The end of the Concorde
Stefanel1
04-10-2003, 12:57 PM
The Concorde is 27 years old and will stop to fly befor the end of 2003.
Air France and British Airways announced it officially.
What a pity for this wonderfull airplane not profitable enough.
Air France and British Airways announced it officially.
What a pity for this wonderfull airplane not profitable enough.
KatWoman
04-10-2003, 01:20 PM
I thought those flew regulary just like the regular jets?? I guess too they are more expensive to fly on than a regular jet :( I always thought they looked cool.
http://www.umich.edu/~umalumni/travel/trip_photos/Intrav/INT-Concorde-03/INT-Concorde-03-concorde-fr.jpg
http://www.umich.edu/~umalumni/travel/trip_photos/Intrav/INT-Concorde-03/INT-Concorde-03-concorde-fr.jpg
YellowMaranello
04-10-2003, 01:46 PM
That's really suprizing that it didn't make enough profit, I would have thought it to be just as, if not more profitable then regular flights.
Jay!
04-10-2003, 01:47 PM
Aren't there only like a dozen of them, and they use some pretty unique parts? I remember when the last one crashd they were talking about how all the tires are custom-made... That's got to be murder for maintenance costs...
I'd always wanted to ride on it, though. :(
I'd always wanted to ride on it, though. :(
SilverLotus340R
04-10-2003, 01:54 PM
sad..but if u think about it....90% of the commuters on the concorde were buisness men/women. And with work paying for travel it'll be a whole lot cheaper to take a normal plane and even still cheaper to have a private air service fly you..i remember at one point it was almost 2 grand for a ticket...
YogsVR4
04-10-2003, 02:07 PM
Its to bad it was such an expensive plane to ride in. It sure makes those transatlantic flights fast.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
04-10-2003, 03:17 PM
Like landing a man on the moon,it has been proven as possible,but also proven to be less than commercially viable.Can't help wondering if the Paris crash has severely damaged the commercial viability of this wonderful piece of machinery,it seems strange that they spent a whole heap of money making the fuel tanks safer on these elderly aircraft,only to announce their demise.
In total 20 Concordes were built between 1966 and 1979. The first 2 Concordes were prototype models, one built in France and the other in England.
Another 2 pre-production prototypes were built to further refine design and test out ground breaking systems before the production runs, of only 16 aircraft in total, commenced in both countries.
In the end only British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, with the airlines initially purchasing 5 and 4 aircraft respectively. The 5 surplus models were subsequently acquired by the airlines in 1980 for a nominal cost of one Franc each at the end of the Concorde programme. British Airways acquired the 2 unsold UK built aircraft, while Air France bought the 3 unsold French built craft.
Today British Airways have a fleet of 7 aircraft while Air France have 5 aircraft available. The British Airways Concordes have over 145,000 hours of flight time so far, while Air France have over 100,000 hrs of flight time. The two prototypes, two pre production and one first production model are now on show in museums on both sides of the channel. The first British production Concorde is now owned by BA and used for spares. Air France retired a Concorde for spares use in 1982 and lost one in the accident outside Paris in July 2000.
In total 20 Concordes were built between 1966 and 1979. The first 2 Concordes were prototype models, one built in France and the other in England.
Another 2 pre-production prototypes were built to further refine design and test out ground breaking systems before the production runs, of only 16 aircraft in total, commenced in both countries.
In the end only British Airways and Air France purchased Concordes, with the airlines initially purchasing 5 and 4 aircraft respectively. The 5 surplus models were subsequently acquired by the airlines in 1980 for a nominal cost of one Franc each at the end of the Concorde programme. British Airways acquired the 2 unsold UK built aircraft, while Air France bought the 3 unsold French built craft.
Today British Airways have a fleet of 7 aircraft while Air France have 5 aircraft available. The British Airways Concordes have over 145,000 hours of flight time so far, while Air France have over 100,000 hrs of flight time. The two prototypes, two pre production and one first production model are now on show in museums on both sides of the channel. The first British production Concorde is now owned by BA and used for spares. Air France retired a Concorde for spares use in 1982 and lost one in the accident outside Paris in July 2000.
