPOLEV TU 22 Blinder A Bomber, Iraqi Airforce pilots would augment the autopilot by tying the fighter type control column with bungee cords!
''The TU-104 is the best aircraft in the world. In 5 minutes it will bring you to your grave'' really got me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The de Havilland Comet has the worst loss rate of any jet airliner in history
Those square windows@@sandervanderkammen9230
Mustard is back again with another quality content. Always worth the wait.
Fr
Fr
True!
Indeed it is
YAY MUSTARD IS BACK
The 707, briefly mentioned here, was the real advance in jetliners. It was the first aircraft to have flexible wings, which avoided the need for massive reinforcements at the junction of wing and fuselage.
Agreed it did have some flaws but it was a safe aircraft with advanced technology at the time
The 707 is basically a modern aircraft. All changes since then have been refinements, such as more efficient and quieter engines, more modern avionics, and so on, but the overall design is mostly the same. Losing the flight engineer was perhaps the most notable change since then.
The 707 series is still flying and is expected to remain flying until 2040
Typical americunts. Think you created everything !!!
707 was a terrific plane.
I can imagine these flights, where the plane stalled, to be one of the most horrible things one can experience... this must have been absolutely terrifying.
Just like the 737Max... or the original 737 before they redesigned the rudder servo valve.
We have our colossal failures in aviation, just as the Russians and British do.
whats the first song name
@@jeelsvealnerve1163 and you understand that, but unfortunately others don't and just keep saying that Russia is unsafe
A stall doesn't feel that scary. For an average passenger, it would probably just feel like some bad turbulence, not realizing they're going down until the very end. Different story for the pilots, who were acutely aware of the entire situation as it was unfolding. Terrible tragedy... the rules of aviation, both written and unwritten, are in blood.
Source: I'm a private pilot.
People were built differently back then, it was almost normal that disasters happen from time to time and airplanes crash
Might have been a horrible craft, but you’ve gotta admit that it looks incredible. Those integrated jet engines are sleek as hell
Big facts the plane is nice looking
Agreed
One engine explosion or engine fire and the wing is toast.
How big of a pain in the ass was it to do maintenance on those engines?
"this plane is a beautiful coffin" - Soviet pilots, probably
One of the worst accidents of TU-104 is the Soviet Navy СССР-42332 in the 80s. It carried on board 50 admirals and high ranking officers of the Soviet Pacific fleet. All passengers were killed. Nearly reduced the whole command line of the Soviet Pacific fleet to nil.
dumbest airfly ever.. such a high ranking commanders should never meet together, even on parades
Ouch
At pushkin
That one Admiral who didnt board
Hehehehaw
That crash was sure hubris.
Who doesn’t love trying out the first prototype of the first generation of anything
I do clinical trials and am a member of the Windows insider program so I do that quite a lot lmao
It's exciting.
HMS Dreadnought was supposedly a very safe posting to be on, since all she accomplished in the war was the sinking of a U-Boat. First all-big guns warship with the new prototype steam turbine engines redefined what it was to be a Battleship and rendered any pre-dreadnoughts before it obsolete.
Not me.
You take the leap, either you land or you don't.
The pilot reporting all the details before the crash is a hero.. Mustard is back again with another quality content. Always worth the wait..
No, it's not any kind of quality content. His explanation is totally incorrect. In fact those crashes were caused by stalls on wingtips (so called "Saber dance"). Planes of that era didn't have a special twist. New planes do have it. So now if a stall is occurred, it starts not on wingtips. But Tu-104 developed stalls on the wingtips, and as wings are very much sweped back, wing loses the lifting force closer to a back of the plane, so the center of lift shifts to the nose of the aircraft.
And of course it has nothing to do with being a former bomber aircraft
@@player1GR then do the same stuff as he do instead of crying in comments
Great video! Thank you
Just some details here:
all soviet passenger's pilots those days were former army pilots. And this is very important detail about why engineers couldn't understand why such situations happen with the plane. And why they were blamed by Tupolev for incidents and crashes. That planes had blackboxes but very basic; every time on inspection after crash there were no any voice recording. So black box constructors were blamed for failed device as well. But again, nothing was wrong with black box: just pilots when they fought for the plane they did it in total silence. Like they tought and did in the army. So that heroic captain (Garold Dmitrievich Kuznetsov) did was completely uncomon. He commented every step and result. He fought with his crew for the plane til the end. His last words before crash on black box recording were "..we are dying! Goodbye!"
omg wow ok thank you for this
I'm sorry I was enraptured and felt so bad reading this and want to salute these men, but the last sentence slapped me in the fucking face. It just reads like "Ohp, I'm die. Thank you forever." and I just lost it.
