About dangerous, challenging or weird airports that aren't so well-known (Daily Updated)(Latest airport: Melville Hall)

Have you ever read about some dangerous airports? If yes, then you have probably heard of Lukla,Kai Tak, maybe Innsbruck or Saba.
This list (no order) features some of less known, but nonetheless weird, dangerous or challenging airports. Some have very complicated, interesting or unusual approaches. I'll try to do about 5 airports each day.Hope you like it and BTW please:
Write some nice comments about what topic(s) should/could I cover.
No.1 London City Airport (EGLC)

From Wikipedia

From Wikimedia.
The airport is located in the middle of a financial district in London, just 11km from City of London.
Bulit in the 80s in an area that used to be a dock, London City airport has one 1508m runway with a 5.5 degrees steep glideslope! Initially it was designed for Dash 7 aircraft. Today we can see E-170 to -195, Avro RJs, A318s, ATRs,Saab 2000s, Bae Jetstreams, Do328, Q400s, CRJs and Cessna Citation or Hawker Raytheon type of bizjets. In adittion, crews require special training and limits of noise, due to the proximity to homes. Another challenge is slowing down, as planes approach in a steep angle and gain speed, then having to slow down on a relatively short runway. In 2007 the airport operated 2.9 million passengers and an expansion is planned for 2030.
If you're a flight simmer, you can get UK2000s EGLC payware scenery for FSX and Fs2004.
No.2 Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (KASE)

From Wikipedia.

An overview of the airport and 2001 Avjet crash site location photo by NTSB.
This Colorado airport is elevated at more than 2300 metres and has a challenging (not as much as London City) visual approach through a mountainous area and a difficult IFR approach- LOC/DME to runway 15. Planes usually land only on runway 15, due to high terrain surrounding the area close to runway 33.Sometimes you get quite bad weather conditions, with very strong winds, turbulence and nigh snowfall. The runway is quite long, however design of the airport causes a problem. Only aircraft with a wingspan of less than 29m can operate on the airport due to the taxiway design. There are a few weird restrictions such as departures premmitted after 22:30, because of the proximity to houses and noise level. The Concorde could make it here, as the SST has a 25m wingspan.It's a popular GA destination, but airlines like Delta connection or American Eagle fly small planes like ATRs or CRJs to Aspen.
For simmers, you get a nice, cheap package from Aerosoft, unluckily FSX only.
No.3 Queenstown Airport (NZQN)

From Wikicommons.

Source:Wikimedia
This airport located 10km from Quenstown's city centre was first used in commercial aviation in the 50s and 60s, when Dc-3s flew scenic routes. The airport located close to mountains and approaches take pilots some 2000 feet over them. Queenstown airport has two relatively short runways- 1900m long 05/23 and 900 metre long- runway 14/32. Another problem are winds, causing turbulence and making landings and take-offs challenging.  The main runway is 30m wide, whereas usual runways are 45 metres. On the other hand, in beautiful weather passengers and pilots can have a pleasing flight in and out of NZQN. This airport is usually operated by 737-800, ATRs or A320s. Queenstown airport came 7th in Privatefly.com's competition for the most amazing approach in 2011.
ORBX has made a Queenstown scenery for P3D and FSX, which seems a little bit expensive to me, however it's ORBX and their products are always very high quality.
No.4 Sao Paulo Congonhas (SBSP)


