concorde this afternoon
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth
Semaphore sam
B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service
And don't forget NASA's input into US SST programs, including use of a modified Tu144 1996-1998
B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service
And don't forget NASA's input into US SST programs, including use of a modified Tu144 1996-1998
ground that dinosaur
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
From: Eagan, MN
Hi Mycroft
B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service
Notice...Gov 'Service'. Now, do governments/militaries care about fuel efficiency, noise pollution, as for-profit companies adhering to market discipline MUST? I operated military transport for 9 years (C-141A); one of my great memories, during the fuel 'crisis' of the early '70's, was slowing to M.74 from M.78 for enroute trips, yet being REQUIRED (as a local training IP at McGuire AFB) to fly a certain amount of time at the end of a quarter to fill allotted time, regardless of training requirements. One IP at McGuire was told to fly 3.8 hours, for 3 2&2's (6 approaches and landings). He finished in 1.3 hours, terminated "in the interest of fuel savings", and was immediately 'rewarded' with an immediate downgrade from IP status. Does anyone think anything has changed? Yes, Concorde can fly with government support; BFD, the Brabazon could also, as well as the R101. Those 3 make a trio.
B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service
Notice...Gov 'Service'. Now, do governments/militaries care about fuel efficiency, noise pollution, as for-profit companies adhering to market discipline MUST? I operated military transport for 9 years (C-141A); one of my great memories, during the fuel 'crisis' of the early '70's, was slowing to M.74 from M.78 for enroute trips, yet being REQUIRED (as a local training IP at McGuire AFB) to fly a certain amount of time at the end of a quarter to fill allotted time, regardless of training requirements. One IP at McGuire was told to fly 3.8 hours, for 3 2&2's (6 approaches and landings). He finished in 1.3 hours, terminated "in the interest of fuel savings", and was immediately 'rewarded' with an immediate downgrade from IP status. Does anyone think anything has changed? Yes, Concorde can fly with government support; BFD, the Brabazon could also, as well as the R101. Those 3 make a trio.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
From: Eagan, MN
Hi Northern Lights
By acknowledging my fast approaching 'anachronism', I don't insult myself, just sadly face reality. I've loved many aircraft I flew, probably most of all the C141A & the L-1011 (Lockheed rocked). Their days are over; to acknowledge this is not to insult them. When I travel by rail, I savor each anachronistic semaphore I see; but their use now (in premeir ops) is inefficient & stupid. Not insulting, just reality.
By acknowledging my fast approaching 'anachronism', I don't insult myself, just sadly face reality. I've loved many aircraft I flew, probably most of all the C141A & the L-1011 (Lockheed rocked). Their days are over; to acknowledge this is not to insult them. When I travel by rail, I savor each anachronistic semaphore I see; but their use now (in premeir ops) is inefficient & stupid. Not insulting, just reality.
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 326
From: near an aeroplane
Hmm, would somebody care to look up when the 747 first flew?
Me thinks it must be over 26 years ago......
Concorde is still a lovely aircraft to see, that's what we all seem to agree on! As for the rest of the discussion: a lot of it is also over 26 years old, and still noisy, energy consuming and not about to be grounded it looks like!
Me thinks it must be over 26 years ago......
Concorde is still a lovely aircraft to see, that's what we all seem to agree on! As for the rest of the discussion: a lot of it is also over 26 years old, and still noisy, energy consuming and not about to be grounded it looks like!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: UK
Sam,
We have great pleasure in announcing that you have one this weeks rollover jackpot a cool £20 million.
Concorde still a no no for you.
I doubt it!
British invention still years ahead of its time and proud of it
We have great pleasure in announcing that you have one this weeks rollover jackpot a cool £20 million.
Concorde still a no no for you.
I doubt it!
British invention still years ahead of its time and proud of it
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: UK
Lighten up guys! Your tax burden is hardly going to be affected by the development costs of Concorde in the sixties. A bit of variety in the skies is ok with me, and one man's noise is another man's music. Let's be proud of our technological achievements, both sides of the pond. Uncle Sam landed a man on the moon, and Jonny Brit and Monsieur Toulouse developed a supersonic commercial jet.
411a, you and I will always disagree, life would be too boring for me in your world.
411a, you and I will always disagree, life would be too boring for me in your world.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: UK
Concorde's presence today has more to do with the short sightedness of the worlds' governments at the time it first started flying.
The fact that Concorde is still flying is because it remains the only supersonic airliner in existence.
If the majority of the world hadn't sulked because England and France had stolen the march on supersonic travel, then I have no doubt that there would have been a modern replacement by now.
If it had been more readily accepted, then the technology could have been developed to meet today's more rigorous environmental and financial considerations. We might all have been travelling supersonic by now, but as usual politics overrules common sense every time!
It's difficult not to get sentimental about an aircraft that could have transformed air travel 26 years ago.
'Nough said.
The fact that Concorde is still flying is because it remains the only supersonic airliner in existence.
If the majority of the world hadn't sulked because England and France had stolen the march on supersonic travel, then I have no doubt that there would have been a modern replacement by now.
If it had been more readily accepted, then the technology could have been developed to meet today's more rigorous environmental and financial considerations. We might all have been travelling supersonic by now, but as usual politics overrules common sense every time!
It's difficult not to get sentimental about an aircraft that could have transformed air travel 26 years ago.
'Nough said.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: 35K
Well I dont care what anyone says about the bird. Yes she is fuel inefficent, noisy and represents everything evil about meritocrisy, but when I fly her for what will i guess be my first and last time in July I wont care. I doubt that my children or grand children will ever have the opportunity to fly her, but hey I will know that I was one of only 500,000 to fly her. When you compare that to the number of people who have flown in a 747, thats put you on somewhat of a pedastool. Oh and for whats its worh, its stll the only flight to get into JFK beofre 10.00, and from that point of view, great - If I was, I could get a full days work in.
Jon Gar
V50
Jon Gar
V50
Last edited by jongar; 6th May 2002 at 16:48.