@@DiggerDeeper01not sure if i understood it in the right way. But if you’re skeptical about last words - you can find confirmation on wiki en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Aeroflot_Tu-104_Kanash_crash
or related videos with recorded audio from the box. Google voice translate can help with russian audio
@@DiggerDeeper01 i wonder how many people reading this are actually going to know who you're referencing here lmao
As with more than a few Soviet airliners, despite its design troubles, the -104 was a seriously beautiful aircraft.
And fast
Tu-104, Tu-134 and Tu-154 Tupolev really know how to design good looking aircraft.
I think its ugly
I love the sleek look of almost all early jet airlines
The swept-wing, and integrated engine wing design is always a favorite design for early jet lovers.
a beautiful plane that probably should have stayed in an aviation museum from the moment it was first built
Much better plane than the de Havilland Comet
The is way better that any aircraft ever like the f15 doesn’t even have as many kills
@@Robonoob_perTrue, true 😆👌 .
Boeing: hold my door
Boeing makes the safest aircraft in the world
@@WilhelmKarsten737 max loose doors 💀
united airlines 777 gear wheel flies off 💀
@@combie7482 It happens all the time to Airbus aircraft... the news media doesn't cover it.
Recently a brand new A321 Neo lost its engine leaving debris all over the runway, no media outlets covered the story.
@@WilhelmKarsten man news is biased these days
@@WilhelmKarstenYeah the news doesnt cover it, because everyone is out to get americans and no news would ever cover for them. Seriously, how would you even believe that?
I love how much the CG renders have evolved over time on this channel. They were always nice looking, even with the models on the desk aesthetic of the older videos, but seeing the fully rendered vehicles in an outdoor and realistic looking setting I'm surprised I'm still watching a series on UA-cam sometimes.
haha wow you just reminded me of the old model on table thing they used to do it's what made me fall in love with the channel but over time i forgot that their tenders weren't always this great
Not to mention that they are rendered with a real-time engine (Unreal Engine) so one day we might have interactive versions. That would be so cool!
I was about to say something like this. CG looks amazing
szfhdg
are they blender animations or what softwares does he use ?
When I was 4 years old I flew by TU-104 from Moskow to Sverdlovsk. From the comfort point of view it was very fine journey.
Your family must be rich
@@gedgjoumk5449 Not at all) Flights in USSR were cheap. One of rare good things in that undead state.
@@leonidpopkov7623 how much usd in today's value I wonder...
The only Soviet airliner that wasn't furnished like your Grandma's house was the Tu144. Most had Cadillac upholstery, deep carpets, curtains and library standard reading lights. You might die in a field, but you would be comfortable till the thump.
@@gedgjoumk5449In the 70s, a flight from Moscow to Central Asia would cost 30 Roubles. Moscow to Khabarovsk was 40. Moscow to Vladivostok was 50. Hideously underpriced to some eyes, but the overriding priorities in the Soviet Union were national connectivity and accessibility.Even Solzhenitsyn, no fan of the Soviets, remarked on the cheap availability of air transport. Subsidized to Hell and back, but Whoop de Doo, so's Amtrak.
Boeing, "hold my beer"!
Boeing makes the safest aircraft in the world.
@@sandervanderkammen9230🚬 🌿
Sometimes
Comparing to comet, there were twice as many 104s built. 25 serious accidents happened to the comet, 37 - with 104 which actually makes 104 a more reliable aircraft in terms of serious accidents per airplane
Out of the 25 Comet crashes, 13 were fatal and most of them were caused by pilot error. Only 3 were as a result of metal fatigue or the structural problems.
Tu-104 fatalities were significantly higher than those of the comet.
Also the Soviets did not ground the aircraft unlike the British with the Comet. Instead the Soviets kept them in service and thus sent many innocent passengers to needless deaths. So much for claiming to be for the people, the Soviets didn't care about safety.
