concorde

[rover2701]

am I the only who doesnt care if concorde takes to the sky's again. BA was given the aircraft, its a rich mans mode of transport. The tax payer has paid for it and most will never fly it. Who does it benefit? :mad:

[flaps to 60]

rover

I think you will be one of the few who wouldn't be sad to see it not fly again.

After all it keeps 40 pilots off the "I want a job line".

It was a towering British and French achievment.

And it gives the "I'll move next to an airport and moan about aircraft noise" morons something to complain about.

I have to say that around London it is sorely missed and have to use Tim to set my watch by.
:p

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: flaps to 60 ]

[gordonroxburgh]

The 'main attraction' is most definately missed by those inside and outside the aviation industry around Heathrow.

The technical feat that is Concorde has still not been matched even with today's aviation know how.

The best thing to sum up what was achieved by Concorde is a quote by Sir Geroge Edwards the then chairman of BAC to a passegner on an inaugural route flight to the passengers comment of "Mach2 travel feels no different to that on a normal airliner." Sir George replied, in a comment that summed up the achievement totally, " Yes, That was the difficult bit!"

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Gordo. ]

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Gordo. ]

[Ididntdoit]

Who does it benefit? Well I guess its a bit like the moon landings, the international space station, there is no direct tangible benefit its only later that advance's made filter through. In Concordes case these remain to be seen, but it surely is at least usefull to engineers designing future supersonic/sonic cruiser aircraft. On a financial basis, yes it was a dead loss for British and French taxpayers but only because the financial circumstances of the times (oil crisis) made airlines cancel their options.Certainly it provided jobs for a generation of engineers/designers whose subsequent experience was unfortunately wasted. The B747 was initially built at a loss by Boeing and it was only the US govt through military subsidy (it was based on a military airlifter design) that kept it going in its development phase. I would argue that its only through circumstance/hindsight that one was a sucess the other a failure(financially). Anyway as an aviation enthusiast the only better sight than Concorde soaring through the skys is surely a Vulcan doing a low level pass at Farnborough.
As regards todays use of Concorde, yes we should all travel equally by the same means of transport but we dont, and most of us aspire to driving a Ferrari so why should it be different with aircraft. I bet you dont drive round in a trabant or to be economically/ecologically viable a 2CV? or Smart or electric car. Same goes with girls/blokes, it is possible to survive on the low maintenance variety but you alway.....(this has been edited by my girlfriend). :cool: :cool: :cool:

[BUMPFF]

Well, Rover, the same could be said of the great ocean liners. But, like Concorde, they represented national pride, progress and engineering achievement.

[direct chase]

Concorde may have arrived at the expense of the tax payer, but its design and the experience of its manufacturer's have helped the future generations of aircraft. ( particularly Msr Airbus)

OK BA have gotit, but they have spent a huge amount of cash keeping it flying, and I for one am very proud of it achievement, every time I see it fly.

Th story of the flying control design for both this and the lightning shows just how advanced the British aersospace industry was at this time

[OneWorld22]

I always think how dull and boring the world would be if we didn't have great technological achievments like the moon landings and concorde to inspire us. I know the argument is how many hospitals could we build, or how many starving children we could feed for the immense costs of these programmes and the argument is a valid one.

But I do think we are a race that needs to be inspired, it keeps us evolving and motivated to better ourselves. And maybe amidst all this technology we may one day find a cure for world hunger and sickness, it might come as an off-shoot from the space programme, from the exploration of other planets etc.

[rover2701]

I agree with everyones setiments. It is a brilliant technological achievment and a fantastic sight to behold. Yes we do need inspirational engineering fetes. (I have just finished reading 'A Verical Empire' By C.N.Hill. Its the story of the UK rocket and Space programme 1950/1971. Yes we did have one and very successful it was. As usual the treasury and politicions conspired to kill it.) However Concorde may now have an image problem and may never attract the number of passengers that it used to. It must have cost a fortune to carry out the extensive mod programme that followed the Paris accident, and there is a rumour that Air France may not return their aircraft to service. :rolleyes: ;) :cool:

[SPIT]

Are the passengers informed that they are flying in a (virtualy)vintage Aircraft 27/28 years in service???

[stagger]

The oldest BA Concorde in service was delivered in 1976.

[SPIT]

OK
So what's TWO years :rolleyes:

[Chris Lock]

Mankind has never taken a technological step backwards, what are we gonna tell our granchildren "sonny I can remember when we
could cross the Atlantic in half the time,
back in my day of supersonic flight!"
Long live the concorde and damn the cost
effective torpedoes.

