Concorde - Danger to the public?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BOAC
The thread title is obviously still here (now with a different person as originator), but the article which started the discussion and some comments are gone.
BTW the newspaper article was written in FRENCH
regards
BTW the newspaper article was written in FRENCH
regards
5K Fund
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the Concordski ?
It's claimed that Aleksei Tupolev designed this airplane , the "story/rumor" is that MI5/MI6 on purpose leaked the plans of the Concorde with some bad aerodynamic data in it to keep them busy for a while?
It's claimed that Aleksei Tupolev designed this airplane , the "story/rumor" is that MI5/MI6 on purpose leaked the plans of the Concorde with some bad aerodynamic data in it to keep them busy for a while?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please look at who 'released' this report.. a lawyer representing the family of the Captain of the Paris aircraft.
Sadly the cynic in me reads that as a CYA exercise... place blame on the aircraft first.. then whatever the crew may or may not have done was irrelevant as the aircraft itself was dangerous and everybody knew it but was covering up...
Statisitcally Concorde was a very dangerous aircraft ot fly on.. limited hours overall and a single massive accident serves to skew the figures....
But she was looked after more carefully than any other aircraft ever used in commercial service, flown by highly trained and skilled crews and maintained by equally dedicated and skilled ground staff.....
Yet she is still viewed as dangerous...
But before you start bashing the USA or saying she was all British and aren't we wonderful and let down by Governments remember who released this report.... and also remember that without the Government Concorde would never have entered commercial service at all..
Sadly the cynic in me reads that as a CYA exercise... place blame on the aircraft first.. then whatever the crew may or may not have done was irrelevant as the aircraft itself was dangerous and everybody knew it but was covering up...
Statisitcally Concorde was a very dangerous aircraft ot fly on.. limited hours overall and a single massive accident serves to skew the figures....
But she was looked after more carefully than any other aircraft ever used in commercial service, flown by highly trained and skilled crews and maintained by equally dedicated and skilled ground staff.....
Yet she is still viewed as dangerous...
But before you start bashing the USA or saying she was all British and aren't we wonderful and let down by Governments remember who released this report.... and also remember that without the Government Concorde would never have entered commercial service at all..
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read somewhere that the worldwide 737 fleet clocks up the total hours flown by the Concorde in a week. If the 737 had a similar safety record that would equate to a crash a week! Suddenly Concorde doesn't look that safe. Would I risk it? Absolutely!
Here the incidents:
On 25 July 2000 an Air France Concorde, registered F-BTSC, departed Paris-Charles de Gaulle for a flight (4590) to New York. The aircraft could not gain height after takeoff. Fire was seen trailing the aircraft as it came down near Paris, crashing into hotel 'Hotellisimo' and bursting into flames.
30 JAN 2000
Concorde British Airways, G-....
A Concorde which had just taken off from Heathrow turned back and landed at about 1330 GMT after a warning light came on in the cockpit. The chartered flight BA9010 had 100 passengers on board for a three-and-a-half hour flight round the Bay of Biscay.
29 JAN 2000
Concorde British Airways, G-....
On approach to London-LHR following a flight from Barbados, the aircraft suffered an engine failure.
24 AUG 1999
Concorde British Airways (2x), G-....
On August 24, 1999, British Airways flight BAW2 departed off runway 22R at JFK as flight BAW1 was inbound to intercept the localizer to runway 4R. Both airplanes were Concordes. The airplanes passed within 800 feet vertically and .7 mile horizontally of each other. ()NTSB
06 JUN 1999
Concorde British Airways, G-....
Flight BA002 made a safe emergency landing at London-Heathrow following hydraulic problems. The aircraft was on approach following a fligth (BA002) from New York.
11 APR 1999
Concorde Air France, F-BVFB
The nosegear could not be raised following takeoff from New York-JFK for a flight to Paris (AF002); the crew returned to New York.
