Slashdot Mirror
Farewell To The Concorde
mstamat writes "BBC has a number of features on the Concorde airplanes, the timeline of their existence and their retirement. Among else, there is a virtual tour of Concorde's cockpit and a few words from journalist Mary Goldring who was opposing Concordes from the start."
able to power a supersonic jet just with grapes.
Wasn't their a project in the USA to build an SST also?
I've been wanting to ride the Concorde for as long as I can remember... With only a few years before I could afford it, they are no more. I guess I'll have to be happy with consumer-grade space travel. Now hurry up before my kids take my cash and waste it on an education!
Whelp, now that the concorde is gone, the only quick way to Europe is to wait till we have Ballistic travel options...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Hopefully there is a concorde II with the following improvements:
1. A glass cockpit instead of the analog crap in the old concorde
2. More efficient turbofan engines instead of the gas-guzzling turbojets on the Concorde.
3. A more roomy cabin
I wonder how long it will be before we have supersonic passenger air travel again. :(
Do you think that they will sell them at a discount to privet owners?
That was a fast first post, but if you had taken the concorde, it would have been faster.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The Concorde really wasn't ready for prime time. With tickets starting at around $6000, fast travel to Europe was only affordable by the rich and by those whose employers would pay for it. Not to mention that you could only fly out of New York and Washington, DC to London and Paris. The technology was impressive for its time though, and I hope another attempt is made at high-speed air travel, knowing the problems with the Concorde.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Just what we need... another reason not to fly to Europe.
Life in Orange County
Everybody saw the burning Concorde via this crappy home video from this people in their car.
I guess the sole reason for shutting the concorde down were these pictures burned in the public memory.
Anyone 'remembers' the Hindenburg pictures? The first 8 of 12 pictures are showing the Zeppelin rather than the politician.
concorde is "only" 4 out of 12.
eh.. where did you get the idea that she thought it was unsafe. Here's a quote from the site: "As far as I knew Concorde was a rock-steady aircraft," says Mary, describing her feelings about the fatal Concorde crash outside Paris in July 2000, which killed 113 people. "I hadn't expected it. I really hadn't."
You can find more information here.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
The Concorde is a beautiful thing, both aesthetically pleasing and impressive in its use of (for the time) advanced technology. It's a shame to see it go, even if the likes of me couldn't afford it.
I don't know which is more impressive: that it was done with slide rules, or that the English and French stopped squabbling long enough to agree on which units of measurement to use :-)
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Mary Goldring sounds like a fun, upbeat person. I think I'll invite her to my Halloween party.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Concorde, although it cost a bomb to fly on it, was always a moneypit for BA and Air France. The only reason why it came into being was for all the prestige it generated. It was always utterly impractical - and any massive engineering project based more on style than substance is doomed from the start. I'm surprised it lasted so long.
Besides - the bloody thing was as noisy as Hell, as anyone who's ever lived in London will tell you. There weren't many cities in the world prepared to tolerate it - London only did because the UK government never let us have a say.
When the Concord was being developed, the US did have a SST program. However, it was cancelled because it did NOT make economic sense. Read Mary Goldring's article. The problems she mentions are the same ones that killed the US program.
It figures that someone with a bible verse in thier sig would have a post titled "Right, get a woman to comment on engineering". Bastard.
Bigger than the Concorde even, but the hippies all rallied together (they must have been out of marijuana) and had enough protests that Boeing decided it wasn't a good business move.
A. Rightmann
That was the problem, the Concorde did not fare well. One problem with it is that early on in its career, it was determined that supersonic travel over populated land could shatter windows, upset livestock and generally annoy people. Thus limiting travel to continent to continent travel. If only it could have made a space in the New York to LA slot, London to Moscow (over land) or even LA to Montreal it could have allowed more funding to be developed into making the travel more efficient, cleaner environmentally, and lower prices. They introduced a Supersonic Limo into a world that wanted a Supersonic Bus. That being said, the Concorde is still a breathtaking aircraft to behold and 30 some odd years later still looks more modern than anything current from Boeing or Airbus. It is sad to see it gone.