@@Frserthegreenengine’Pilot error’
@@Frserthegreenengine😂pilot eror and bad training
What the hell does accident rate per airplane have to do with the overall reliability and danger of an aircraft beyond being a mere statistic? The DC-10 had a lower hull loss rate than the Tu-104, yet was just as dangerous as a Tu-104, as both had major design flaws.
It really does seem that logical fallacies (and especially whataboutism) are as natural to Russians as vodka.
@@Frserthegreenengine. If “numbers killed” is how you like assessing aircraft then the Boing 747 is the most dangerous in history.
I've been watching Mustard for years now, and every time I see a new video I'm blown away by every aspect of it. Honestly, from the intriguing topic, to the life-like 3-D models, to the smooth narration, you guys just amaze me. Seriously the most underrated channel on YT. Thank you for providing this content, and yes I've joined Nebula I just can't comment on there!
Thank you! I know it's cliche to say, but I'm so glad there's an audience out there that appreciates it :)
From all of us who have seen your videos there is indeed an audience
@Poorschedriver I couldn't have said it better
The audio is clear and he has a great voice.
My dad flew on board of TU-104 several times in 60s. He told me that the airliner was really comfortable and the catering was great with black caviar and cognac
That's fantastic! What an experience that must have been! The Soviet era was so fascinating from both an engineering and social history standpoint. с уважением кому папа (я учу русский excuse me if my Russian is wrong)
it's a shame airlines don't bring back the caviar and COG' nac
I wonder if the Soviet Govt kept the crashes a secret from the flying public.
@Константин Родчанин большой спасибо 🙏
@@restojon1 flying in 50s-60s was really something special on both sides either East and West.
Often in the summer, the family flew Tu-104 from Vladivostok to Khabarovsk and then to Moscow on Il-62. Comfort corresponded to that era.
The TU104 carried over 90 million passengers in it's career.
My parents and I flew on a Comet from New York to London 1959. First Jet airliner for us. It was really a great experience. We went on to a different flight to Paris. We heard that the same plane (Comet) went on to Stockholm and exploded in the air. Something to do with the cabin pressure system. Our next flights were on the DC8 and 707.
Hmmm, I can't find any such accidents in the Aviation Safety Network database. Neither in 1959, not enroute to Stockholm.
@@kjetilkjernsmo8499 ooh
By 1958 the on service Comet fleet were replaced by Comet 4 which was modified to prevent the pressure hull structural failures that affect the earlier versions.
I think it was coming from Rome.
@@pa.d5688 Ah, OK, I thought it was a Comet we were talking about, not a Tu-104.
I flew on one in 1976, from then-Leningrad to Moscow. No individual air outlets, loud engine moan, and I watched in fascination on approach as the flaps wound out on long, long exposed jackscrews. As well, at Leningrad were a flock of recently-retired TU-114s on the tarmac, all those multiple layers of props glinting in the sun...good memories!
Exposed jackscrews on the flaps reminds me of the DC-10... sitting in the right spot, you can see the jackscrews working. :-)
I flew on one the same year, can't remember which route (we went to Moscow, then-Leningrad, Kiev and Yalta), but going by what you've said it may have been the same.
whats the first song name
Beautiful looking aircraft, especially the Glass nose cone/ cockpit and wing design.
As an aerospace(aeronautical) engineering student I confess that I did shorten the wings of a G550 in order to turn it into a EMB-145, albeit just on the sim ofc. If I were to test it, surely it will stall.
I love the almost photorealistic graphics in between, the choice of music, the type of information you provide and how you provide it coupled with real pictures an videos, as well as simple graphics, superb!
whats the first song name
Very well presented.
Thanks for making the great video! I really enjoy watching your content. The qualities are high af.
Nice song, we sang it in the 60s. However, I had to fly the Tu-104 Lelingrad-Moscow several times in the mid-70s. This is considered a short route and was served by this aircraft. It has already been removed from long-distance routes. The plane seemed rather archaic to me until I had to fly from Moscow to Central Asia on an IL-18. This was a real vibration stand, although it had the most comfortable seats of anything I had to fly on.
Excellent video and content, as always. Thank you for such consistently high quality of content. I remember these aeroplanes! Cheers from England.