From Wikipedia

Source: Wikicommons

Source:Wikipedia
The airport is located just 8km from the city center of South America's largest city.
Built in the 30s, the airport was in fact the third busiest for cargo in 1957. Since Guarulhos airport has opened, Congonhas has lost popularity and with infrastructure being built around it became dangerous. The airport has two runways, one 1940 and the second 1435 metres long. Both end with a road and buildings. They can't be extended, because of this fact. Sao Paulo is a rainy place and a slippery runway of this length is a challenge for pilots. The approach or takeoff procedure aren't really hard, however stopping and accelerating on the runway is. In 2007, a Tam Linheas Aeras flight has crashed on a rainy day, due to pilot error, overrunning the runway and killing 199 people. The airport is operated mainly by A320s, 737s, Fokker 100, Embraer aircraft and ATRs, however it used to operate cargo A300 and Boeing 767-200s. The airport is in fact no longer international.
Flight sim fans get a great free scenery of this airport found on TerraBrasilis (FSX and P3D. TropicalSim have released a payware rendition (same sims). Xplane 10 has got one, too:http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=25481.
No.5 Matekane air strip (FXME)
From Wikipedia.
This small airport located in Lesotho, a country surrounded by South Africa. One of it's airstrips in the Matekane village ends with a sharp ridge. Matekane lays at an elevation of 2 300m and has a short 400m runway. The biggest planes landing their are usually Cessna 172 type of aircraft, though it is sometimes accessed by Cessna Caravans or Twin Otters. To wrap it up, FXME airport is frequently windy and unpleasant for pilots.
Aerosoft has released a nice package of dangerous airports, consisting Matekane. Try it out for 16 dollars.
No.6 Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (CYTZ)

Wikicommons photo.

Courtsey of Wikipedia.
Built in the 30s on an Island next to the city centre, a former military area for the Norwegian army and a matter of debates about distributing the area around Toronto, it's a weird and challenging airport. It has three runways, that are from 900 to 1200m long. The airport is operate by Dash 8s, CRJ and possibly CS100. Due to the proximity of the city, approaches at night are problematic, due to the sound emitted by planes. There are 10 000$ fines for flying an airplane to CYTZ after  11pm. The approach has a very "swinging" profile. This isn't such a dangerous, but nonetheless weird airport. The RNAV and ILS/DME runway 8 approach is in the path of CYYZ arrivals and departures, however it doesn't cause any mid-air collisions.
There is one FSX, P3D and Xplane 10 payware Torornto City scenery:http://finalapproachsim.com/product/toronto-city-airport-fsxp3d-download-2/. Quite a decent price, 20 us$, though the quality isn't great.
No.7 Melville Hall airport (TDPD)

Photo used with permission.
Located just 2mi. northwest of Marigot, Dominica, this airport isn't the safest, nor easiest. Bulit in 1944, throught a

Is the Dreamliner really so Awesome?

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a long-range, mid-size wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner developed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
This is the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) description of one airplane I'm going to talk about. What should I say? The "Dreamliner" really pisses me off. Yes, it does. The media make the Dreamliner the greatest plane ever and get really excited about it. In adittion, when the Dreamliner has problems or other difficulties, they make it a big event. Yesterday a LOT 787 had to come back from Warsaw Okęcie airport due to turbulence. Some smart person commented, that there would be no news, if the plane was for instance different. I agree.  Technically the Germanwings crash made media talk more about air crashes.
Know, I really want to see, if the dreamie (that's how I'll call the 787) is soo good (KFC, life tastes great).The list is going to be full of numbers. Some information might not be exactly 100% correct, but I tried my best researching. The first categories are a little bit messy, but since the third, there is a table showing the specifications.I'll compare it with the A330-300, A340, 777-200, A350-900, 767 and Il-96. The Il-96 is just for fun. Let's see.
 BTW
1.Please write some constructive comments about some posts I could do. Please give me some topics to cover, etc.  It really motivates me! :D
2. Write down your opinions about the 787 in the comment section please. Do you think it's so great? Do you agree with the "result"of the comparison? etc, etc. Thank you.

Avionics, pilotage, crewman.