You call a gas guzzling, loud sonic booming, able to carry only 144 passengers in a tight cabin airplane excellent? Safer than a Boeing? Extremely doubtful. The only thing that the Condore had going for it was that it was the only one. Period. There was a similarly styled Russion super-sonic , the TU-144 "Concordski", that crashed at a French airshow and was quickly retired and never got to show it's stuff. CD
The retirement of the Concorde is a rare example of technological regression. If our children ask us why airplanes don't fly faster, we can tell them we used to have supersonic commercial jets, but now we don't.
This isn't necessarily bad since the Concordes lost money throughout their existence.
What are some other example of technology regression, I wonder?
A. Rightmann
Flying home from Chicago to Dulles around October 4, as we taxied in, we got a long look of a Concorde sitting out on the tarmac. A long time ago, British Airways or Air France had promised to give the very first Concorde to the Simithsonian Air and Space Museum when it was retired. And sure enough, at the end of September they flew it in to Dulles, where the Air and Space Museum is building new facility to house its larger aircraft that won't fit downtown (like their SR-71 Blackbird). So anyway, there it was, their gift to the Smithsonian on the tarmac. They're rather small up close...
My supervisor (the Network Admin) is all into planes, particularly concordes. I'm sure he'd appreciate a link to this article.
But then he might know i'm reading slashdot at work!!
What's the operator precedence of brownie points again?
do() || do_not();
If they had made it a military aircraft then they would have sold lots of them.
Or even if it had been a joint project uk/usa then again I guess the usa would have just stolen the technology.
Get it right! You would all get indignant when people say "Spiderman" rather than "Spider-Man", right?
Technology Regressions aren't really that rare.
A. Rightmann
The TU-144 was a direct copy of the Concorde, made from stolen plans of the UK/FR aeroplane. Unfortunately (for the Russians) the plans they stole had been "doctored" by the British to not work - hence the crash. That's why they had to add canards to the Tupolev.
Troc
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Didn't you all see the fireball that baby made?
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Concorde passes over my house regularly, and it will be greatly missed after Friday. Hopefully the path taken for one of the three incoming concordes will be this way so I can bid it farewall.
It's a huge pity that I never managed to fly on it as it's possible I'll now ever get to move faster than the speed of sound (relative to the earth!).
It's pretty rare that any industry manages to combine such technical feats with such beauty (the only other airplane I can think of that managed it was the blackbird), and it will be a huge loss to the skies.
For the records, public safety worries were the least of it's problems. It's rarely, if ever been a profitable plane to fly for the two airlines, and as soon as Air France had an excuse they wanted to ground it.
Last I saw it, some ten years ago, parts of the fuselage (NASA's version?) were sitting in a junkyard on route 50, just East of Orlando.
...something like:
"The Concord. Smashing the windows out of your home in that refreshingly British way since 1969"?
do() || do_not();
Are you for real?
It's 2003, not 1803.
That was classic intercourse!
Ahhhhh, the Concord. We'll never forget you!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
my uncle's cousin, or something - I can confirm she is a humourless old bag. (although I've never actually met her)
=#= Man, you are such a loser! Why can't you be an individual, like the rest of us?
Safer than a Boeing? Extremely doubtful.
Doubt has nothing to do with it. Take the total number of flight miles for both Concorde & whichever Boeing plan you're comparing too (Lets say a 737, a highly popular model). Now divide that by the number of fatalities caused by crashed.
Given that Concorde has had one crash in over 25 years, I think you'll find the Concorde wins.
Cold hard facts win today.
Will Europe still fly the Concorde as an R&D vehicle? It seems a shame to just scrap them.
an ill wind that blows no good
I would seem that the big lesson to learn out of the history of the Concorde is that you still can't buy your way up a learning curve. If the overall technical infrastructure of the society is only marginally up to the task, you can throw a lot of money at it, and it may work even passably well, but it will be expensive at best, and dangerous at worst. I honestly wonder what would happen if the Concorde was launched even 10 years later.
Documentary on BBC 2 last night..
40 of their frequent flyers where killed in the WTC. Not only that, those 40 also authorised Concorde flights for their company's staff, so in that single day they lost a huge number of customers.
It was one of my dreams to fly on Concorde, but by the time I had the cash to allow me a special trip I had a family to support, so my priorities are now elsewhere.
.