I love the B-29 Navigation/Bombadier window on that beast. Beautiful aircraft.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was deliberate: Tupolev had the job of reverse engineering B29's that landed in the USSR
Theses became the Tu4 Bull
Soviets liked having the navigator in the nose, a tradition they kept for a long time.
@@SMGJohn he was probably having to shoot the stars and other stuff
@@shaider1982 Landing fields in the Soviet Union were often just that: fields. The navigator/ co- pilot would have to assess ground conditions before okaying a landing attrmpt. ANT was just keeping up the practise of his youth.
This was very interesting, the pilot who radioed back as he was experiencing that event, I salute him 🫡 !!
Then during the rise of jet airliners, Boeing said "hold my beer" and nailed it on their first try with the Boeing 707
This should deserve to be on television 10 times more then any other documentry I really love your content!
"Why you wouldn't want to fly the new Boeing 737-Max. Did I say 737-Max? I meant a 'Soviet' airliner...yeah..."
@@williamyoung9401 *Boeing moves head office to Moscow*
It is a hella gorgeous aircraft for sure regardless of it's reputation
Soviet designs were so awesome
...and that's why aircraft are referred to as "she "
So true.
That is like saying "what a beautiful gravestone." 😄
@@pal6636 boats
Excellent documentary, no wastage and straight to the point. Thank you.
Dc-10: …thanks it’s not me lol
The DC-10 has an excellent safety record compared to the de Havilland Comet, even better than Concorde
@@WilhelmKarsten I said that it’s not the most dangerous do you have a brain
@@callme_henry You said, quote; _"Dc-10: ...thanks it's not me lol"_
Every few months the world becomes a better place due to your videos.
Yeah I think that's negated by all the, well... *Gestures at the world*
Maintenance must’ve been a pain but wing integrated engines look so sleek like on this and the De Havilland Comet
Still a very bad design as every engine "explosion" would have been more dangerous to the plane, the fuselage. No wonder it's not used.
@@hurri7720 That and you cant really use high bypass turbofans with that design
@@x-ray3443 A key advantage from that embedded design was no engine drag
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 but dont non highbypass turbofans drink fuel?
Top marks for this video, interesting, new to me; but best of all great graphics, narration, timing, and story telling. ONe of the best videos I have seen in 3 years. thank you
10:50 Should write a version of this song for the 737Max...
The Max is a much safer than the Tu-104 or the Comet
Present day makes this post even funnier, today united airlines said Boeing is not in there future 😂😂😂😂
@@clarenceghammjr1326 *United is so badly managed it might not have a future..*
*Boeing reported it has 1,456 new orders in 2023 with 150 new 737 Max orders from Alaska Airlines!!!!*
@@clarenceghammjr1326 *Stupid people who watch the mainstream Media often forget that Boeings 737 is the most successful aircraft in history with over 11,000 sold and orders for 15,000.*
*1/3rd of all the people in the air right now are onboard a 737... more than 2,000 in the air as you read this, one takes-off or lands every 3 seconds.*
Safe or unsafe , Soviet engineering always fascinates me.
agreed
It's kind of like "Here's the bare minimum of money and resources, build something that'll at least look good for a year or two."
@@ikr9358 And last for 50.
They certainly had some interesting, if impractical, designs. Corruption, overreaching ideas, poor research and development, political interference all combined to dilute all of them.
Oh yes just ask the Polish!
I remember plane spotting at Heathrow as a kid in the 60s, when ATC change from the two main runways to one of the shorter, no longer existing, cross runways. An Aeroflot TU104 came in fast and had to deploy parachutes to stop. A very unusual sight at Heathrow.
I love how he starts his videos with get access to thousands of high quality shows and series. My man doesn't realize that the content he provides is the reason I signed up for curiosity stream. Keep it up.
It might be the most dangerous, but it's certainly one of the most beautiful.
Actually it is a very safe aircraft compared to the British de Havilland Comet...
The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics, 1 out of every 3 Comets built crashed or were destroyed in accidents.
@@sandervanderkammen9230Soviet bot 💀
@@Crustaceannationrepresentative Just the facts here lad, just the facts.
Another great video. I really enjoy how you mix aviation history with aircraft design. Secondly, you are a great story teller!
