Slashdot Mirror
Concorde to be Grounded
Goonie writes "This BBC article reports that Concorde flights are to come to an end in October. It may be a noisy and costly anachronism, but it's sad to see the end of perhaps the coolest commercial plane ever to fly." The financial wires carried a story the other day showing how much jet fuel demand has dropped recently.
Unlike the 737 and 747, which have been continuously upgraded, it's essentially unchanged. Almost as outdated as the 707.
Best Slashdot Co
I live in Bristol in the UK which is considered the home of concorde at the airport called Filton.
There is nothing better than watching concorde coming home on those special occasions when it is taken off normal flying patterns, they close the road and it flies right over your head, amazing.
The only thing that comes close is being sat in my garden watching filton airport as the spitfire fly's around doing stunts that would put modern planes to shame..
sigh..
nostalgia-tastic
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
If we stopped spending billions on the a failing airline industry and moved that money to more reliable transportation like high speed rail we could move more people faster. I would love to see a terrorist crash a train into the world train centers.
Concorde has certainly had a long and illustrious history, especially considering the way it was looking as a complete failure when they were first built and marketed... until they upgraded it from general air travel to exclusive/expensive air travel.
I remember a couple of years ago there were special offers advertised in the national papers where you could phone the BA hotlines and get tickets for about £10 !!! A lot of people didn't bother because they could believe it, whereas those who did became pleasantly surprised (until everyone else caught on, but they'd sold out by then).
I wonder what the future will be for supersonic air travel, it seems most of the new Boeing/Airbus planes try and cram more people on them... funnily enough I flew to the US 4 months ago on one of Virgins new A600 Airbuses and they take off like a bloody rocket! They also had personal entertainment systems in each seat with video on demand, except in our compartment the media stations kept crashing (it was nice to see a Mandrake Linux reboot rather than an M$ bodge job) so they only worked for about an hour in the entire flight.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Concorde really was a status symbol for it's 30 years, just like sailing on the QE2 used to be also.
But with a few accidents, a lack of cache and the fact that it has *always* been a money looser, it's an environmental mess, and BA and AirFrance not wanting to get dragged deeper into debt, the time to retire them has come.
The fabulously wealthy who could easily plunk down the $15k per ticket are now buying or renting Gulfstreams. It's more a thing for tourists and the CEO's.
Still, it's a beautiful plane. Still remember looking out at the AirFrance Concordes at JFK airport with the view of lower Manhattan behind them across the river (now when you see both like that, it's more poignant that exhilerating).
On the lighter side, on the UK show "Absolutely Fabulous" when Edina is ticked off that there is only 1 class of service on Concorde, "I'll pay extra for that curtain!"
Now yes, there maybe some coolness lost to the Concorde, but come on... The grand stairway alone makes it all up for me... Finally, a plane suitable for tall people (under 6'6" need not apply :P)
I'm a little tea pot.
The idea is to take a handful of 990's (enough for daily JFK-Heathrow service), fit them with 4-across leather seats like what Midwest Express does with a DC-9, and run a Concorde-style first-class service with every amenity (free booze and gourmet food). These planes are Mach .95 capable (Whitcomb area-ruled fuselage, "shock pods" on the back of the wings), but since the speed of sound slows down in thinner air, I would fly them at around 20-25,000 feet, pedal-to-the-metal. Yes, this would burn fuel, but a whole lot less than Concorde, and while a 747 would make the trip in 6 hours, Concorde in 3, I think my service could turn in something like 4 hours and 45 minutes. Anyway, it was just an idea.
The aerospace industry has been dominated by various governments for half a century. We have gone from numerous companies developing practical air travel down to Boeing and Airbus dominating a stagnant market. And, I am told, Boeing doesn't seem to be that healthy.
What's the next thing to stop? Space travel? Possibly. NASA hasn't succeeded in developing a successor to the shuttle. Two attempts (NASP and X-33) have been failures. Young people are starting to avoid the industry -- it has a bad reputation. Dishonesty, abuse and failure seem to be its hallmarks today.