This may interest some of you:
The Russian Tu-144 "Charger" was actually the first SST. It first flew in 1968 about a year before the Concorde. In its later revisions it had a longer range than Concorde and was more fuel economic. However, for various reasons, the Soviets never really used the Tupolev 144. Its interesting to also note that NASA picked this aircraft over Concorde for various tests done in the late '90s.
They didn't agree, the original drawings were in French and English, measurements in centimeters and inches. :)
The yank plane was shot down by environmentalists, then America did everything to stop Concorde because you can't have better tech coming out of other countries.
There are a lot of excellent women engineers I know that also enjoy "working with people, children and cooking". In fact, I prefer working with and strive to hire engineers who enjoy things other than "calculating stresses or thermo problems". Companies they are actually looking for more female engineers as often times they work very hard due to remove the impressions like yours that they are "having to do a man's job" (and the fact they can pay them less).
I think you want to read this...e ets/FS-06 2-DFRC.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSh
"It's better to regret something you have done, than to regret something you haven't done" - Orbital
Nice pics of Mary. She looks like she's been eating lemons. Could it be because it took 30 years to prove her right? I mean, imagine how you might look after thirty years of going "Any minute now. I know I'm right. You'll see. Any minute now, and this will fail..."
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
As another data point, i just got back from (an engineering) class and 6 out of the 14 students are female. This being a graduate class, i think they are all pretty much decided on engineering.
Yeah, well, we won - it's gone. Ha ha, MF!!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
It was possible to buy a "one way on Concorde, one way on 747" return flight to New York (from London) for under 2000 pounds, even up to about July of this year (one of my friends did just that and got his flight a couple of weeks ago). Compare that with the usual first class fares from London to New York, which I just checked at www.ba.com, flying tomorrow and returning the day after would be 6,596.70 POUNDS (that's the better part of 10k dollars). When you compare first class fares, Concorde was moderately priced! And since it effectively gave an extra day of work during a trip, yes, some businesses decided it was worth while (my company is the other way around, cheapest possible flights but we can spend an extra day getting unjetlagged when we get there).
... sigh.
There were other destinations, just not many, as most countries wouldn't allow commercial airlines to produce sonic booms over land and the range was limited due to the amount of fuel used to reach the high speeds.
I'd have loved to have flown on Concorde but another milestone has passed me by
Huh? Where'd he stash the 4x4? In his carry-on? Shaving kit? Is it inflatable? We could rent a Range Rover if it makes you feel better.
is hardly what I want in my country, thanks
Yeah, you wouldn't want your womenfolk exposed to REAL men. ;-)
Shouldn't you be out defacing a synagogue or defiling an American soldier's grave or something? Or, ooo! How about a good old fashioned witch hunt! There's still some Eastern European countries not playing to the EU party Line. and not responding to Chriac's blackmail attempts.
With the loss of high-speed trans-atlantic travel it feels like we're going backwards. It's 2003 and we have nothing to replace it.
I reflect your pompous signature back upon you.
When the Concorde killed all of those people, you have to ask yourself who can afford a six thousand dollar ticket?
Rich... very, very rich people. Their families can hire very, very, very expensive lawyers to make a corporation pay very, very, dearly for their mistake. Think of the lawyers for the families that they can afford. Add that to the cost of running a supersonic, high-end aviation service. It just isn't possible anymore.
Yeah, if one of the regular world dies in a plane crash, we can probably get a class action settlement for burial expenses and some change from the airline. You can bet your sweet tail that when a group of people that wealthy die in a plane crash, that there will be an entire nation of lawyers after your corporation. The Concorde was getting expensive. I guarantee after all of the rich people died it got outrageously expensive to operate.
errrr.... howzabout looking at fatalities / passenger-miles? They flew a lot more 737s than Concords.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Some people are banking on a more extreme version of the idea. Economic justifications of the X prize have included the development of suborbital rocket courier and passenger services, when you (or your package) absolutely has to get to Tokyo in two hours from New York. Of course you would be paying five or six figures for the privilege, which makes Concorde seem like taking the bus.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I could have sworn that they were afterburning turbofans. I wouldn't imagine old turbojets would have the power to push a plane as big as that through the sound barrier.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It is absolutely precious.
She looks like a female Scrooge.