08 OCT 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAC
British Airways flight 001, experienced a partial separation of the lower rudder while in cruise flight over the North Atlantic, off the coast of New Foundland. ()NTSB
25 MAY 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAC
While climbing through FL410 a slight rumble as experienced, which turned out to be the separation of a section of the left hand middle elevon (5ft x 3ft). The aircraft returned; large vibration was noted through mach 1.1 with less vibration at mach 0.90 and during final approach..
03 JAN 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-....
A Concorde flight from New York had attempted one approach that was hampered by high winds. On the second approach the captain issued a PAN alert, reporting a fuel emergency. This was followed five minutes later by a full Mayday alert 1.5 miles (2.5 kilometres) from the airport.
27 MAY 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAE
The nr.2 engine was shut down due to thrust reverser bucket oscillation (between 0deg and 37deg) at 6000ft and 260kts.
08 MAR 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAB
Nr.2 engine thrust reverse light failed to cancel. The engine was shut down and fuel was jettisoned. Brake and steering lights briefly illuminated on landing. Warning lights reset at taxi speed. The nr 2 engine thrust reverser bucket subsequently repositioned and the motor locked out at 10deg. .
07 FEB 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAE
Vibration evident during supersonic cruise at FL540. The nr. 3 engines surged and then stopped, and nr 4 engine oil pressure was low. A 'Pan' was declared and the aircraft diverted.
?? MAY 1996
Concorde British Airways, G-B...
The nr 1 engine was shut down due to low fuel pressure warnings and a decrease in nr.1 tank contents. A 'Pan' was declared and the aircraft returned.
26 MAY 1994
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAG
Engine nr 3 was shut down due to high oil pressure; on finals the nr. 2 engine had to be shut down as well.
25 OCT 1993
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-....
While taxying for takeoff (London-Heathrow - Washington) the aircraft suffered a brake lock. This caused a maingear tire to burst. Fragments of the water deflector caused some holes in the fuel tank.
15 JUL 1993
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
During landing roll at London-Heathrow, the right hand maingear tyre burst due to brake seizure. Debris caused damage to the wing and hydraulic problems. The no.3 engine was damaged as well, becoming stuck in the reverse position.
21 MAR 1992
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAB
The British Airways Concorde, G-BOAB was on a scheduled transatlantic passenger flight from London to New York. After the aircraft had been airborne for 1 hour and 57 minutes, when cruising at FL 530 and Mach 2, the crew noticed a momentary vibration which, in the absence of any unusual indications on the flight deck instruments, they assumed to be caused by a brief engine surge. However, approximately one hour later, as the aircraft was descending and decelerating below Mach 1.4, there was a sudden onset of severe vibration that was felt throughout the aircraft. Although the crew were unaware of the source of the vibration, portions of the upper rudder were probably separating from the aircraft at this time. In attempting to diagnose the problem it was found that increasing power on No 2 engine appeared to cause the vibration level to increase and accordingly, as a precaution, this engine was shut down. Aircraft handling was apparently unaffected until during the manual landing when more than normal right rudder was needed. However, an otherwise uneventful 3-engine approach and landing was carried out at JF Kennedy International Airport, New York. Upon landing, the crew were informed that a large section of the upper rudder was missing.
04 JAN 1991
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAE
While en route between London and New York, portions of the upper rudder separated. A normal landing at New York was made.
12 APR 1989
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
While climbing through FL440, while no a world trip leg Christchurch-Sydney, portions of the upper rudder separated. Aircraft handling was not affected, and a normal approach and landing at Syndey where made.
19 JUL 1988
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAG
The aircraft suffreed 2 hydraulic system failures. An emergency as declared and the Concorde veered off the runway because of inoperative brakes.
14 DEC 1981
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAD
After takeoff from New York the left maingear failed to retract because the gear truck wasn't level. The aircraft returned to New York. It was discovered that the pitch dampers were low in nitrogen.