The first airplane I ever flew was the Tu-124 - a scaled-down and reengined 104. It was 1975 or 76, I was 8 years old and the main impression was - just how small the thing was, especially inside. Much smaller than a regular city bus. And, in retrospect, it wasn't much safer than the 104 - the 124s were grounded and written off along with the remaining 104s, in 1979-1980.
You were a pilot at 8 years old! No wonder these things crashed a lot
@@DavidAndersonKirk That's why I already considered retiring then...
In Soviet Union Komrade, only one way flights authorized and no guarantee of arriving at destination.
That's the de Havilland Comet's motto.
we have several destinations to choose from in Soviet :
1. Ocean
2. Empty field
3. The forest
@@BarometricQuad The Comet could sprinkle you over all of those destinations...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 yes
The videos you are making are marvellous! Keep going like that.
The last TU-104 was put out of service in 1981 (by that time, it had been out of civil aviation for many years) after its crash resulted in deaths of top brass of the Soviet Pacific Fleet's
Think it was mid 80s. Or it was a similar plane
there's a video on UA-cam, shit I don't remember the creator name but it explained that crash in great detail. it is narrated by a Russian native speaker and was a great channel. It pisses me off I can't remember his channel name
The channel is paper skies
Tu-104 was flying until 1986.
That crash was caused by idiots not securing cargo in the back of the plane, it resulted in a "nose up" stall on take-off from a sudden shift in the center of gravity. Something similar happened to a US Military chartered Boeing 747 in Afghanistan in 2013.
ua-cam.com/video/5fpxm0D46iQ/v-deo.html
@@skeetrix5577 I think, its chanel "Skyship Eng".
I watched Russian TV film about this aircraft where they mentioned that pilots reported many times weak responsiveness of the elevators and official reports after the first crash, which mentioned this dangerous tendency to pitch-up, but Tupolev himself ignored pilot's complains and the report and said that pilots just don't know how to fly. Probably because this aircraft was a favourite one of Krushchev and authorities just didn't want to take responsibility to ground this airplane - direct results of autocracy and totalitarianism. If they haven't ignored pilot's reports, they would have avoided future catastrophes and deaths. Another issue for this plane was it's challenging landing, pilots should descend in steps rather than smoothly following glissade. All in all Tu-104 scored the worst reliable Soviet airliner with 37 airplanes lost out of 201 produced. The last catastrophe happened in 1981 (being dismissed from Aeroflot, Tu-104 still has been in use for army). In this catastrophe high-ranking Soviet military personnel of Pacific fleet had died.
@TacticalMoonstone Thank you for letting me know.
@@tacticalmoonstone9468 He also noted that the cause of the accident was unsecured rolls of printing paper that were being, in essence, internally smuggled to the Far East, each weighing half a metric tonne. When the plane pitched up to take off, the paper rolls rolled to the back of the (tail) cargo compartment, destroying the plane's balance irrecoverably. No pilot on this earth or the next could have saved it. The irony that the cream of Soviet Naval Defense had died because of their bourgeois (and possibly capitalist) greed seems to have evaporated from the official report.
@@angusclark8330 Interesting info. Capitalism doesn't have anything more to do with greed than Socialism does. One can be greedy in either system.
"direct results of autocracy and totalitarianism. " I guess communist are responsible for boeing 737max ? ;-)
@@matthewmosier8439 Indeed. Boeing 737 Max, anyone?
These films are incredibly well-made and researched. The narrator's voice is engaging and interesting. Thank you so much for bringing these to us.
Exquisite pictures and beautiful retro graphics and composition. A lot of work, I guess. Congratulations, Sir!
It's amazing that the Tu-104 and the Tu-114 and -116 are based of of Soviet bombers yet have had such importance to aviation in so many regards.. well done Mustard!
All civilian aviation with jet engines was based on bombers. Perhaps not the British but they failed perhaps due to that.
@@hurri7720 not really only the jet engine came from bombers its just that most company that made plane where making civilian and Military plane the same why lockheed martin make missile for the air force and booster (and a lot of other stuff but you get the idea) for the nasa
I;d love to see a passenger jet based on the TU-22
hi
@@aoki6332 the boeing 707 was designed from a bomber.
The Paper Skies video about the Soviet Navy's Tu-104 accident was excellent, and it's great to see an overview of the plane in general. Great video as always!
10:41 There it is on that list.