Prelewd
04-10-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Like landing a man on the moon,it has been proven as possible,but also proven to be less than commercially viable.Can't help wondering if the Paris crash has severely damaged the commercial viability of this wonderful piece of machinery,it seems strange that they spent a whole heap of money making the fuel tanks safer on these elderly aircraft,only to announce their demise.
Did they ever end up making the tires safer? I recall hearing about the steep landings putting enormous pressure on the rear wheels/tires, and they would eventually blow out if not replaced regularly. Sometimes the new ones would as well. This blowout caused a piece of tire to penetrate the gas tanks located under the wings, something would spark, and the plane would be a fireball.
So much media attention goes to aircrafts crashing, and nobody realizes that they are the saftest travel mode in the world. The concorde was among the top of the safest. Shame.
Like landing a man on the moon,it has been proven as possible,but also proven to be less than commercially viable.Can't help wondering if the Paris crash has severely damaged the commercial viability of this wonderful piece of machinery,it seems strange that they spent a whole heap of money making the fuel tanks safer on these elderly aircraft,only to announce their demise.
Did they ever end up making the tires safer? I recall hearing about the steep landings putting enormous pressure on the rear wheels/tires, and they would eventually blow out if not replaced regularly. Sometimes the new ones would as well. This blowout caused a piece of tire to penetrate the gas tanks located under the wings, something would spark, and the plane would be a fireball.
So much media attention goes to aircrafts crashing, and nobody realizes that they are the saftest travel mode in the world. The concorde was among the top of the safest. Shame.
Pick
04-10-2003, 07:22 PM
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
taranaki
04-10-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
Wrong wrong and wrong.Your ignorance is showing.Somehow from your previous posts I get the impression that if it had been designed and built in the U.S.A.,you would be applauding it,not dissing it.
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
Wrong wrong and wrong.Your ignorance is showing.Somehow from your previous posts I get the impression that if it had been designed and built in the U.S.A.,you would be applauding it,not dissing it.
Ranger_X
04-11-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Air France retired a Concorde for spares use in 1982 and lost one in the accident outside Paris in July 2000.
The Concordes were doing fine up until this point. It was this incident that deterred a lot of people from flying on the Concordes, so naturally, business went down after this incident.
The thing that finished Concorde off was Sept. 11 and the events afterwards. Since Sept. 11, there have been as few as 20 passesngers on each flight.
Air France retired a Concorde for spares use in 1982 and lost one in the accident outside Paris in July 2000.
The Concordes were doing fine up until this point. It was this incident that deterred a lot of people from flying on the Concordes, so naturally, business went down after this incident.
The thing that finished Concorde off was Sept. 11 and the events afterwards. Since Sept. 11, there have been as few as 20 passesngers on each flight.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-11-2003, 01:43 PM
i vote we set up a fund and buy one
THE AF PRIVATE JET
of course we would never be able to fuel it
but it'd be cool all the same :o
I'd like to see one come into service as England's equivalent to Air Force One
THE AF PRIVATE JET
of course we would never be able to fuel it
but it'd be cool all the same :o
I'd like to see one come into service as England's equivalent to Air Force One
1985_BMW318i
04-12-2003, 01:09 PM
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
The Concorde was/is a marvelous engineering feat, Air traffic has suffered tremendously after 9-11 and its only because it is not "a commercially viable aircraft" that they are going to stop flying them. Personally I think its a shame because they are wonderful to watch coming in to land here in the US. Like so many beautiful aircraft it simply has outlived its usefulness. Richard Branson has attempted to purchase one for Virgin Airlines. BA has refused.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/11/biz.trav.concorde/index.html
The Concorde was/is a marvelous engineering feat, Air traffic has suffered tremendously after 9-11 and its only because it is not "a commercially viable aircraft" that they are going to stop flying them. Personally I think its a shame because they are wonderful to watch coming in to land here in the US. Like so many beautiful aircraft it simply has outlived its usefulness. Richard Branson has attempted to purchase one for Virgin Airlines. BA has refused.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/11/biz.trav.concorde/index.html
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-12-2003, 06:22 PM
Concorde was amazing it was hardly unreliable
compared to the Russian Equivalent
I don't think Boeing could match it EVER:o
compared to the Russian Equivalent
I don't think Boeing could match it EVER:o
supratuner
04-12-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
WTF, LMAO
only one wreck in the whole history that ive heard of
it is kinda a pity
Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit.