[Disruptive]

I remember rostering the crew for the first Concorde flight to BAH. The Flight Engineer was fed up!!!!!!! he was the only three ringer on the entire crew.

[stagger]

Sky Guy states that "mankind has never taken a technological step backwards."

Well, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I remember when it was possible to travel between London and Leeds by train in less than 2 hours. Current scheduled journey times are more like 2.5 hours (this step backward predates the speed restrictions imposed after the Hatfield crash).

The future?

:eek: ATC privatisation :eek:

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: stagger ]

[Chris Lock]

Well, to talk about rail service in Britain and technology together in the same sentence is somewhat of an oxymoron, hehe ;)

[PilotsPal]

Nonsense Sky Guy. The National Rail Museum in York is full of beautiful steam locomotives whose various designs led the world.

Mallard's speed record still stands.

[VnV2178B]

Dare I add, without sounding like a trainspotter, that the inter-city class 43 is STILL the fastest service diesel in the world...

VnV...

[The Guvnor]

... and if we want to talk about generally cr*p service, let's talk about Amtrak, shall we? :D :D :D

Or there's always Spoornet (South Africa) or VIA Rail (Canada)....

[PAXboy]

Whilst I too marvel and delight at the sight and sound etc. etc. let me give you a very practical reasons for it's retention.

Money.

There are many Americans who use Concorde when visiting the U.K. If it did not exist, they would probably have given their money for first class seats PanAm/TWA/AA/United/Conti, over the years.

Concorde helps money to circulate. People are paid to maintain it and clean it and operate it. Tickets, be they rack-rate or charter, if there are people on Conc. the UK benefits.

[InFinRetirement]

Well, very shortly the beautiful lady will once again grace the skies over my home - usually about 1710hrs - as 02 back from JFK.

I will as usual get into the garden and watch her for the very few moments as she passes. On board perhaps will be one her Captains who is a very avid PPRuNer, a friend, and one who loves her to bits.

I cannot imagine British aviation without Concorde. Especially considering the depth of technological requirement it took to get her in the air, and the millions of pounds it has just taken to get her back into service again.

NO! The worlds skies are better for having Concorde. British aviation is richer for having her, and British hearts are fuller for her just being Concorde.

[humpty]

Britain is not richer for having Concorde - the ticket money is peanuts compared to 'real' services.

We do go backwards in technology - the last time a man landed on the moon I was 4!

To some people a van Gogh is worth $20M and change - I've seen several, I'd give £50.

And Concorde is still the best looking thing in the sky.

There's nothing particularly practical or financially attractive about it. It's just a fantastic piece of art, and manages to fly at Mach 2 into the bargain!

[The Guvnor]

I've flown Concorde over 30 times, and it's the only way I can have a meeting at LHR at 0900; one at JFK at 1000 and be back in London again in time for dinner - with no jetlag.

I've met some incredibly interesting people on board as well.

Sure, it doesn't offer any of the comforts of BA First's private cabins. But who cares?

It offers the most precious commodity of all.

Time.

[InFinRetirement]

Humpty

You say:

Britain is not richer for having Concorde - the ticket money is peanuts compared to 'real' services.

We do go backwards in technology - the last time a man landed on the moon I was 4!

On the first, you miss the point. I didn't say that Britain was richer - I said British aviation is. It is because it is there! Because it has flown successfully since it was born, and because it will probably be flying when you are, let's see - 64? Very simply put, as with a lot of business it is worth having just to say you have it. Now do you get the point?

On the second quote. Where have you been? The advancements in technology has been tremendous - especially since you were 4. TSR2, what a tremendous piece of technology that was, and had it not been for the politicians it would still be flying with NO need at for all Tornado! One example only. There are dozens more.

By the way you can buy a magnificent print of TSR2 towards the PPRuNe Fund for 45 plus p&p. :D

And for just a little interest Concorde was over EPM last night - maybe doing NDB's? Don't know, just know it was there.

[humpty]

InFin,

Point 1: fair comment, but just making the point that money's not really the issue here.

2nd Point about going backwards: I'm not saying everything goes backwards just that sometimes folks spend a pile of cash doing something really really clever, and then it never/rarely/not for a long time gets done again.

Guess I was just saying (through the beer fog!) that as a piece of engineering it is real smart, but that this is not the reason why some people feel so strongly about it, it's the fact that it is a fantastic piece of sculpture (which incidentally goes at Mach 2 etc etc).

Never thought I'd see myself writing about art and sculpture!