@@brianwong7285 good eye
Not that great, it's a very weak video with bad explanation. In reality those crashes were caused by stalls on wingtips (so called "Saber dance"). Planes of that era didn't have a special twist. New planes do have it. So now if a stall is occurred, it starts not on wingtips. But Tu-104 developed stalls on the wingtips, and as wings are very much sweped back, wing loses the lifting force closer to a back of the plane, so the center of lift shifts to the nose of the aircraft.
And of course it has nothing to do with being a former bomber aircraft
Fascinating glimpse into the strategic innovation of using existing technology to propel Soviet civil aviation into the jet age. A brilliant move by Tupolev, with both risks and rewards that shaped aviation history.
love aeroflot, last time i flew with one they had the absolute nicest brand new plane's with the best service and food, plus they gave you an actual metal fork haha love it. oh and the pilot was absolute world class, no heavy touchdown or anything when landing. smooth as butter.
and the flight attendants were hot
I absolutely love the graphics and 1950s period style imagery. This is a really high end video. I'm very very impressed!
Mustard needs his own documentary special on one of the major streaming services. Each episode is so well done, informative and entertaining to watch.
I think the 'execs' would meddle in the creative process. They would probably find his dedication to making his videos so visually appealing wasteful
No.
Yeah if he released videos that are exclusive. Still waiting on the B-2 video that was supposed to release two months ago
@@MONARCH1985 Did you note the point made at the end of this video about the Spirit video?
@@BR69843 no I didn’t watch it
Awesome informational videos !! Keep it up !! Thank you
10:58 got me laughing so hard lmao
especially since i speak russian as my parents immigrated from the soviet union to canada
Comet- 13 crashes out of 114 built.
Tu-104- 16 crashes out of 201 built.
Tu-104 was slightly better. It also formed the basis of other variants. So, Tu-104 was more successful.
16 crashes that we know about
Tu 104 more safe then Boeing 737 max
The video states that 20% ofTU-104 s were destroyed by accidents. This would be over 40 destroyed. So who is right?
I absolutely adore these videos. I’m studying media and IT and just rendering out a simple animation took my (really good) computer over a night. I can’t imagine the amount of time that goes into these, including the research, scripting, planning, editing and so on.
I’m incredibly flabbergasted at how you can keep making these and I watch every single one. So good.
What's a Really good Computer? In Different Parts of the World, It Still Means a Different Thing.
Do your Raytracing on your GPU Cores either through cuda or through Frag or pixel shaders ...
I think I would've felt safer on this than a Comet, if I had a choice 😂.
...and you'd be right. The Comet C outlasted the TU-104 (didn't leave all military service until 1997, and the Nimrod subvariant lasted until the 2010's), had a robust safety record, and the manufacturer & Airlines actually made fixing issues a priority (unlike the USSR) 😏 .
@@jimtaylor294 *The Comet was grounded in 1980 due to metal fatigue damage.*
*The Nimrod although similar looking is not a Comet.*
@@jimtaylor294 *Comet 1 was so unsafe it was permanently grounded in 1954 and its airworthiness certification was revoked.*
I flew a Tu-104. Huge engines power, comfortable interior and loud noise inside. As it took off, thunder was heard on the ground!
:0
Sure, that happened
The man the myth the legend is back
well he always posts every 2-3 months so..
@@sayfo6141 i mean its a ling time
@@moggsly5669 true
The story of The Comet is sad, so innovative in many ways, but is was the 707 "Water Wagon" that won the day. I think the West adapted military designs too. If you were to travel on a V-Bomber to New York with Joan Collins and David Frost strapped in next to you then you were basically replicating the Concorde experience (in essentials, anyway)
Nice to see you back. Was getting worried.
I'm from a post Soviet county and I've actually heard some people using phrase going to the TU 104 as an euphemism for going to toilet, so I guess it didn't have all that great reputation here as well 😂
where you from?
@@EmWe972 Idk, maybe she/he is from Georgia, just assuming from the end of the last name.
The Canadians have a term when we mess up, "screwing the pooch." As attractive as that may sound to some, for the majority of us it means we messed up because we meant to make sweet love to our partners instead, unless, of course, your partner is a pooch. I guess then that is good for that microminority.
post soviet is a vague term
@@indridcold8433 LOL I forgot about that term! My cousin earned the nickname 'Dogger' because he was always screwing the pooch.