19 FEB 1981
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BTSD
During takeoff from Washington-Dulles Airport a tire on the left hand maingear blew. The flight diverted to New York-JFK with one engine shut down due to vibration.
16 SEP 1980
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
A tire blew on takeoff from Washington-Dulles Airport. Upon landing, pieces of tire damaged the engine and airframe.
5 NOV 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
During the landing roll at Washington-Dulles, the aircraft hit 2 deer on the runway with the right maingear, damaging the nr.4 brake fan.
21 SEP 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFB
An engine was shut down due to a pneumatic problem en route near Boston.
21 JUL 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
On takeoff from Washington-Dulles, a tire blew. At FL270 a compressor stall was experienced probably due to foreign object damage.
14 JUN 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFC
While taking off from Washington two tyres on the left hand maingear blew. The gear could not be retracted, so the crew elected to return to Washington. Some circuitry was damaged after having been hit by debris from the tires. Debris also caused a fuel and hydraulic leak.
29 DEC 1978
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAC
An engine was shut down after departing New York. The secondary air door was found to be inoperative.
10 DEC 1977
Concorde 101 Air France, F-....
One engine had to be shut down prior to landing.
28 NOV 1977
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
The aircraft made a bad landing at Dakar, Senegal, crushing the tailwheel and scraping the rear of the engines over several hundred feet. The damage was not thought excessive and the Aircraft contiuned in service with Air France, but was withdrawn and stored in 1982. The aircaft was dismanteled in 1992.
Here the incidents:
On 25 July 2000 an Air France Concorde, registered F-BTSC, departed Paris-Charles de Gaulle for a flight (4590) to New York. The aircraft could not gain height after takeoff. Fire was seen trailing the aircraft as it came down near Paris, crashing into hotel 'Hotellisimo' and bursting into flames.
30 JAN 2000
Concorde British Airways, G-....
A Concorde which had just taken off from Heathrow turned back and landed at about 1330 GMT after a warning light came on in the cockpit. The chartered flight BA9010 had 100 passengers on board for a three-and-a-half hour flight round the Bay of Biscay.
29 JAN 2000
Concorde British Airways, G-....
On approach to London-LHR following a flight from Barbados, the aircraft suffered an engine failure.
24 AUG 1999
Concorde British Airways (2x), G-....
On August 24, 1999, British Airways flight BAW2 departed off runway 22R at JFK as flight BAW1 was inbound to intercept the localizer to runway 4R. Both airplanes were Concordes. The airplanes passed within 800 feet vertically and .7 mile horizontally of each other. ()NTSB
06 JUN 1999
Concorde British Airways, G-....
Flight BA002 made a safe emergency landing at London-Heathrow following hydraulic problems. The aircraft was on approach following a fligth (BA002) from New York.
11 APR 1999
Concorde Air France, F-BVFB
The nosegear could not be raised following takeoff from New York-JFK for a flight to Paris (AF002); the crew returned to New York.
08 OCT 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAC
British Airways flight 001, experienced a partial separation of the lower rudder while in cruise flight over the North Atlantic, off the coast of New Foundland. ()NTSB
25 MAY 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAC
While climbing through FL410 a slight rumble as experienced, which turned out to be the separation of a section of the left hand middle elevon (5ft x 3ft). The aircraft returned; large vibration was noted through mach 1.1 with less vibration at mach 0.90 and during final approach..
03 JAN 1998
Concorde British Airways, G-....
A Concorde flight from New York had attempted one approach that was hampered by high winds. On the second approach the captain issued a PAN alert, reporting a fuel emergency. This was followed five minutes later by a full Mayday alert 1.5 miles (2.5 kilometres) from the airport.
27 MAY 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAE
The nr.2 engine was shut down due to thrust reverser bucket oscillation (between 0deg and 37deg) at 6000ft and 260kts.