The computer industry has done better. There's still room for innovation and development. Although, one wonders how long that will last with Microsoft dominance.
Change is possible, though. Challenges to Microsoft (think Linux today) aren't going to go away. And these challengers are racking up real successes.
Change is also possible in the more established aerospace industry as well. Three decades ago the U.S. military was in rough shape. People -- both inside and outside the military -- recognized that. Various reforms were implemented -- not the least ending the draft (conscription to Slashdot's readers outside the U.S.). Today the U.S. military, while far from perfect, is a much healthier institution.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
This may sound very trollish on slashdot, but...
- Isn't flying in general, especially by a concorde extremly fuel-consuming?!
- As I remember my early physics courses, friction is roughly proportional to the square of speed, isn't it? And then calculate the energy/kilometer traveled...
- Isn't that another reason why flying should only be used for transcontinental travels?
perhaps the coolest commercial plane ever to fly
I would take issue with that. Certainly a cool aircraft - but the coolest ever? Its only special quality was being safe enough for passengers. When it was built, there were already military aircraft bigger and faster, and there have been many aircraft since better in many ways.
It was, fundamentaly, a mistake to build the thing. Once it was built and the development money spent, it was not necessarily a mistake to keep flying it. But it was a mistake in the first place. And not only one that could be foreseen, but one that was foreseen, by many people. But it was forced through at the height of dirigiste socialism in the UK and (more so) France.
I cannot call something that was a fantastic waste of money that could have been (a) spent on something worthwhile, or (b) not taxed in the first place (choose according to political taste) "cool".
The fact is that building Concorde destroyed the Eurpoean commercial aircraft manufacturers. Before Concorde, there was competition between Europe and the US, after it was between Boeing and McDonnel Douglas (and Lockheed, a bit). It took 30 years (and even more public money) to the European industry to get back off the floor with Airbus.
So some regrets at its passing, but not deep grief, from me at least.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Scramjets are in their early stages, but the potential is absolutely amazing. London to Sydney in less than five hours. Probably London to New York in less than one. Cheap LEO... *takes sedative to calm down* OK we are still 10-20 years off, but it is defiantly one to watch.
The main thing I noticed in flight was that the curvature of the earth was much more visible due to the much higher cruise altitude. Also, it was a very smooth flight. No turbulence whatsoever.
Concorde is all first class essentially, and the fittings reflected this. Gray leather seats, 2 x 2 arrangement. The bulkhead was lower than in a conventional aircraft.
I was on British Airways. There were 6 cabin crew for only 100 max passengers. The service in the air was impeccable (you get treated like royalty), and they even welcomed visitors to the cockpit. (Not sure if they'd do that today though, since everyone's paranoid about terrorism.)
No movie inflight, but there were sterophonic headsets for music. Also, each passenger received a gift, (on this flight it was a 1994 date planner.) The seats are not at all wide; however. the armrests fold flat if there's no one next to you.
But as I said, en flight, you can see the curvature of the Earth. I was amazed.
Like skydiving, flying on the Concorde is something you don't have to do a second time...but once was fantastic.
I know it's expensive and inefficient, but we're going to lose a real treasure when the Concorde stops flying.
It's a tight vision to consider the UK as being the home of the Concorde: Concorde has been created as a cooperating project between France and the UK. It's been a difficult achievement but it was also the biggest recent proof that English people and French people can actually understand each others and do something valuable together (they would certainly benefit from doing the same thing for building Europe in the political area...).
But the first Concorde to fly was in Toulouse, France, with a French pilot which became famous for that. He took off the plane without any issue, did a loop, and grounded sooner than expected because of a heat problem.
There are two interesting things to notice about Concorde, in addition to the fact that it certainly is the most beautiful plane ever built: 1) the cooling system is using the plane's fuel! 2) the onboard computers are really really old design, with tubes instead of transistors!