>Mary Goldring who was opposing Concordes from >the start." How about "Mary Goldring, who opposed Concordes from the start."
It flew for over 30 years without incident, it's worth noting how many 747's have crashed in that time.
I was fortunate enough to experience a flight in one of these amazing planes several years ago.
:o(.
British Airways used to do a short 'experience concorde' flight that would take off from RAF Manston (South east coast of the UK), fly around the south coast and land again 45 mins later back at manston. The flight was subsonic due to the realitly short distance but even so, you could really feel the power of the plane, especially during take off.
The flight was fully commentated and some of the statistics about concorde are pretty incredible. The engine power rivals that of the entire Daytona starting grid and the plane has to be built to allow for a 6 inch+ stretch during flight.
I had always hope to take a supersonic flight on concorde when I was suitably rich, It is a sad thought to think that this will never happen now
Opposition to Concorde in the US also had a lot to do with it. The 'not-invented-here' lobby can be pretty powerful.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
"Yeah, I know my antimatter powered aircraft cratered into the middle of the city and killed 150,000,000 people, but it was going really fast when it did it!"
There are efficieences and market realities with which to deal. You are not living in the Star Trek universe.
You know, everyone who is complaining (rightly so) that we don't have anything cool in the aerospace industry anymore needs to stop buying cheap airline tickets. We are all the reason why airline industry is so damn boring...we all want that $68 fare. If we would be willing to spend more per ticket, then perhaps airlines wouldn't be the awful cattlecars they have become.
According to this article Boeing might have a super sonic plane in service around 2008
.98.
With current technology you can not eliminate the sonic boom (you can make is slightly weaker...).
The way the sonic cruiser does it is to not be supersonic, it says right in the article you link that it flies at mach
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Why can't we just make gigantic tubes, suck the air out of them, and propel magnetically-levitated trains through the vacuum at mach 10?
At the very least, the catastrophic accidents would be a blast when caught on videotape!
So? The Concorde crash was caused by parts falling off another plane on the runway, shreding the tires & sending debris into the fuel storage tanks.
The other aircraft was from another airline and another aircraft manufacturer. It could happen to any aircraft. I'd doubt a legal case would result in BA/Air France losing out.
It was also hit very badly by the WTC hit. They reportedly lost quite a few of their most regular fliers.
I think YHBT. Look at the sig, "Alan Rightmann." As in "right" opposite of "left."
It is on its tour of the Uk and i was there to greet it at its last flight into my home city of birmingham, i took some pics but alas not digital so will have to wait for developing - may link to them scanned in my journal. :-D
Its a magnificent and loud aircraft, also have a few videos (avi) of it flying overhead / taxying from today
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Russian Tu-144 was flown a couple of months earlier then the Concorde, as it is stated here, thus proving that it probably was a parallely developed project. So unless you have more information about your bullshit, you are just pulling it out of your ass.
I fell for that Mac-modding no warranty troll as well...
That was classic intercourse!
This plane was only for the rich. It may be a symbol of human progress, but if it has to come at the cost of so much, then no way. Travel should be for everyone, no matter the speed.
-Seriv
Number of Concordes to have crashed in their entire history: 1. Number of Boeings to have crashed in their entire history:........?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I was standing under RWY33 departure path at Birmingham International along with maybe a thousand others as we watched Concorde depart at 4:15.
:D
The last thing on our minds was efficiency as she passed over our heads on re-heat, shaking us to the bone, plumes of dark smoke behind her four Rolls-Royce engines.
Concorde was Concorde because she inspired awe in people and the ability to set off a couple of hundred car alarms at 'MotorNation' in Mackadown Lane Garretts Green.
If any replacement were to be all efficient and waste-not want not with quiet(!) take-off and landing, it would simply be mundane.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
My second cousin-once removed (or some relationship like that) received $5 million apiece for his wife and daughter's death in the 1996 Valujet crash, and he wasn't particularly rich. Less, perhaps, than a Concorde survivor might get, but hardly "change."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"Brave, brave Concorde, you shall not have died in vain!" ... Yeah."
"Uh... I'm not quite dead, sir!"
"Well...you shall not have been *mortally wounded* in vain!"
"I think I could pull through, sir."
"No no, sweet Concorde, stay here. I will send help as soon as I've accomplished a daring and heroic economic recovery of the airline industry in my own particular..."