08 MAR 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAB
Nr.2 engine thrust reverse light failed to cancel. The engine was shut down and fuel was jettisoned. Brake and steering lights briefly illuminated on landing. Warning lights reset at taxi speed. The nr 2 engine thrust reverser bucket subsequently repositioned and the motor locked out at 10deg. .
07 FEB 1997
Concorde British Airways, G-BOAE
Vibration evident during supersonic cruise at FL540. The nr. 3 engines surged and then stopped, and nr 4 engine oil pressure was low. A 'Pan' was declared and the aircraft diverted.
?? MAY 1996
Concorde British Airways, G-B...
The nr 1 engine was shut down due to low fuel pressure warnings and a decrease in nr.1 tank contents. A 'Pan' was declared and the aircraft returned.
26 MAY 1994
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAG
Engine nr 3 was shut down due to high oil pressure; on finals the nr. 2 engine had to be shut down as well.
25 OCT 1993
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-....
While taxying for takeoff (London-Heathrow - Washington) the aircraft suffered a brake lock. This caused a maingear tire to burst. Fragments of the water deflector caused some holes in the fuel tank.
15 JUL 1993
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
During landing roll at London-Heathrow, the right hand maingear tyre burst due to brake seizure. Debris caused damage to the wing and hydraulic problems. The no.3 engine was damaged as well, becoming stuck in the reverse position.
21 MAR 1992
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAB
The British Airways Concorde, G-BOAB was on a scheduled transatlantic passenger flight from London to New York. After the aircraft had been airborne for 1 hour and 57 minutes, when cruising at FL 530 and Mach 2, the crew noticed a momentary vibration which, in the absence of any unusual indications on the flight deck instruments, they assumed to be caused by a brief engine surge. However, approximately one hour later, as the aircraft was descending and decelerating below Mach 1.4, there was a sudden onset of severe vibration that was felt throughout the aircraft. Although the crew were unaware of the source of the vibration, portions of the upper rudder were probably separating from the aircraft at this time. In attempting to diagnose the problem it was found that increasing power on No 2 engine appeared to cause the vibration level to increase and accordingly, as a precaution, this engine was shut down. Aircraft handling was apparently unaffected until during the manual landing when more than normal right rudder was needed. However, an otherwise uneventful 3-engine approach and landing was carried out at JF Kennedy International Airport, New York. Upon landing, the crew were informed that a large section of the upper rudder was missing.
04 JAN 1991
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAE
While en route between London and New York, portions of the upper rudder separated. A normal landing at New York was made.
12 APR 1989
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
While climbing through FL440, while no a world trip leg Christchurch-Sydney, portions of the upper rudder separated. Aircraft handling was not affected, and a normal approach and landing at Syndey where made.
19 JUL 1988
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAG
The aircraft suffreed 2 hydraulic system failures. An emergency as declared and the Concorde veered off the runway because of inoperative brakes.
14 DEC 1981
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAD
After takeoff from New York the left maingear failed to retract because the gear truck wasn't level. The aircraft returned to New York. It was discovered that the pitch dampers were low in nitrogen.
19 FEB 1981
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BTSD
During takeoff from Washington-Dulles Airport a tire on the left hand maingear blew. The flight diverted to New York-JFK with one engine shut down due to vibration.
16 SEP 1980
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAF
A tire blew on takeoff from Washington-Dulles Airport. Upon landing, pieces of tire damaged the engine and airframe.
5 NOV 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
During the landing roll at Washington-Dulles, the aircraft hit 2 deer on the runway with the right maingear, damaging the nr.4 brake fan.
21 SEP 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFB
An engine was shut down due to a pneumatic problem en route near Boston.
21 JUL 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
On takeoff from Washington-Dulles, a tire blew. At FL270 a compressor stall was experienced probably due to foreign object damage.
14 JUN 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFC
While taking off from Washington two tyres on the left hand maingear blew. The gear could not be retracted, so the crew elected to return to Washington. Some circuitry was damaged after having been hit by debris from the tires. Debris also caused a fuel and hydraulic leak.