Dreammies cockpit photo taken from Wikipedia.
FMCs, FBW, EICAMSes, MFDses. Typical boring modern cockpit. The difference between A330, 340 and 777s is that the displays are more functional and a the layout of displays is just a little bit comfortable for pilots. On the other hand there isn't a lot of blank space. The dreamie is better, but yet again not so much as some people expect it to be.
The A350 XWB is different, having a similar type of displays, however Airbus keeps the typical joystick where it usually is in modern Airbuses. The CDU (FMC), whereas the buttons are on the side. Dreamies keep the usual Boeing 777 design. Other than that, the overhead is very similar. All in all, the 350 has no yoke and is more spacious.
 A350 cockpit. Source: Wikipedia and Joao Carlos Medau
The 767 is much older, but yet again the cockpit uses some(but eventually very little) glass styled instruments, the overhead is quite similar. The 767 isn't better. Let's face it, the Boeing 767 is now old. The Il-96 (-300) needs three crewman. Ups, fail. Then again, it has a lot of good, sturdy avionics. Eventually, most gauges are in Russian. The 787 is way better.

Il-96 cockpit.
Overall, the 787s cockpit is quite decent. It is some more better than the A330/340 and Boeing 777. Some other large jets, Ilyushin 96 and Boeing 767 are also worse than this airplane. However the A350 XWB might make you feel like it's the more advanced plane. in the end I in a way understand the fact that people get excited by dreamies avionics.
Passenger capacity
An average Dreamliner carries about 270-290  (290-max. for the 787-8, 270min. for the 787-9).

787-8 interior. Source:Wikipedia
Average A330 can carry from 250 to 375(rare 330-300 configuration) passengers. The average is 312 (312.5 actually). All in all the 787 and A330 are quite similar, with the airbus being slightly (very slightly) better. The thing is that the A340 (most versions) are bigger than 787s. The smallest 340, -200 version carries around 270 passengers.
The Triple Seven is a little bit different. The Dreamliner was designed to replace the 767. Indeed not the triple seven. The larger -300 version takes up to 380, whereas the 787-9-310.

Random 777-300ER picture. From Wikipedia.
A350 XWB is pretty much the same as the Dreamliner. However, having a little bit more space in the cabin, I guess passengers might prefer the XWB. The difference is yet again quite small, but IMHO the A350 is better.
The Il-96 interior picture taken from Wikipedia.
The Il-96 isn't as good as the XWB. A typical Il 96-300 carries around 240 people on-board. A 2-4-2 seat layout is also possible. I don't think anyone will need this information, as only 29 Il 96 airplanes were built. The 767-400 carries only 250, being bigger than the 787-9 and -8. Definently another sign showing, that the dreamie replaces the 767.
All in all, the dreamie isn't really shocking in case of passenger.Nothing special. The A350 and 777 are slightly better, along with the Airbus A330 and 340.
Takeoffs and Landings
The Dreamliner's MTOW is 228 000 kg. The takeoff distance at MTOW is around 3 000 metres. The 787-9's requirement is a 2 900 metre runway to takeoff. The 787-9's MTOW is 253 000kg. A 787-8 requires a 1650 metre runway for landing at MLW (maximum landing weight-I'm not sure if such an abbreviation exists) of 172 000kg. The -9 version needs around 1800m of runway to land at it's MLW (193 000kg). These are just facts, remember.
787-9 picture by BriYYZ from Wikipedia.
Here comes the A330-200, with a MTOW of 242 00kg. The T/O (takeoff) distance is 2 770 m. It looks as the dreamie isn't so awesome. However, I understand the MTOW difference, as the A330-200 is slightly bigger than the 787-8.  The -300 series MTOW and T/O distances are the same as with the -200. Not the best achievement. All in all, both A330 and 787 are similar in case of takeoffs. With a MLW of 182 000kg, the A330-200 needs around 1 800 metres of runway to land. The -300 series and -200F has a MLW of 187 000kg, but has the same landing distance of 1 800m. Again, the 330 and 787 are very similar. Kind of a draw, however the dreamie is much younger and meant to be better than a 90s widebody jet from a rivaly company.
My favourite Airbus -A340 is quite similar to the 330. In case of MTOW, the smallest one- A340-200 can takeoff at a weight of 275 000 kg. Considering the size, better than the Dreamliner. The -300 version's MTOW is 276 500 kg, I thought I'd be something around 290 000 kg. Compared to the Dreamie, it's a mediocre score. I won't tell you about the -500 and -600 series, as they are much larger than the 787, and it doesn't really make sense to compare them. The T/O distance for an A340-200 at MTOW is 2 990 metres, whereas the 300-3 100m.