"Idiom, sir?"
"Idiom!"
"No, I feel fine, actually..."
"Farewell, sweet Concorde!!"
"I'll just stay here, then, shall I, sir?
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
I noted the comments earlier about old-fashioned cockpits and non-turbofan engines - well, just remember that Concorde was essentially designed with slide-rules. Computer simulations just were not up to it in those days. Certainly, computing was not at the stage where a glass-cockpit was even conceivable. Let alone practical. As for turbo-fan engines, do they really work at 60,000 feet?
As for being cost effective, for the airlines BA and Air France, it actually was. It only becomes a loss maker if you insist on taking into account all the R&D. That loss was picked up by the consortium that built the planes, not BA or Air France.
The thing that killed the aircraft was purely and simply American sour grapes when Boeing finally admitted that their own late entry into supersonic air travel was over budget, overdue and over weight and would never fly. There were plenty of American airline with options to buy, but they all pulled out when the American government then decided to ban overland commercial supersonic flight, making the aircraft practically useless to American airlines. Of course, many military aircraft continue to fly supersonic over the American mainland, and cows still give uncurdled milk, children are not thrown from their beds by the sonic shock-wave, and there are not hoards of angry sleep-deprived and shell-shocked American citizens beating at the doors of congress to limit this evil.
As far as reliability goes, one fatal crash in 30 years of operation is actually pretty good. Admittedly, the somewhat spectacular film of the doomed flight didn't help.
I was actually lucky enough to make a concorde flight once, London to Washington DC. That really IS the way to make that trip, and it could have been commonplace now... Unfortunately, Boeing had its way, and its failure to be able to copy the Concorde was mitigated by its friends in Congress making it a moot point.
Remember to thank those people who represent you next time you are sitting on an 11 hour flight from London to LA.
Could they conceive the fastest slow boat to China.
OK. Now consider that the Concorde is a premium flying experience. So, it's maintenance will be top notch. Secondly, b/c of its sonic booms, it is restricted to a very limited number of airports. Those airports tends to be the better equipped ones. Any other Boeing, even the 777 and 747, are not quite in the same class. The Boeing's have flown many many many more miles, and, they are owned by airlines all over the world. Each airline has their own type of maintenance schedule, which is sometimes not the most rigorous. Also, of the Boeing crashes, how many were due to human error? The legendary Canary Islands disaster of 2 747s had nothing to do with the 747s being bad. It was all a mis-communication between the runway tower and the pilots. Even 2 Concordes could not have avoided that. If the Concorde was exposed to the same type of conditions as the Boeings, I doubt that it's crash record would be so stellar. CD
Except that tire pieces shouldn't be puncturing fuel tanks. That wasn't the first time that happened either. A Concord flight out of the US (I think) had one of its tires come apart the same way, which then punctured the fuel tank. The fuel didn't ignite though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The successor to the Concorde is likely to be a quiet supersonic business jet. Dassault, Sukhoi and Boeing are working together on a design.
The sonic boom problem seems to be mostly solvable. The primary remaining problem is designing an engine that will last a reasonable time.
Cost is not believed to be a problem. If it could be built for $100,000,000, NetJets would immediately place an order for 50 to 100 aircraft.
Concorde flew at Mach 2.0 for the duration of the flight that I was on WITHOUT afterburner.
I was mistaken, the afterburners are off... They are still responsible for a large portion of the fuel burn though...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
And it's really quite a shame, because so many of us would like to see more fireworks displays fueled by the ultra-rich.
A Good Intro to NetBS
I was fortunate enough to fly Concorde twice in July and it was the best flight I have ever done. Yes the cabin is small and it is lounder than your average jet! but the service is second to none and 'jumping time zones' is something different that the old 747 cannot beat. The only gripe is no in-flight entertainment (though the food is good and the wine list better than nearly all the resturants I have eaten in) but at least now laptops can give decent in-flight entertainment anyway.
Uh, the standard metric for this is "passenger fatalities per airframe-mile", and by that metric, the 747 has about a 10:1 safety margin over Concorde.
My dad, a former aerospace electronics engineer, still spits fire at the mention of Goldring. It was something to do in the long, dark Scottish winter evenings.