29 DEC 1978
Concorde 102 British Airways, G-BOAC
An engine was shut down after departing New York. The secondary air door was found to be inoperative.
10 DEC 1977
Concorde 101 Air France, F-....
One engine had to be shut down prior to landing.
28 NOV 1977
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFD
The aircraft made a bad landing at Dakar, Senegal, crushing the tailwheel and scraping the rear of the engines over several hundred feet. The damage was not thought excessive and the Aircraft contiuned in service with Air France, but was withdrawn and stored in 1982. The aircaft was dismanteled in 1992.
Last edited by wheels up; 20th Sep 2005 at 23:14.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of serious airframe probs as well as engine.
Many IFSDs (in flt eng shut-downs).
The IFSD stats compared to a subsonic transport would look bad.
TBO on the hot ends was low.
some bad aerodynamic data in it to keep them busy for a while?
*************************************************
Teee Heee
That\'s probably why the C Ski needed canards???????
Many IFSDs (in flt eng shut-downs).
The IFSD stats compared to a subsonic transport would look bad.
TBO on the hot ends was low.
some bad aerodynamic data in it to keep them busy for a while?
*************************************************
Teee Heee
That\'s probably why the C Ski needed canards???????
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes one or two major items there especially regarding the rudder delaminations , but the rest are problems which every airliner suffers.
Mind you the entry for the incident on the 5 November 1979 can hardly be attributed to bad design as it describes how the Aircraft hit two DEER on landing with the only damage being to a brake fan. Some tough old girl that Concorde I would say
Mind you the entry for the incident on the 5 November 1979 can hardly be attributed to bad design as it describes how the Aircraft hit two DEER on landing with the only damage being to a brake fan. Some tough old girl that Concorde I would say
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is my perception wrong or are there some of our friends from the USA who cannot accept the rest of the world, and UK in particular, can do some things better. We in England try and give credit where it is due, not denigrate anything better than we have done.
<The statistics can be quite surprising sometimes.>
That's true. But to para-phrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics." He may have been commenting on how statistics may be misleading or used to mislead. While accidents per takeoff/landing cycle is one measure often quoted in aviation safety statistics, so is accidents per hour flown. Obviously, which statistic you choose to quote would affect the relative safety comparison of a short-haul vs long-haul aircraft types. How much payload was hauled what distance in the 747 vs the 737? What if you measured the risk in terms of accidents per payload miles? Or speed? Costs and risks (challenges) increase exponentially when we seek to fly long distances at supersonic speeds. These cost and risk factors are probably (IMHO) responsible for leaving Concorde as the only civil supersonic transport through it's entire service life. (Disregarding the Soviet effort.) But the benefit of time savings must be weighed against this risk and the cost. The lowest risk and lowest cost option is to merely stay home. Risk of being involved in an air crash is then nearly zero. No risk, no cost and no reward. Too bad it was such a small proportion of the public that would or could pay for a Concorde ticket. Had it been otherwise, Lockheed, Boeing and perhaps other partners would have entered the market. Make no mistake, the US government would have played along if it were thought to be profitable at the time, just as they would today. In our form of "market economy", most political issues can be resolved by profitability analysis. (for better or worse) In it's day, the Concorde design was a marvel of modern engineering. Sadly, it was not as profitable as hoped. Proper credit should be given to all the people who designed, built, flew and kept this wonderful bird flying as long as they did. If a new SST or SSBJ is built, it will also be in very small number. The cost will be affected by this economic reality as well as the engineering and operational risk factors. Subsonic, low cost per seat-mile, ever quieter airliners with improved "safety systems"are the mainstream goal of the civil aviation industry for the foreseeable future. Hopefully there will still be some new aircraft built that push back the boundries a bit. For doing this, Concorde will remain a sentimental favorite in my and many other's memory for a long time to come. But then, it was built during an era of great hopes and aspirations. For better and/or worse, the present era seems to reflect different values and goals. Perhaps we could call it the era of profitability optimization? No, sounds too cynical! I'm sure someone else can do better.