Small A340-200.
Courtsey of Wikipedia and Anthony Noble.
The A340-200's MLW is 185 000 kg, and the -300-190 000. The A340-200 needs 1 900m, whereas -300 2 000 metres. Again, not a STOL airplane. The A340-200 being similar sized to the 787-9 requires a runway of similar length, however can land being heavier than the rival. It looks like a draw.
The 777-200 (-300 is too big) has a MTOW of 247t and the T/O roll distance (T/ORD is the abbreviation I made up) of 2 450m, the -200ER series- 297,5t and with a 3 380m T/O distance, whereas the -200LR-347 500kg. The -200LR's takeoff distance is 2,8km. With an impressive MTOW, the takeoff roll distance of the -200LT version beats the 787-8! That isn't agreat improvement Boeing.
Now study the 777-200 MLW; the first one is the -200, -200ER, and then -200LR:

Maximum landing weight	445,000 lb (201,840 kg)	470,000 lb (213,180 kg)	492,000 lb (223,168 kg)

The MLW landing distance, beginning with the -200, -200ER and then -200LR:
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,550 (5,100ft)
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,615 (5,300)
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,600 (5,250)

Majestic looking 777 Source: Wikipedia

Looks very good, beating a lot of other airplanes. No wonder why the 777 doesn't have to be replaced.

What about the A350-900? Good question.

Maximum takeoff weight		268 t (591,000 lb)
Maximum landing weight[146]		205 t (452,000 lb)

The MLW is quite impressive, whereas MTOW-not so much. The T/O distance is 2 830m, quite similar to the Dreamliner -9.
The MLW landing distance is only 1300m! I couldn't believe it at first however it's achievable.
What about a fun Il-96?
Large tail, winglets and cool engines. Il-96 in Beijing.
Credit: Mark Tang and Wikipedia.

Max. Landing Weight	183,000 kg (403,083 lb)	220,000 kg (484,581 lb)
Max. Take-off Weight	250,000 kg (551,000 lb)	270,000 kg (595,000 lb)

                                      -300 version                    -M version
This aircraft isn't as popular as the Dreamliner, however the specifications of this plane are a little bit better, especially with the -300, which is nearly the same size (not shape) as the typical Dreamliner (787-8).
With the same order as above, I'll show you the Il-96 T/O and landings specifications.               

MTOW T/O roll distance: 2 340m (96-300) 3 000m (96M) Landing distance (not quite sure if it's MLW) 900m (!) 1 800m The landing distance for the -300 is quite impressive. The M versions specs aren't as good. It may be bigger and the avionics- improved, however the landing and takeoff specifications not. 350,000 lb (158,760 kg) 412,000 lb (186,880 kg) 450,000 lb (204,120 kg)
767-300          -300ER          -400ER             That is the 767s MTOW. 7,900 ft (2,410 m) 8,300 ft (2,530 m) 8,600 ft (2,621 m) 10,200 ft (3,109 m) Now the T/O roll distance for the 767 models as above. 767-300 variants MLW: 767-300: 136 078kg 767-300ER: 145 150kg. The 767-400ER can land weighing 158 757 kg. The 767-300(ER) can land at a 1 800m runway at MLW and the -400ER-2130m. All in all, in the end the dreamie's score isn't impressive. it isn't a STOL airplane, it isn't a revolution incase of landing and takeoff economics. It's good. Just good.