WTF, LMAO
only one wreck in the whole history that ive heard of
it is kinda a pity
taranaki
04-12-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by supratuner
WTF, LMAO
only one wreck in the whole history that ive heard of
it is kinda a pity
until the Paris disaster of 2000,the plane had a faultless safety record.Even the Paris crash was not due to any mechanical failure,the tyre exploded on takeoff when it hit a piece of debris from another plane that had fallen onto the fastest stretch of the runway.
The international flight market,particularly the premium end,took a massive nosedive in the wake of Sept.11.The Concorde was seen by some as a potential terrorist target,and seat sales plummetted.
The design dates back to the 1960's and was so far ahead of its time that nothing else came close to matching it for commercial service in its entire lifespan.With the current aviation design thinking being focused more on maximum seat numbers rather than maximum speed,it is unlikely that a scheduled service will run at a comparable speed for a very long time.
Concorde is,was,and always will be a brilliant piece of engineering.Pick just hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
WTF, LMAO
only one wreck in the whole history that ive heard of
it is kinda a pity
until the Paris disaster of 2000,the plane had a faultless safety record.Even the Paris crash was not due to any mechanical failure,the tyre exploded on takeoff when it hit a piece of debris from another plane that had fallen onto the fastest stretch of the runway.
The international flight market,particularly the premium end,took a massive nosedive in the wake of Sept.11.The Concorde was seen by some as a potential terrorist target,and seat sales plummetted.
The design dates back to the 1960's and was so far ahead of its time that nothing else came close to matching it for commercial service in its entire lifespan.With the current aviation design thinking being focused more on maximum seat numbers rather than maximum speed,it is unlikely that a scheduled service will run at a comparable speed for a very long time.
Concorde is,was,and always will be a brilliant piece of engineering.Pick just hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
Stefanel1
04-13-2003, 08:09 AM
>Pick : "Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit"
It shows (again) your ignorance and your stupididy but hopefully, other people on this forum are smart !
The Concorde suffered from the Paris (Gonesse) crash in 2001 but the crisis which are crossing the aerial companies finised to kill this airplane.
Another thing : it pollutes a lot.
It shows (again) your ignorance and your stupididy but hopefully, other people on this forum are smart !
The Concorde suffered from the Paris (Gonesse) crash in 2001 but the crisis which are crossing the aerial companies finised to kill this airplane.
Another thing : it pollutes a lot.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-14-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Stefanel1
>Pick : "Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit"
It shows (again) your ignorance and your stupididy but hopefully, other people on this forum are smart !
The Concorde suffered from the Paris (Gonesse) crash in 2001 but the crisis which are crossing the aerial companies finised to kill this airplane.
Another thing : it pollutes a lot.
it pollutes at lower speeds because of it shape which doesn't produce an extreme amount of lift it uses alot of power from it engines to go slow.
It is more economically the faster and higher it flies but not all countries will allow it to fly at the speed of sound over their aerospace.
Pick are you sure you're not thinking about the Russian equivalent?
>Pick : "Good, it was an unsafe, worthless piece of shit"
It shows (again) your ignorance and your stupididy but hopefully, other people on this forum are smart !
The Concorde suffered from the Paris (Gonesse) crash in 2001 but the crisis which are crossing the aerial companies finised to kill this airplane.
Another thing : it pollutes a lot.
it pollutes at lower speeds because of it shape which doesn't produce an extreme amount of lift it uses alot of power from it engines to go slow.
It is more economically the faster and higher it flies but not all countries will allow it to fly at the speed of sound over their aerospace.
Pick are you sure you're not thinking about the Russian equivalent?
Pick
04-14-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Wrong wrong and wrong.Your ignorance is showing.Somehow from your previous posts I get the impression that if it had been designed and built in the U.S.A.,you would be applauding it,not dissing it.
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Wrong wrong and wrong.Your ignorance is showing.Somehow from your previous posts I get the impression that if it had been designed and built in the U.S.A.,you would be applauding it,not dissing it.
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
taranaki
04-14-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The facts are all against you,Pick,and your attitude sucks.
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The facts are all against you,Pick,and your attitude sucks.