Best to all,
Westhawk
That's true. But to para-phrase Mark Twain, "There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics." He may have been commenting on how statistics may be misleading or used to mislead. While accidents per takeoff/landing cycle is one measure often quoted in aviation safety statistics, so is accidents per hour flown. Obviously, which statistic you choose to quote would affect the relative safety comparison of a short-haul vs long-haul aircraft types. How much payload was hauled what distance in the 747 vs the 737? What if you measured the risk in terms of accidents per payload miles? Or speed? Costs and risks (challenges) increase exponentially when we seek to fly long distances at supersonic speeds. These cost and risk factors are probably (IMHO) responsible for leaving Concorde as the only civil supersonic transport through it's entire service life. (Disregarding the Soviet effort.) But the benefit of time savings must be weighed against this risk and the cost. The lowest risk and lowest cost option is to merely stay home. Risk of being involved in an air crash is then nearly zero. No risk, no cost and no reward. Too bad it was such a small proportion of the public that would or could pay for a Concorde ticket. Had it been otherwise, Lockheed, Boeing and perhaps other partners would have entered the market. Make no mistake, the US government would have played along if it were thought to be profitable at the time, just as they would today. In our form of "market economy", most political issues can be resolved by profitability analysis. (for better or worse) In it's day, the Concorde design was a marvel of modern engineering. Sadly, it was not as profitable as hoped. Proper credit should be given to all the people who designed, built, flew and kept this wonderful bird flying as long as they did. If a new SST or SSBJ is built, it will also be in very small number. The cost will be affected by this economic reality as well as the engineering and operational risk factors. Subsonic, low cost per seat-mile, ever quieter airliners with improved "safety systems"are the mainstream goal of the civil aviation industry for the foreseeable future. Hopefully there will still be some new aircraft built that push back the boundries a bit. For doing this, Concorde will remain a sentimental favorite in my and many other's memory for a long time to come. But then, it was built during an era of great hopes and aspirations. For better and/or worse, the present era seems to reflect different values and goals. Perhaps we could call it the era of profitability optimization? No, sounds too cynical! I'm sure someone else can do better.
Best to all,
Westhawk
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are a little Island for God's sake.
Who the heck do you think you are with your arrogance.
One would think from you that Britain was solely responsible for the Concorde. FRANCE was a major contributor and hardly is ever mentioned from a lot of ya.
Wake up to the big world out there.
Who the heck do you think you are with your arrogance.
One would think from you that Britain was solely responsible for the Concorde. FRANCE was a major contributor and hardly is ever mentioned from a lot of ya.
Wake up to the big world out there.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westhawk,
What a balanced and interesting reply and it is a shame there are not more like it.
Yes Concorde was built in a different era when speed was every thing , but I agree those days are now gone and price is everything these days, but that is the way of the world.
It was expensive to fly on Concorde but when BA started " Around the Bay " flights it did open up the experience to a whole new strata of the population.
I
What a balanced and interesting reply and it is a shame there are not more like it.
Yes Concorde was built in a different era when speed was every thing , but I agree those days are now gone and price is everything these days, but that is the way of the world.
It was expensive to fly on Concorde but when BA started " Around the Bay " flights it did open up the experience to a whole new strata of the population.
I
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Wake up its a big world out there'....only a tiny fraction of Americans hold passports and have actually left the USA maybe tell your own people that...What does the size of a country have to do do with anything??? Greenland is huge does that mean they are better?? Size isn't everything like you all think...
Go read your Gleim you joke...
Go read your Gleim you joke...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde was --and still is today-- a unique passenger plane.
You'd land in new York one hour before your departure from Paris. Think about it..
It was --and still is-- one of the most beautiful planes in the air.
Watching a Concorde take off was an awesome spectacle, albeit a noisy one.