About a few ridiculously big aircraft that didn't do much flying. Part 1

There are a lot of large aircraft flying. For instance let's look at the example, Antonov An-124.One of the larger planes ever. How many of them were built? 55. You might consider this a big number, however for example: Cessna 172- around 43 000 examples, over eight thousand B737, Flying Fortress- over 12 thousand. Ok, let's go back to big planes. 1502 Boeing 747s were built. Right, another large plane, the Airbus A340 (my favourite Airbus). Throught 20 years 377 were built.
Not all monstrous, gigantic and scarily big were so lucky. Some are old, some are relatively young projects. However they were all unsuccessful.
The list is in no order, it follows no rules of logic. Aircraft are limited to 5 being built.
BTW
Please write in the comments, about what would you like me to do a post about. I have a leak (not really) in my brain, therefore I'm losing inspiration. Just a little bit, don't worry.
I'll try to do part 2, but I'm a little bit busy/lazy/lacking inspiration. Write down some aircraft that I can write about in Part 2.
:D
No.1. Nakajima G10N (0 built)
The Fuji Monster

Painting from Wikipedia.
 
From Fotolog by IJN 75


From Wikipedia

Japan faced problems with one type of aircraft during WWII. They never built an efficient strategic bomber. There were a few companies making aircraft, but the main one that wanted to finish the task of building a strategic bomber was Nakajima. In 1941 they first flew a plane called G5N, based on the DC-4. The specifications were quite decent, however the range was insufficient. Another, better, but smaller (sized) project was G8N. Again, the range didn't meet the expectations. 
Nakajima didn't give up. They began work on a project called Project-Z. The plans were quite decent, but none sufficient engines were found, changing the design a little bit. It still was stunningly big for an WWII airplane. The G10N Fugaku (mount Fuji, sounds scary) was approved by the Japanese military. The project was enormous. It's capabilities were quite impressive for it's times. Even now they are very good.
General characteristics

• Crew: 6 to 10

Fugaku: 7 to 8

• Length: 44.98 m (147 ft 7 in)

Fugaku: 39.98 m (131 ft)

• Wingspan: 64.98 m (213 ft 2 in)

Fugaku: 62.97 m (207 ft)

• Height: 8.77 m (28 ft 9 in)
• Wing area: 352.01 m² (3,789.0 sq ft)

Fugaku: 330 m² (3,552.09 sq ft)

• Aspect ratio: 12.1
• Empty weight: 65,000 kg (143,300 lb)

Fugaku: 33,800 kg (74,516.24 lb)

• Gross weight: 122,000 kg (268,964 lb)

Fugaku: 42,000 kg (92,594.15 lb)

• Max takeoff weight: 160,000 kg (352,740 lb)

Fugaku: 70,000 kg (154,323.58 lb)

• Powerplant: 6 × Nakajima Ha-54 36-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engines, 3,700 kW (5,000 hp) each at take-off

Fugaku: 6x Nakajima NK11A 18-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engines developing 2,500 hp (1,864 kW) at take-off

• Propellers: 6-bladed contra-rotating constant speed propellers, 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) diameter

Fugaku: 4-bladed constant speed propellers 4.8 m (16 ft) diameter

Performance

• Maximum speed: 679 km/h (422 mph; 367 kn) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

Fugaku: 779 km (484 mi)at 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

• Range: 17,999 km (11,184 mi; 9,719 nmi) maximum

Fugaku: 19,400 km (12,055 mi)

• Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,213 ft)
• Wing loading: 456.99 kg/m² (93.60 lb/sq ft)

Fugaku: 211.89 m² (43.4 lb/ft²)

• Power/mass: 0.103 kW/kg (0.063 hp/lb)

Fugaku: 0.118 kW/kg (0.07 hp/lb)

Armament

• Guns: 4× 20mm Type 99 cannon
• Bombs: 20,000 kg (44,092 lb) of bombs

In the autumn of 1943, works on production facilities began. The project wasn't however considered so important, many top Japanese engineers didn't work on it at all, or where moved to different projects. The US army was closing Japan, different aircraft were more important and project abandoned. The documentation of the plane was obviously destroyed.
No.2 Convair  XC-99 (1 built)
Oversized B-36