Who would want to go to Europe anyways?
I live in London, and I love to see it roar over, even today people still look up to it. I'm going to be sad to see it go.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
Mary Goldring article at bottom left
I've always disliked people who take it upon themselves to crusade against technology. This nasty person not only tried to hamper the Concorde but she also has the gall to dance on the grave plot for this mighty jet. She looks as nasty and she behaves.
Why atleast one isn't kept in permanent usage either by Tony Blair or the Queen, both frequently travel around the world.
That'd sure put Bush in his place when he HEARS Blair comming.
Concorde > Air Force One.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
Consider youself luckly, my class of 25 has only 1 female it it. And at the start of every class all the guys try to sit around her cause shes damn good looking to be in an engeinerring class. (And yes I try to get a seat next to her as well :)
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
The concorde has an amazing record for reliability, if you search for "concorde crash" you'll find next to nothing relative to BA(who also held the most).
The coolest thing about flying concorde is knowing that the only people higher up than you are in the international space station.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
Indeed. I remember the first air show held here in Southend (now an annual event); as well as the Red Arrows and all sorts of other aircraft, Concorde made an appearance. Everyone just stood up! It was jaw-droppingly beautiful. And powerful. And noisy! But standing there with my hands clamped over my ears didn't spoil the occasion. It made a second pass, too, though by the time it had turned around that was a while later :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
How many /.'ers, or anyone with a salary for that matter, ever flew on the concord? .....
Case closed.
While it was a nice technical achievement for its time, it really only catered to the rich and powerful - so I am not sad to see it go.
I spent the obligatory 9 hours in trans-atlantic flight like the rest of the unwashed masses, and am no worse for wear.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
...to fly on one of those babies. I'm not sure I actually saw the Earth's curve at 60K feet, but the sky sure did get dark blue.
And the Air France Concorde lounge at JFK didn't suck either. I have photos of me and my wife sipping champagne at the window and... say, isn't that Concorde behind us?
Now I have to take the North Pole trip on the Soviet-era nuclear powered ice breaker.
Why is crashes per hour a bad standard? Well, we're talking about super-sonic aircraft here. In my opinion, crashes per mile would be a better standard.
If two planes make the same trip, lets say 10K times, the plane is safer which has fewer crashes period, not the one who happens to make the trip take longer.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
And it's really quite a shame, because so many of us would like to see more fireworks displays fueled by the ultra-rich.
On the other hand, a whole charter plane full of bilious, mean-minded little jerks like yourself could explode and I personally wouldn't give a toss.
Not got money? Not been successful? Diddums. Stop blaming society, blaming the system, blaming those who actually have succeeded.. and maybe, just for once, try harder yourself.
"Is it really fair to call it technological regression? There's more to flight than raw speed... You have a similar situation with the SR-71..."
The retirement of the SR-71 only makes sense to me if a newer and more advanced (and secret) spy plane replaced it. With all the advancement in materials sciences since the SR-71 was designed, I think it would be very possible to improve on that design. Of course I could be wrong, and maybe they were telling the truth when they said that spy satellites and U2s fill that role and a fast spy plane isn't needed any more, but I won't be surprised if they declassify the existence of a mach 3+ stealth spyplane or maybe some successor to the F-117 that isn't quite that fast but has very low observability and also does spy missions. I guess we won't know for 10 or 15 years but if I'm right then the retirement of the SR-71 isn't regression at all.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
good fucking riddance.
i have no desire to see a mode of transportation that IS GOVERNEMNT SUBSIDISED kept in operation when, still, only the obscenely rich consiter using it.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
Not only was the Sonic Cruiser not a supersonic design, the project has already been shelved.
Uh....
Concorde is not going away.
BA wants to steer their high class clientele into regular airline first class seating to make more profit.
Our man Branson gonna be flying Concords real soon.
If I am mistaken I would like to know for sure, but I can't find a link for either of these aircraft that claims suppercruise capability...
Could you please point me towards one?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
There was a very interesting Nova episode about the race between the Concorde, Boeing SST, and TU-144, derisively nicknamed Konkordski by the West.