All the objections and critics against it --almost all coming from one side of the Atlantic... Had little to do with safety but more with the fact that no US manufacturer had been able to come up with something similar.
Not enough rentability, they said.
Yeah, sure..
And yes, my british friends, it was a Franco-British venture, or a Britanno-French one if you wish. Just demonstrated what we could do when we stop bickering.
Now all we can come up with are ugly meatwagons like the A-380.
800 passengers. Oooooohhh!! I bet if you put them in layers you'lle be able to cram at least 2 000 inside...
Yes, I know, rentability. And yes I know, lawyers must make a living too..
You toucha my Concorde I killa your sister.
You'd land in new York one hour before your departure from Paris. Think about it..
It was --and still is-- one of the most beautiful planes in the air.
Watching a Concorde take off was an awesome spectacle, albeit a noisy one.
All the objections and critics against it --almost all coming from one side of the Atlantic... Had little to do with safety but more with the fact that no US manufacturer had been able to come up with something similar.
Not enough rentability, they said.
Yeah, sure..
And yes, my british friends, it was a Franco-British venture, or a Britanno-French one if you wish. Just demonstrated what we could do when we stop bickering.
Now all we can come up with are ugly meatwagons like the A-380.
800 passengers. Oooooohhh!! I bet if you put them in layers you'lle be able to cram at least 2 000 inside...
Yes, I know, rentability. And yes I know, lawyers must make a living too..
You toucha my Concorde I killa your sister.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had little to do with safety but more with the fact that no US manufacturer had been able to come up with something similar.
**************************************************
More narrow minded garbage.
Boeing were developing a much more awesome SST, the 2707
at this time. Supersonic craft were no major achievement during this era. The Soviets (at that time) were orbiting Zond spacecraft around the moon and the US were landing Apollos on the moon.
Hypersonic X craft had come a long way even before the Concorde flew, so other nation's technology was far ahead of the 'so beloved' Concorde's technology.
**************************************************
More narrow minded garbage.
Boeing were developing a much more awesome SST, the 2707
at this time. Supersonic craft were no major achievement during this era. The Soviets (at that time) were orbiting Zond spacecraft around the moon and the US were landing Apollos on the moon.
Hypersonic X craft had come a long way even before the Concorde flew, so other nation's technology was far ahead of the 'so beloved' Concorde's technology.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my earlier post (in the ??!!deleted ??!! original thread on this):
I had the immense pleasure of seeing a takeoff and landing at MIA - what a sight (and sound). !
Would love to have a look about the cabin and flight deck - the Udvar-Hazy museum (IAD) has one but you can't go inside - not sure about the display on the Intrepid in NYC. I have heard there is one of these speedbirds in the UK that you can tour.
A couple of months ago you could by 2 of the leather chairs from Concorde on Ebay - don't remember the final selling price, but I'm pretty sure the buyer's wallet was considerably lighter at payment time.
I think these aircraft should still be flying, but it is up to the makers - they must have realised re-engineering would be difficult and with an aging airframe and systems, it was decided to let her retire with most of her dignity intact.
Was Concorde a danger to the public - just give me my BA boarding pass, and move out of the
way, so I can get my supersonic passenger certificate. 
While not exactly a commercial (read money) success, you cannot deny Concorde the glory of what she was - an engineering masterpiece.
I had the immense pleasure of seeing a takeoff and landing at MIA - what a sight (and sound). !
Would love to have a look about the cabin and flight deck - the Udvar-Hazy museum (IAD) has one but you can't go inside - not sure about the display on the Intrepid in NYC. I have heard there is one of these speedbirds in the UK that you can tour.
A couple of months ago you could by 2 of the leather chairs from Concorde on Ebay - don't remember the final selling price, but I'm pretty sure the buyer's wallet was considerably lighter at payment time.
I think these aircraft should still be flying, but it is up to the makers - they must have realised re-engineering would be difficult and with an aging airframe and systems, it was decided to let her retire with most of her dignity intact.