I remember seeing Aeroflot '104s landing at Gatwick in the 1970s and were the only civilian aircraft I'd seen that used a parachute to slow down.
The 104 is based on a military aircraft; when it was created, reverse to turbines had not yet been mastered. Issue 104 ceased in 1960.
The French built Caravelle had a parachute that could be deployed to slow the aircraft down upon landing.
Russian propaganda planes are never good
The Tu-104 RD-3 turbojet engines were designed in the 1940's, engine thrust reversers only appeared on Soviet aircraft in the 1960's. The engine nacelles on the Tu-104 could not be modified for those(or was too much of a headache). Using a parachute shortened the landing from around 3,000 meters to around 1,600 meters without stressing the air brakes and landing gear brakes. It was also safer in some weather conditions and short runways.
Sweet! Your style is awesome!
the comet had one flaw in its design the shape of the windows ,stress concentrated on the corners and caused fatige cracking , a major problem for any pressurised aircraft
That is a completely false narrative that has been completely debunked by modern forensic investigations.
Examination of wreckage recovered confirmed that the passenger windows were not the cause of the catastrophic in-flight structural failures.
The Cohen Investigation founds dozens of fatal flaws in the Comet including structural design flaws, materials defects shoddy workmanship and a lack of quality control standards.
The Comets pressurized cabin ruptured at the crown of the fuselage structure at the widest ring segment that has the highest surface area, exactly where Pascale's Law tells us it should fail.
All Comets had 3 inch radius windows, the same as modern jet airliners.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 they aren't made of the same materials now though
@@andrewmcewan8081 That's a completely moot point...
the passenger windows were not related in any way with the catastrophic in-flight structural failures.
de Havilland offered up the square windows theory well before it understood why it's planes were crashing, the media latched on to this false theory and it has been repeated endlessly as fact.
Among the fatal design flaws uncovered was the Aluminum skins used in fuselage were too thin, and an alloy that was too brittle.
The Comet 1s lacked proper rip-stop doubler joints between panels to prevent cracks from propagating to adjacent panels.
The fuselage reinforcement hoops were too narrow and spaced too far apart to prevent cracks from joining up.
The design, method of installation and inspections or riveted joints were found to be generally substandard and far below industry standards for construction of pressurized cabins.
The placement of the jet engine intakes in the leading edge of the wings, the wing aerofoil, the wing flaps and hydraulic flight controls were all found to be fatally flawed and required major remedial engineering work to solve and make any future production aircraft safe for airworthiness certification.
Any questions?
it was the way the plane was built, small cracks formed from the riveting of the plane which grew over time, the alumunium skin on the plane was so thin.
not really a detailed explanation
sorry for my bad grammar
I love those documentaries , the animation and the stories told are always so interesting to follow something you see very rarely in UA-cam
Mustard releasing a new video is just a good day. I am ao glad we can have this quality content here on UA-cam. Thank you for a fun and detailed history on the first Tupolev passenger jetliner!
(:
You guys produce GREAT videos.
great graphics! thnx
These graphics in combination with this quality and style of video is an absolute masterpiece every single time. Very impressive, I wish I could watch one every week
I always look forward to your Videos Mustard. I work in the aviation industry and I always get excited when you post more informative content like this. Great Job ! its such a breathe of fresh air on UA-cam.
I don't really care much for aviation - but Mustard has a way of making it come alive
I have to admit, that was a good looking -bomber- airliner.
I always found it interesting how the Soviets would do anything to play catch up on, or even leap frog the west. Even though briefly for the most part.
The Tu- 144 was another rush job but they pulled it off. Although it only flew passenger service for 55 flights over 8 months, before retiring to experimental.
The de Havilland Comet remains the worst engineering safety disaster in commercial aviation history.
The Comet was a desperate and doomed effort to leapfrog ahead in jet aviation technology and resulted in the worst tragedy in commercial jet aviation.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Wow, you keep replying to posts with info that has nothing to do with the original content.
You sound butt hurt?
@@elconquistador932You seem to be in denial about the Comet Disaster.
The de Haviland Comet is the worst jet airliner in history.
@@WilhelmKarsten Where am I in denial?
You sound as butt hurt as that other Ruskie.