There is also amazing footage in the episode of a TU-144 crashing at the 1973 Paris Air Show. "Six Soviet crew members and eight French citizens died. One little boy playing in front of his home was decapitated by a piece of flying debris. Two other children were also killed. Sixty people were seriously injured and fifteen houses totally destroyed." A French Mirage jet, secretly following the TU-144 to take photographs, was later blamed for the crash.
Information on the episode http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/supersonic/
How long until I can buy a Concorde on eBay?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Rich... very, very rich people. Their families can hire very, very, very expensive lawyers to make a corporation pay very, very, dearly for their mistake. Think of the lawyers for the families that they can afford. Add that to the cost of running a supersonic, high-end aviation service. It just isn't possible anymore.
The ICAO limits an airline's wrongful-death liability to $70k. I'm not sure if this is on any international flight, or just in international waters, though.
I had planned to fly Concorde on December 17 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of flight. When BA and AF announced the Concorde's retirement, it became now or never.
.8X to 1.9X.
On April 14, 2003, I caught the Concorde from JFK to CDG.
When you walk up to the ticket counter, you notice a separate queue with velvet ropes and engraved letters. Concorde. The ticket counter personnel were phenom. They could not do enough to ensure a pleasureable journey.
The Concorde Lounge is separate from the rest of the concourse. The champagne was warm and tart, and the food was Euro-trash. The lounge attendants were typically-disinterested.
The Concorde sat facing the waiting area windows. When the pilots checked the droop-snoot's operation, the windows filled with cameras and camcorders.
Once aboard, Concorde was extremely plush. The seats were huge, and new, clean leather. The carpets and paneling were fresh and clean. Everything gave you the impression of pride and attentiveness.
Although there is only "first class" on Concorde, there are two sections. The front section is for politicians, royalty, entertainers, and such. I was in the aft section.
The flight attendants wore suits and were extremely professional, courteous, and attentive. I heard one steward speak five different languages.
The Dom Perignon '94 was good but not great, and all you could drink. The cuisine was world-class.
The flight attendants forcefully encouraged the passengers to use the Bose Noise-Canceling headsets. Since I wanted the full experience, I elected to forgo the headsets. Bad idea: The interior noise from the engines is LOUD.
We taxied out. Since the undercarriage gives the Concorde an exceptional height, the taxi was bumpy.
We had almost no wait at the hold line. The after-burners kicked in. The Concorde began to roll. The take-off became an E-ticket ride.
The undercarriage and the poor condition of JFK's runway made the take-off roll a REALLY bumpy ride. Concorde rattles quite disconcertingly.
The acceleration firmly pushed you back in your seat. [I had placed two books in the pocket on the back of the seat in front. The acceleration caused the books to fall out and race to the back of the Concorde in a futile attempt to stay in NY.]
Once the pilot confirms wheels-up, he snap-rolls the Concorde into a 45-degree bank turn and PULLS. [Okay. He SEEMS to snap-roll. Yes, there was a brief moment of terror. Then, I remembered: noise abatement. Almost all aircraft departing JFK must make a turn towards the water, as soon as practicable.]
Once airborne, the Concorde vibrates and accelerates even more. The take-off and climb-out is one unending sensation of acceleration and vibration.
The vibration stops about 6,000 feet. [Delta wings are great at altitude and not-great at low levels.]
Over the Atlantic, the pilot opened her up. We neither felt nor heard the afterburners kick-in; however, the video mach indicator in the cabin started a steady increase from
At altitude, about 45,000', the ride was smoother than almost every airplane ride I've ever had.
The windows are tiny, but they allow you to see what appears to be the curve of the earth.
The service was superb. [My mother doesn't treat me that well.] The food was incredible. They served more food. More wine. More champagne. More. More. More.
The mach meter continued to increase until it reached and remained at 2.04. [Tech note: The Concorde was designed to cruise at 2.04. Concorde 101 reached its fastest supersonic speed of Mach 2.23 and a maximum altitude of 68,000'. Above about 2.3, aircraft develop a supersonic wobble which is not healthy for aircraft or humans.]
The flight attendant came and gave each passenger a certificate signed by both pilots stating the fact that we had flown the Concorde faster than the speed of sound.
Too soon, the Concorde began its descent into Paris. At
From one of the BBC articles about Concorde development:
At one point, work was halted after the French insisted that the plane should have a Gallic final letter "e" in its name - the British stolidly referred to it as "Concord" during development.The French, of course, got their way.
