I read this:
As it is, the tensile and mechanical properties of titanium versus stainless steel must be different enough that it would have made a difference, otherwise the court would not have come to the conclusion that it did.
Yet this has remained unanswered:
Did the court concluded that it made a difference, or did it conclude that an incorrect material was used? Tests made at Goodyear using both titanium and SS strips seems to indicate no difference in results.
Meanwhile:
There were 70 Concorde tyre burst events between 1976 and 1999. 7 of those events resulted in metallic shards piercing the fuel tanks. The metal came from the water deflectors on the undercarriage. BA added additional deflectors to their Concordes to deflect tyre and water deflector shards... but AF didn't.
The aircraft was overweight and took off downwind, yet the French court has assigned not one ounce of blame with the operator. Also, what is the significance of the missing wheel spacer? Were they located on the same bogey as the unlucky tire that met with the titanium strip?