Jimster
04-14-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Clearly you don't know what you are on about- the Paris disaster was as a result of it running over Debris (From a Boeing) and bursting a tyre- the planes are an absolute marvel of engineering- in fact 20-odd years on- NO commercial plane has ever matched the Concordes sheer technology- NEVER has a Concordes mechanicals failed during a flight, yet Boeing 747's require constant maintenence and pieces often fall off them.
I only hope that I can get myself a ride on one of these planes before they are pulled :(
I remember when one landed in Auckland back in 1999- I was up on business and as it flew over I literally stopped in the middle of the road to watch it fly past
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Clearly you don't know what you are on about- the Paris disaster was as a result of it running over Debris (From a Boeing) and bursting a tyre- the planes are an absolute marvel of engineering- in fact 20-odd years on- NO commercial plane has ever matched the Concordes sheer technology- NEVER has a Concordes mechanicals failed during a flight, yet Boeing 747's require constant maintenence and pieces often fall off them.
I only hope that I can get myself a ride on one of these planes before they are pulled :(
I remember when one landed in Auckland back in 1999- I was up on business and as it flew over I literally stopped in the middle of the road to watch it fly past
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-14-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
The facts are all against you,Pick,and your attitude sucks.
isn't that against freedom of speach? but alas i do concur your attitude doth suck poor pick
The facts are all against you,Pick,and your attitude sucks.
isn't that against freedom of speach? but alas i do concur your attitude doth suck poor pick
taranaki
04-14-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
isn't that against freedom of speach? but alas i do concur your attitude doth suck poor pick
I'm not stopping him from making an ass of himself[except where he breaches the AF guidelines],so no,I don't think I am impeding his right to free speech,I'm just exercising mine.:)
isn't that against freedom of speach? but alas i do concur your attitude doth suck poor pick
I'm not stopping him from making an ass of himself[except where he breaches the AF guidelines],so no,I don't think I am impeding his right to free speech,I'm just exercising mine.:)
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-14-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
I'm not stopping him from making an ass of himself[except where he breaches the AF guidelines],so no,I don't think I am impeding his right to free speech,I'm just exercising mine.:)
True
and he is doing a spectacular job at making himself look like the village idiot :o
I'm not stopping him from making an ass of himself[except where he breaches the AF guidelines],so no,I don't think I am impeding his right to free speech,I'm just exercising mine.:)
True
and he is doing a spectacular job at making himself look like the village idiot :o
1985_BMW318i
04-15-2003, 12:16 AM
Nope. I don't care where it was made. It was yunsafe. I don't care if you agtree. Once again, your ignorance shows through.
At the time of its development it was the best engineered feat of aviation in the world bar none. You simply have no knowledge of aviation. I'll prove you wrong on anything on aviation at any time.
At the time of its development it was the best engineered feat of aviation in the world bar none. You simply have no knowledge of aviation. I'll prove you wrong on anything on aviation at any time.
Pick
04-15-2003, 06:33 AM
Ok, I'll say this. It is marvelous and is an amazing machine. But A) It was extremely expensive and B) It was unsafe comparatively speaking to normal flights. I might just be seeing that one crash as the demise of the Concorde, so please excuse me. If you guys can come up with a crash to safe flight ratio for it, that would be an interesting statistic to see.
Jimster
04-15-2003, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Pick
Ok, I'll say this. It is marvelous and is an amazing machine. But A) It was extremely expensive and B) It was unsafe comparatively speaking to normal flights. I might just be seeing that one crash as the demise of the Concorde, so please excuse me. If you guys can come up with a crash to safe flight ratio for it, that would be an interesting statistic to see.
1 crash and 0 gear failiures in thousands of flights????? Sounds impressive to me
Ok, I'll say this. It is marvelous and is an amazing machine. But A) It was extremely expensive and B) It was unsafe comparatively speaking to normal flights. I might just be seeing that one crash as the demise of the Concorde, so please excuse me. If you guys can come up with a crash to safe flight ratio for it, that would be an interesting statistic to see.