A Concorde pilot also said that piloting a Concorde was exactly the same feeling as piloting a jet-fighter, that he could do exactly the same things with this plane, with hundreds passengers in the plane!
I'm sad to hear that the Concorde will stop to fly, especially without a similar plane to replace it.
There are great pictures of Concorde on:
http://benoit.rajau.free.fr/concorde.html
Hmm, it may be sensible from a commercial point of view.
But it is another dream lost.
Why is it, that one flying dream after another is put into museums without a proper "flying dream" replacement. The next dream gone, will probably be the space shuttle.
Next they will make private aviation a crime. And then all sensations of the actual "flying" feeling will be made unavailable. Oh yeah, I know: people dont look up to the sky anymore nowadays. They are afraid of it. Except, when the things in the sky are wearing Air Force markings of the country you are currently living in.
Flying? They want to be transported, not flown.
Concorde gone? Most dont care.
Just continue your miserable lifes without dreams.
Have you ever really gone flying?
At a business level, possibly. Perhaps. Vaguely. However, on a personal level, absolutely not.
I think modern air travel is rubbish. I think this primarily because it's so slow. I'd love to nip over to the States and back in a day (I live near London), but the seven or so hours just to get to New York are rather off-putting. I went to Singapore - took about twelve/thirteen hours. UK/Australia is a fairly common trip too - that takes a full day. Name another form of transport that hasn't got faster since the sixties?*
I'd rather see faster planes than bigger planes. Airline companies, of course, would rather see bigger than faster. There's a fundemental gap between consumer and provider there, and it's unlikely to be bridged anytime soon.
Cheers,
Ian
(*to those in the UK, Connex South Central doesn't count...)
Things must have improved since the late 60's in terms of aerodynamics, CAD, engine power etc etc. There are few military jets built these days that can't achieve supersonic flight, and the latest can cruise above Mach 1 without afterburners.
So the technology must be there, so why is it so hard to make it commercial?
Maybe this is an opportunity. There are people who will pay for the convenience of fast travel, and in the 21st century we must be able to make something more efficient, quieter and more viable. Hell its been 40years since concorde was designed, someone tell me we've made progress since then.
Then again 30 years ago people were still walking on the moon.
Maybe we've all lost our spirit of adventure?
Actually, we now may be able to. One of the problems the concorde suffers from is that the only way, at the time, to go supersonic was to use jet engines that function basically like afterburners on military jets. Those are really noisy and really expensive in terms of fuel economy. Well the new US fighter jet, the F/A 22 is the first plane ever with engines that can go supersonic using turbofans. That engine technology applied to commercial jets could lead to more economical and less noisy SSTs.
However, there is still the problem of the shockwave made by exceeding the sound barrier. IT requires a different design of aircraft and it still makes lots of noise. Even if a new SST crops up (not happening soon what with the decrease in air travel), it will probably be for over seas stuff only.
it's funny how the Concorde project is so often viewed like this when so many military projects have consumed VASTLY more public money and done the world no service at all. I'd rather see the UK govt spend £50Bn on a superplane than £100Bn on a fusion bomb.
That was classic intercourse!
I think there are these issues that hindered Concorde operations:
1. The plane is very noisy due to its engine design.
2. The plane only seats 100 passengers, so its fuel efficiency is very poor.
3. The plane's range is barely enough for a transatlantic crossing from New York to Paris or London.
However, today's aerospace technology is MUCH further advanced than the 1960's when the Concorde was being developed. During the late 1990's, NASA and Boeing did a major research study for a High-Speed Transport (HST). They concluded it was technically feasible using modern aerospace materials for a SST seating up to 300 passengers to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at Mach 2.0 yet meet today's strict rules for jet engine noise and exhaust emissions; the only reason why Boeing didn't turn it into a real airliner project was its US$18 billion cost in 1998 dollars.