Both were early airliners and I wouldnt fly on either one of the drath traps.
You guys are so fragile, take things from decades ago too personally. 🤣
@@elconquistador932 The British built the worst jet airliners ever made... 1 out of every 3 Comets crashed or were destroyed in accidents making it the highest loss rate and highest fatalities rate of any jet airliner in history.
So bad had de Haviland went completely tits-up in 1958.
When I saw the glazed nose I assumed it was a converted bomber. 3:57 Ah, there you go.
It seems they kept the look down nose windows just in case they wanted to use them for military purposes in difficult situations some time in the future.
@@paulpaul9914 *Please name a single British company that still makes commercial jet aircraft in the U.K.?*
@@paulpaul9914 *Please name a single British company that still makes commercial jet aircraft in the U.K.?*
7:18 "Pilots were so afraid of Stalin--I mean stalling"
Another high quality educating video, thanks to you I know more about the history of planes than I could ever imagine!
Fascinating piece of equipment
In the 1950s when I was a kid growing up in the States I built plastic airplane models like lost of boys and the TU 104 was one of my favorites. I still like the way it looks.
"Gander International Airport, once one of the most important in the world." On September 11, 2001, it definitely was the most important airport!
There is actually one of them placed near my house in my town as a local landmark. Its feels great to finally know the story of this plane after walking by it almost everyday since childhood.
10:48 folk song had next line after 'the grave': "you had to go by train"
I love the easter egg at 2:42, good work!
Yaaaaay, you're back with a new one. I always get a little bit excited. Your videos are sooooo good.
I modeled this plane for the last episode of The Queen's Gambit. It was only on screen for about a few seconds though.
Nice video. An eye opener that showed us how tricky it was to spearhead a technological innovation in aviation. Hoping to show in this channel about the first Soviet jet-powered long-range airliner.
The Soviets did well compared to the British... the de Havilland Comet was the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history... 1 out of every 3 built crashed or were destroyed in accidents.
The fascinating thing about this era is how fast aviation technology evolved
Nothing is better than seeing a brand new Mustard video on your recommended after a long day.
My family hosted a Russian exchange student in the 1990s, and his dad had a fairly lofty position in Aeroflot. He brought us some gifts, including some literature from Aeroflot boasting of their new navigation system that had an instrument in the aircraft pointing to the location of a radio beacon on the ground. Well, my dad's a pilot, and he chuckled that the Russians were praising their equivalent of an automatic direction finder (ADF), which was a fairly old technology in the U.S.A. by the 1990s.
Our 90s Russian student was a tax free, vodka smuggler 🤣
At that time they've been using VOR, DME and RSBN (Soviet short range navigation system). And INS which was synchronized with RSBN. And of course ADF as you've stated earlier. ADF was the only navigation tool probably on some really small aircrafts.
@@UWKS911 I hope your facts are sturdier than your grammar. "At that time they've been using" - you mean: would have been
@@DrWhom sorry, English is not my native language. My Russian grammar is better)
@@DrWhom “they’ve would have been”?
If you’re going to correct someone (who’s first language isn’t English) at least get it right. “They would have been”
Smug twat.
Your video's are just beautiful!
You've got some amazing visuals
Fantastic video about a plane I didn't know of from a channel I hadn't seen before. Brilliantly put together video of a really high quality. Well done.
I remember taking a trip in the Soviet Union in 1984 from St.Petersburg ( Leningrad back then ) to Moscow to Kiev and then Odessa...
The one thing that struck me were the planes we flew on between cities : They were loud, not very comfortable and they all had glass noses which I found unique to say the least...
Great video 🙂🙂🙂
In the glass nose, there was a (comfortable) seat for the navigator, one of the then 4 flight crew members.
@@Sergei-wf1jp I see... Thanks for that explanation 🙂🙂
@@Sergei-wf1jp Not only. It was a rement from TU-4 the soviet copy of the B-29 that crashed in USSR during the war. They really liked the idea of it. On the airliner it had a secondary function during the cold war. The soivets tended to fly airliners over restricted areas and the navigator doubled as photographer. I think it caused a few political incidents in the early 70ties.
@@mowtow90 You mean they photographed restricted zones in USSR ? :)
Excellent video as always, thank you
Except the the de Havilland Comet is the most dangerous jet airliner in history.