1 crash and 0 gear failiures in thousands of flights????? Sounds impressive to me
YogsVR4
04-15-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Jimster
1 crash and 0 gear failiures in thousands of flights????? Sounds impressive to me
I wonder what the ration of flights to crash for the concord vs say a 747. Clearly the number of flights for the 747 dwarfs the concord, but it also has (unfortunatly) many more mishaps. Wouldn't that give an indication of how much safer (if at all) it really was?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
1 crash and 0 gear failiures in thousands of flights????? Sounds impressive to me
I wonder what the ration of flights to crash for the concord vs say a 747. Clearly the number of flights for the 747 dwarfs the concord, but it also has (unfortunatly) many more mishaps. Wouldn't that give an indication of how much safer (if at all) it really was?
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
rsxer45
04-15-2003, 11:10 AM
I found an interesting website regarding this issue...
http://www.safe-skies.com/safety_by_the_numbers.htm
It pretty much illustrates the point Yogs was making about the low number of flights the concorde had in comparison to other aircraft and how just looking at the flat statistics could be decieving when making an assessment about airplane saftey.
http://www.safe-skies.com/safety_by_the_numbers.htm
It pretty much illustrates the point Yogs was making about the low number of flights the concorde had in comparison to other aircraft and how just looking at the flat statistics could be decieving when making an assessment about airplane saftey.
YogsVR4
04-15-2003, 02:47 PM
excellent find rsxer :cool:
From my reading I thought this was relevent
Before the Concorde and A320 accidents of July and August 2000, the fatal accident rates (data from Airsafe.com) for the Concorde, Airbus A320 and newer generation Boeing 737 (A320 contemporary design) were:
Concorde: 0 accidents per million departures (0 per 80,000 flights), perfect
A320: .55 accidents per million departures (4 per 7.3 million)
737: .33 accidents per million departures (10 per 30.8 million)
Now, after one accident each for the Concorde and A320, their accident rates became, respectively:
Concorde, 12.5 per million (1 per 80,000) - The worst safety record of all major aircraft in operation today
A320, .68 per million (5 per 7.3 million), a 24% change for the worse. Still pretty good but now only HALF as good as the 737's
IF, heaven forbid, there were another 737 accident, their safety rate would go to:
.36 per million (11 per 30.8 million), a 9% change for the worse.
So it looks like that one accident really sckewed the numbers as far as accidents to flights. However, I still feel that it was an amazingly safe aircraft to fly on. I wish I had taken the opportunity to fly on one. :(
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
From my reading I thought this was relevent
Before the Concorde and A320 accidents of July and August 2000, the fatal accident rates (data from Airsafe.com) for the Concorde, Airbus A320 and newer generation Boeing 737 (A320 contemporary design) were:
Concorde: 0 accidents per million departures (0 per 80,000 flights), perfect
A320: .55 accidents per million departures (4 per 7.3 million)
737: .33 accidents per million departures (10 per 30.8 million)
Now, after one accident each for the Concorde and A320, their accident rates became, respectively:
Concorde, 12.5 per million (1 per 80,000) - The worst safety record of all major aircraft in operation today
A320, .68 per million (5 per 7.3 million), a 24% change for the worse. Still pretty good but now only HALF as good as the 737's
IF, heaven forbid, there were another 737 accident, their safety rate would go to:
.36 per million (11 per 30.8 million), a 9% change for the worse.
So it looks like that one accident really sckewed the numbers as far as accidents to flights. However, I still feel that it was an amazingly safe aircraft to fly on. I wish I had taken the opportunity to fly on one. :(
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Pick
04-16-2003, 06:16 AM
I think this argument is settled. That's the info I wanted to see. THe one wreck really tainted its safety record. Sorry guys, I was talking out of my ass about it earlier. Dumbass me!:biggrin2: It really was an amazing machine.
Stefanel1
10-20-2003, 12:34 PM
Here it is. Next Friday will be the last fly of the Concorde, the 24th October 2003.
150 000 to 250 000 people are expected on the board of the pists, to see the last fly of the White bird.
RIP ! :(
150 000 to 250 000 people are expected on the board of the pists, to see the last fly of the White bird.
RIP ! :(
NSX-R-SSJ20K
10-21-2003, 04:51 AM
i watched a program about concorde. OMG that thing is completely nuts. The fuel tanks are used as heat sinks. They shift alot of fuel to the rear (not sure) during supersonic flight and the whole thing heats up like crazy due to friction hence the fuel tanks are used as heat sinks but the plane is still really damn hot.