Was Concorde a danger to the public - just give me my BA boarding pass, and move out of the
way, so I can get my supersonic passenger certificate. While not exactly a commercial (read money) success, you cannot deny Concorde the glory of what she was - an engineering masterpiece.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 28th Aug 2005 at 22:12.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unmanned transport
You are a little Island for God's sake.
Indeed. And the common language of the U.S. is English (apart from those who speak Spanish, of course).
I suggest you get some historical perspective, unfashionable though it is for many Americans.
Try reading "Empire: How Britain made the Modern World" by Niall Ferguson. He's Herzog Professor of Financial History at the Stern School of Business, New York University, Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, and Senior Research Fellow, Jesus College, Oxford. He's now at Harvard.
Let a little light in.
You are a little Island for God's sake.
Indeed. And the common language of the U.S. is English (apart from those who speak Spanish, of course).
I suggest you get some historical perspective, unfashionable though it is for many Americans.
Try reading "Empire: How Britain made the Modern World" by Niall Ferguson. He's Herzog Professor of Financial History at the Stern School of Business, New York University, Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, and Senior Research Fellow, Jesus College, Oxford. He's now at Harvard.
Let a little light in.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PARIS, France
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing were developing a much more awesome SST, the 2707
Besides, the 2707 was plain ugly.
SR-71, X-wing, Space shuttle, Apollo on the Moon.. The discussion is about passenger planes, remember?
And you forgot to mention the X planes..
The only supersonic commercial aircraft ever built and operated was built by the Limeys and the Froggies and you're gonna have to live with that. It's history.
Sore loser. hee hee hee hee
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: scotland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey unmanned transport,
If the Brits suck so much and count for nothing then please feel free to use your own language...
Besides America's recent leaps are due in large part to looted Nazi German tech stuff at the end of WW2. GO U S A!!
I live in Florida and recently met a 30 year old college grad who wasn't sure if the Vietnam war had finished!!! So I guess your ignorance is not all your fault - you've all got your heads up your backsides...
Happy July 4th
x
If the Brits suck so much and count for nothing then please feel free to use your own language...
Besides America's recent leaps are due in large part to looted Nazi German tech stuff at the end of WW2. GO U S A!!
I live in Florida and recently met a 30 year old college grad who wasn't sure if the Vietnam war had finished!!! So I guess your ignorance is not all your fault - you've all got your heads up your backsides...
Happy July 4th
x
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy July 4th
************
And the USA thoroughly celebrate it for dumping the ole empire and progressing to become the most advanced nation on the Planet, SEXY SUE.
Now back to great technology......hypersonics.
************
And the USA thoroughly celebrate it for dumping the ole empire and progressing to become the most advanced nation on the Planet, SEXY SUE.
Now back to great technology......hypersonics.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout history, as the speed of transport increased, a greater portion of the public could afford the TIME to travel more widely. From sailing ship to steam, horse-drawn to rail, 80 mph to 150 to 300 to m0.8, each time the market mushroomed.
So why wasn't a m2.0 plane a runaway success? It certainly wasn't for lack of glamour.
It just wasn't ENOUGH of a time-saver. Speed from takeoff to touchdown was wonderful, but that wasn't sufficient; From Manhattan to Montmartre still required surface transport, baggage check & claim, airport surface congestion, and other queues that seriously diluted the speed advantage of the Concorde.
The whole transportation SYSTEM must be addressed for any new SST to succeed.
So why wasn't a m2.0 plane a runaway success? It certainly wasn't for lack of glamour.
It just wasn't ENOUGH of a time-saver. Speed from takeoff to touchdown was wonderful, but that wasn't sufficient; From Manhattan to Montmartre still required surface transport, baggage check & claim, airport surface congestion, and other queues that seriously diluted the speed advantage of the Concorde.
The whole transportation SYSTEM must be addressed for any new SST to succeed.