You know, I have this horrible feeling that we might actually be agreeing on some of this!

[Travelling Toolbox]

I remember reading a book years ago called "Sigh for a Merlin". That invoked the same sort of awe and admiration for a briliant piece of pommie engineering that still gives me goosebumps when I have the privilege of seeing/hearing one fly over.

State of the art? Yes back then - now, No. Economical? Back then who cared? Now - No. Awesome? Every cubic inch of it back then and now!!!

I just gotta agree that this (Concorde) is art we are talking about here. And one of the best examples ever likely to grace the skies.

That someone could design something that was both beautiful to behold and worked as advertised without the benefit of supercomputers to crunch the numbers for the backroom boys is trully amazing.

I only wish it was seen more often than the odd QE2 link up charter in Oz.

Just the thought of one on short finals with that "praying mantis" attitude and little wisps curling off the wingtips. Nothing comes close folks. I'm just thankful that someone has the good sense to keep such a testiment to technical skill and design flying.

I look forward to seeing her again and envy you guys that just have to look up from your garden to see her.

:) :) :) :)

[InFinRetirement]

Hey Humpty! I think we agree alright.

I like your "art and sculpture" concept. Concorde is like no other and does have the hand of a clever sculptor.

As for Mach 2 very true of course. But then TSR2 could have flown at Mach 2.75. But we threw it away! Kinda supports what you were saying doesn't it! The worst bit is that Callaghan, Jenkins and Healy, each blamed the other for cancelling it. Just shows they didn't know what they were doing. But Lord Louis Mountbatten did. He sold TSR2 down the river!

How about that print, do you want one?

:D

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: InFinRetirement ]

[Unwell_Raptor]

If Duncan Smith wins, and takes the UK out of Europe, can we go back to calling it Concord?

[XV208 SNOOPY]

With tong in cheek, if Duncan Smith gets in, being an ex Pongo, wonder if he will help the military not hinder it?
Just imagine, replacing those knackered Tornados with something much better. Now if BAES could go to Cosford/Duxford, take some photos and measurements, and with a bit of modern technology, just imagine what could be done with the basic TRS2 design! :D :D

No sorry, Uncle Sam would realise we would wipe the worlds export markets again, and block it! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh well, what might have been.....hmmmm...Concord, take the seats out, put in a bomb bay, no, never be allowed, no one has any fighters that could get any where near it :eek:

Tong now out of cheek,
saw her the other evening. Second best looking aircraft in the skys, after myself!! Welcome back! Hope its back in full service VERY soon!

[Jackonicko]

The amount of money spent on Concorde now looks tiny - and even then, represented a good value-for-money bit of investment in advanced technology, maintenance of vital industries and regional job creation.

And in the process BAC and Aerospatiale produced a piece of flying sculpture which is also an undisputed technological achievement, which holds all records for supersonic flight time, and which has made millions of pounds of operating profits for its operators. OK, so its development was subsidised by the tax-payer. Anyone want to tell me that other 'firsts' haven't been just as cossetted? How much for the 707 without the cushion of all those KC-135s, and without the technology developed for the B-47 and B-52? All the costs of Concorde were allocated to that programme, and production was cut short by an oil crisis and recession, and by 'not-invented-here' obstructionism and jealousy when it came to getting vital permissions for certain types of operation.

InFinR: A Concorde friend? Who's also a PPRuNer? Please, please, please ask him to add his two penny-worth to "Did the pilot originally scheduled to fly that Concorde refuse?" which has developed into a discussion about the likely effect of weight on unstick speeds, performance, etc. Expert insight would be invaluable.

[brockenspectre]

Does anyone have any information on when we might see Concorde on a non-passenger carrying flight into LHR?

Sad to say but a couple of evenings I have dashed to the kitchen window at the bottom of the Biggin stack thinking I could hear the "old girl" to be embarrassed at the sight of something totally other!! Concorde has (did have) such a unique sound signature that I am ashamed to admit to what I have been doing!!

Please ... when will she head for 27 again?

:D

[InFinRetirement]

Jacko, I can assure you that the Concorde Captain to whom I refer will have seen your post here, and the thread on R&N. It is then for him to decide if he wants to be drawn. I am sure you will understand that I would not presume to ask him, even though we are friends.

The answer will surface I am sure.

[humpty]

Infin, re the TSR2 print, I think we're about to fall out!

In my humble opinion, the TSR2 is one ugly aeroplane, don't know anything about what it would have been like operationally, but pretty was never on the design criteria.

"Light blue touchpaper and stand well back"