T4 Primera
10-23-2003, 11:18 AM
For those of you more suspicious than most - or just not willing to accept the first (or second even) explanation you are presented with - Here's a link to one theory on the Concorde, tied in with 9-11, France, Russia, Germany, USA, Airbus and Boeing.
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/concorde.html
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/concorde.html
taranaki
10-23-2003, 05:48 PM
Sad to see our local newspaper headline refer to the demise of Concorde by refering to it as having safety issues.One crash in forty years.....Journalists are ignorant assholes.
The Concorde was a masterstroke of design.Nobody has every rivalled it for fast,safe and reliable passenger transport.It attracted many different admirers.Even in its final days,it still manages to generate interesting press.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3204699.stm
The Concorde was a masterstroke of design.Nobody has every rivalled it for fast,safe and reliable passenger transport.It attracted many different admirers.Even in its final days,it still manages to generate interesting press.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3204699.stm
replicant_008
10-23-2003, 07:30 PM
Concorde was a piece of genius albeit flawed. One of the key reasons it never became a commercial success was that the US banned commercial supersonic flight over the Continental US - ostensibly the NTSB considered that the sonic boom could be dangerous/harmful...
Some have surmised that the US military was embarassed to have the situation that its intercept and air superiority aircraft would have been incapable at the time of intercepting Concorde which at the time (and to some extent currently) has the ability to fly at sustained supersonic speeds across vast distances... Others have suggested that US passenger aircraft manufacturers saw it as a threat to their relatively slower and less high tech bulk carrier fleet using wide-bodied sub sonic aircraft.
Imagine being able to do the hop between LA and NY in 4 to 5 hours... and if the same level of development had occurred to Concorde compared to the original 747-100 and the current 747-400 in terms of efficiency, range and functionality...
Some have surmised that the US military was embarassed to have the situation that its intercept and air superiority aircraft would have been incapable at the time of intercepting Concorde which at the time (and to some extent currently) has the ability to fly at sustained supersonic speeds across vast distances... Others have suggested that US passenger aircraft manufacturers saw it as a threat to their relatively slower and less high tech bulk carrier fleet using wide-bodied sub sonic aircraft.
Imagine being able to do the hop between LA and NY in 4 to 5 hours... and if the same level of development had occurred to Concorde compared to the original 747-100 and the current 747-400 in terms of efficiency, range and functionality...
Prelewd
10-23-2003, 09:04 PM
The last ticket sold today on ebay for some 63 thousand dollars. It wasn't just a ticket though, but included hotel stay for 3 days, limo transportation, and a ticket home on a regular bird.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
10-26-2003, 08:33 AM
i think the significant points here are that this is the only supersonic passenger jet everbuilt and no one has come even close to it in recent years.
Sad thing is that although BA doesn't want to run it they won't sell it to Sir Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines) who said he'd pay whatever amount to get hold of them and he also pointed out that BA made a profit from Concorde BBC said it was a measley £25 million profit. Ahem from 7 planes that really isn't bad at all. Considering also that BA paid £1 each for the planes that the UK government practically gave to them. Not to mention a total of 11billion to develop it. Which no one had planned on spending it was all the result of the anglo-french alliance on the project. Considering it was conceived and deveoped between late 50's to 1969 when it was test flown it is amazing that such a craft was built in that time. It does seem like the world is taking huge leaps and bounds backwards. Bloody Eco weenies.
Sad thing is that although BA doesn't want to run it they won't sell it to Sir Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines) who said he'd pay whatever amount to get hold of them and he also pointed out that BA made a profit from Concorde BBC said it was a measley £25 million profit. Ahem from 7 planes that really isn't bad at all. Considering also that BA paid £1 each for the planes that the UK government practically gave to them. Not to mention a total of 11billion to develop it. Which no one had planned on spending it was all the result of the anglo-french alliance on the project. Considering it was conceived and deveoped between late 50's to 1969 when it was test flown it is amazing that such a craft was built in that time. It does seem like the world is taking huge leaps and bounds backwards. Bloody Eco weenies.
Prelewd
10-27-2003, 12:20 AM
Bloody Eco weenies.
Well put..
Well put..
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025