Photo by USAF from Wikipedia
 Source: Wikipedia and USAF


Based on the B-36, it was the biggest piston engine powered airplane, only smaller than the Hughes Hercules. Designed by engineers led by Roberts R. Hoover began work in California. The hangar they used was to small. That just means, that this plane is awesomely big. Yes, indeed. The design with six engines turned back, the design was meant to produce more "pushing" power.Check out the specifications:
General characteristics

• Crew: Five duty + five reserve crew
• Capacity: 400 troops
• Payload: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg)
• Length: 182 ft 6 in (55.64 m)
• Wingspan: 230 ft 0 in (70.12 m)
• Height: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
• Wing area: 4,772 ft² (443.5 m²)
• Empty weight: 135,232 lb (61,469 kg)
• Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,455 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 320,000 lb (145,455 kg)
• Powerplant: 6 × Pratt & Whitney R-4360-41 Wasp Major 28-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 3,500 hp (2,611 kW) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 knots, 494 km/h)
• Range: 8,100 mi (7,043 nmi, 13,041 km)
• Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)

The plane was used in an impressive mission called "operation Elephant", transporting over 40 thousand tonnes of cargo (engines and other stuff used in building B-36 Peacemakers). XC-99 flew 19000 kilometres from Rhein AB to California, stopping twice. The XC-99 attracted everyone everywhere it went.
The USAF itself said they don't need such a big plane. One was only built as you have noticed. The XC-99 was retired in 1957 and is now preserved in Ohio.
No.3 McDonnell Douglas MD-12 (0 built)
The McDonnell Douglas Jumbo Jet

Courtsey of Anynobody and Wikipedia.
Same author and page as above.
The MD Donnell Douglas designers have shown a new design in 1991, it was basically a larger and modified MD-11. They called it MD-12X. The aircraft was meant to carry about 400 passengers. The MD-12 would be built out of composite material. The engines were placed like in the MD-11, MD Donnell Douglas designers didn't go so creative. Soon they changed it into a classic, A380 or 747 design. They also thought of the baggage hold to be in a way prepared for carrying passengers. In addition the cabin would have an area called the Panorama Deck, where 54 passengers could enjoy a view down. The tickets would have probably been very expensive, around 1000 Euros for a flight from Paris or London to New York, I guess. In the end a view of the Atlantic Ocean is probably very boring.The production was meant to start in 1994 and plane to fly in 1995. Eventually MD Douglas didn't have enough money and plans were deleted. Bye Bye oversized MD-12.
To make you happy, look at the specs:
General characteristics

• Crew: 2 (pilot and co-pilot)
• Capacity: Long range: 430 passengers (3-class) / High-capacity: 511 passengers (3-class)
• Length: 208 ft 0 in (63.40 m)
• Wingspan: 213 ft 0 in (64.92 m)
• Height: 74 ft 0 in (22.55 m)
• Wing area: 5,846 ft² (543.1 m²)
• Empty weight: 402,700 lb (187,650 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 949,000 lb (430,500 kg)
• Powerplant: 4 × General Electric CF6-80C2 high-bypass turbofans, 61,500 lbf (274 kN) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 0.85 (565 mph, 1,050 km/h)
• Range: 7,170 nmi (9,200 mi, 14,825 km)
• Wing loading: 162.3 lb/ft² (792.7 kg/m²)

No.4 Conroy Virtus (0 bulit)
Double B-52 Mutant

NASA picture

Frankly speaking, this is enormous and very unreal. Mutant double B-52 SCA twin tail aircraft. It was designed to carry a space shuttle between it's large wings. The design was meant to carry the space shuttle between the B-52 based fuselage. Where would the pilots sit?!

At first due to design changes in the Space Shuttle programme, NASA wanted a plane that can fly from Kennedy Space Center to an altitude, where the shuttle can continue it's journey to space.One of the earliest designs was the Conroy Virtus by John M. Conroy, the same man that deigned the Pregnant, Mini Guppy and Super Guppy. Guppily (has that word ever even been used!) crazy idea!