I believe that with the retirement of Concorde it could be the impetus for Boeing to revive HST and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane. Unlike Concorde, HST's much longer range, much higher passenger capacity and quieter engines means HST could fly many more transoceanic routes profitably yet be acceptable to environmental-conscious airports around the world. Imagine flying Los Angeles to Sydney or New York City to Johannesburg in half the time it takes now even with one fuel stop; imagine Paris to Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo to Sydney, or Johannesburg to Singapore non-stop in 40 to 50 percent less time than it takes now.
I personally believe such a plane are already on the request lists for the major airlines after 2012.
Two years ago, I was bumped from a cancelled BA business class trip onto a Concorde flight from New York to London. This was just after the Paris crash, when I guess they had to bump people onto the Concorde just to have some warm bodies aboard.
At first I couldn't believe my luck, and was phoning everyone I knew from the Concorde lounge ("Hey, guess where I am...?") but once on the plane, it was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. It was almost empty, but it was still unbearably cramped. If it had been full, it would have felt claustrophobic in the extreme. By the time we were an hour into the trip, my wife and I were both agreeing that even if we were rolling in stupid cash, we'd never, ever fly it again. Give me first or business class any time. Hell, coach would have been more comfortable.
And apart watching an LED display tick up to Mach 2, there is no particular experience of "speed"; you just feel like you're in a cramped, uncomfortable airplane, flying a little higher than normal.
The food and tchotchkes were nice, though.
The Tu-144 only flew first. Although it had a few novel ideas to it, it was pretty much just a cheap knockoff of the Concorde they rushed through production. One glaring shortcoming of it was that the Soviets couldn't build a jet engine that would give the '144 enough thrust to go supersonic without afterburners. It was just a shameless propaganda pitch, really. It should never have been built.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
While the Condorde is indeed an attractive plane, in terms of beauty, I don't think it can hold a candle to the SR-71 Blackbird. And, of course, the Blackbird was (or is, if the redesignated ones in NASA's fleet still fly) much faster...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Well, it certiantly makes you wonder.
Planning a little vacation for next month from Sacramento to Los Angeles, I came up with the following prices on the web for round trip:
greyhound:$95
Amtrak:$110
Southwest:$95
The obivous answer seems to be to fly. But I'm still shooting for the train. Why? Because if you take into account the drive to the airport (and having to find somebody pick you up at LAX--Amtrak takes you downtown where you can then jump on the subway), the time differences aren't that much different. And with airport parking, the prices work out far more even.
In addition, the Amtrak train has more leg room then Southwest's cattle cars, you can stand up and walk around, nobody asks you to take off your shoes...
All around, at least for short trips, the train still wins even if it is a few dollars more (and you can get the same price even if your traveling tommorow).
The Internet is generally stupid
I read a story once: on April 18th, 1981, Bouygues (a French construction group) received a 343 373 480 dollars cheque (as a payment to a huge contract in Ryiad, Saudi Arabia) at 10:30 AM in Paris, France. But in order not to lose the day's interests, the cheque had to get to the Morgan Bank in N.Y.C., before 10 AM (NYC time).
Bouygues sent 2 persons carrying the cheque with the Concorde, to New York City. The plane took off at 11 AM (Paris local time), and landed at 8:25 AM (New York local time). The cheque was deposited the bank in New York minutes later (around 9 am), therefore allowing Bouygues to deposit the cheque roughly one hour "before" it was delivered to them. With a 16% (!) interest rate, this "extra time" allowed Bouygues to earn 160000 US dollars.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Yeah. That's why it looks IDENTICAL.
/precisely/ the same solutions as the British/French engineers.
History lesson.
The drooping nose, ogival wing, four engines in dual pods...there are lots of ways to solve each of these problems. It's not a coincidence that the Russians used
Too bad they couldn't come up with engines that didn't need to be overhauled after each flight.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!