The design was basically a JT9D (747 engines) powered twin B-52 fuselage aircraft with a wingspan of around 140 metres. In addition, the Virtus could carry the shuttles rocket boosters and external tank.

A 1/34 scale model was tested in wind tunnels, with positive results. The problem was money. What a surprise! (sarcastic).The size let the plane down, and in addition, Conroy Virtus required bulding new, bigger hangars for the plane. Lockheed later proposed a crazy double C-5 design (with six engines), but NASA decided that they want a normal aircraft. Therefore there would be no double DC-10, 707, DC-8 nor nothing different. In the end, NASA chose the 747-100, not the most usual, but more normal than the Virtus.

No.5 Sukhoi KR-860 (0 built)

Do you want to fold the wings?!

Courtsey of Wikipedia

To explain my choice, read through the technical data. Most importantly size, wingspan, capacity.

General characteristics

• Capacity: 860-1000 passengers
• Length: 80 m (262 ft 6 in)
• Wingspan: 88 m (288 ft 9 in) with the wings unfolded or 64 m (210 ft) span with wings folded
• Wing area: 700 m² (7,500 sq ft)
• Max takeoff weight: 650,000 kg (1,433,005 lb)
• Powerplant: 4 × General Electric CF6-80E1A4B turbofan, 320 kN (72,000 lbf) thrust each or
• Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney PW4168A turbofan, 305 kN (69,000 lbf) thrust each

Performance

• Cruising speed: 1,000 km/h (621 mph; 540 kn)
• Range: 15,000 km (9,321 mi; 8,099 nmi)

The aircraft was designed by Sukhoi, a company creating mainly fighter aircraft. The company expected the plane to first KR-860 to be built by 2000. The programme would cost around 10Billion $. Not bad! The aircraft could fold the wings like the new 777X design. In addition the outboard engine would be folded.
A 1/24 scale (better than the Virtus, ;P) at the 1999 Paris Air Show, 10 years after the Antonov 225 astonished everyone with it's size. Mainly the US. The project didn't succeed, due to lack of potential customers (I do agree with it, it would be worse than the Il-96 IMHO) and money. Both combined and everything is dead.
No.6 Tupolev Tu-244
A failed remake of the Tu-144

Source:Wikipedia
The work on this SST began in 1979, when Tupolev design bureau wasn't satisfied with the Tu-144.This project was based on the Tu-144, but also the Tu-160; for example, the same engines. One of the new features were FBW system logics used to control the plane, video cameras to help crews and new fuel-cryogenic fuel, that requires keeping in low temperatures. Not a problem. Tupolev intended to build around a 100 Tu-244 aircraft. One minus in my opinion, the plane needed three crewman. In the end (1993, not an end of anything) Tupolev abandoned the project due to it's cost. All in all the Tu-144 is the only SST ever built by Tupolev. And the Tu-244 was only a plan.
Specifications:
General characteristics

• Crew: 3
• Capacity: 250/320 passengers
• Length: 88.7 m (291 ft)
• Wingspan: 54.77 m (179 ft)
• Height: Unknown (Unknown)
• Wing area: 1,200 m² (12,916 ft²)
• Empty weight: 172,000 kg (379,000 lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 350,000 kg (771,600 lb)
• Powerplant: 4 × Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans, 33,000 kg () each
• Height from ground (to the top of the tail fin): 16.9 m (55 ft)
• Height from lowest point (engine): 12.45 m (41 ft)
• Fuselage external width: 3.9 m (12 ft)
• Fuselage external height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
• Wing length (Root Chord): 54.7 m (179 ft)
• Main gear track: 8 m (26 ft)
• Max weight of fuel: 178,000 kg (392,425 lb)

Performance

• Cruise speed: Mach 2.20 (2,340 km/h, 1,455 mph)
• Range: 9,200 km (5,730 mi (4,970 nm))
• Service ceiling: 19,000 m (62,000 ft)