Wow! If such a trivial issue could cause a work stoppage, it's amazing the thing ever got off the ground at all!
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
So what's the break even point? 80% capacity? 90%? How many of those seats were sold at huge discounts or even free as a way to entice travelers from US airlines. Did it work?
I wonder how the break even point between a 747 and a concorde compares.
Then, as the investigation later proved, they had a French military Mirage plane tailing them all the time, trying to gain "intelligence" by taking closeup shots.
However, the Russians had not been warned that they would have someone tailing them and, seeing the Mirage come out of nowhere during a tricky manoeuver, tried to avoid collision by turning the huge plane swiftly, even though it was clearly no designed to widthstand this sort of sudden moves, which resulted in the plane stalling in mid-air. The pilots apparently tried to redress trajectory while the plane was falling down, but were not able to regain control quickly enough to avoid disaster, killing their crew of 5 as well as 8 residents of a nearby village hit by the falling debris.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
I saw a program on tv (Bill Moyars I think) where Virgin airlines founder Richard Branson explained that the reason for concords retirement was that british airways wanted to boost its business class service on its sub-sonic fleet. He also said that he wanted to take over concord and he thought that he could run it at a proffit, he even offered to keep the planes with the same marking as british airlines, so as to not embarras them by making a proffit, but they don't like that idea and are trying to block him. The other thing he mentioned, was that the billions it took to develop concord were paid equally by the UK and France and that british airways only paid a token "british pound" for each airliner, so, in effect, the public owned the planes and sould decide if virgin airlines could take over the service.
The ironic thing is that Air France managed to kill more Germans with that one Concorde crash than they did in all of WWII.
The shockwave is continuous; I've been yachting across the English Channel on two occasions as Concorde overflew at maximum pumpage, and on both I nearly cacked my breeks at the sudden double boom. It is (was) rather loud, to say the least.
FYI - The proper way to refer to the planes and service is Concord. Not "The Concorde". It is a small point, but should to speak with anyone that knows anything, or even used the service, you would stand out immediately as uniniatiated by adding a "The".
Please see post 7261081 and others in the major topic heading - Boeing sunk it all by their lonesome, without requiring the help of any hippies. If it doesn't work and won't make money, chances are it won't be made, with or without protest. If it does work and can make money, it will probably be made - our government has not for some time let the interests of our country interfere with the interests of its largest businesses.
I don't think the hippies at the height of their power were able to put a stop to anything in the first place.
Thats so horrible its funny.
God Im probably going to hell for that.
Have you got a link, I googled and couldn't find anything about supercruise on aircraft other than the F-22.
(I specifically looked for Eurofighter and Gripen stuff...)
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
All Airbus starting from the 320 have digital fly-by-wire controls. The 320 dates from 1988, long before the 777. Airbus markets aggressively the fact that the fly-by-wire controls are similar on all fly-by-wire Airbus airplanes.
The future A380 and A400M will also be fly-by-wire.
The Concorde had analog fly-by-wire on some commands.
I was going to post a very sarcastic message, but I reconsidered. Now for our regularly scheduled message.
I do believe that this will not be the last of the super sonic aircraft to be built and flown, though it more than likely will be the last non-profit aircraft of its kind, mark my words.
As some sort of grounds for my opinion I would like to present the case of the space program undertaken by the infamous United States of America. We are all quite well aware that it was a complete and total utter failure in a business sense. Sure jobs were created and a thriving industry arose, yet collapsed almost as fast. It was passed off in the name of science, but little about it was truly scientific, unless they meant social-political science. No profits were sought by our government, the whole ordeal of going up, prancing about beyond the boundaries of what we call home, and coming back to celebrate was nothing more than a lame fuck off.
At first the space race was nothing more than a sizing contest, where both contestants tried to produce a bigger rocket than the other. In the process of producing these bigger and bigger phallic marvels the public got shafted. But we are all quite well aware that as of recent the private sector has been thrusting their greedy fingers deeper and deeper into the tender morsel that has become of the space industry.
Were it not for the publics tax dollars, the publics sweat and blood represented in a universally acceptable form we would not be where we are now. I firmly believe that a similar set of events will follow the decommissioning of Concorde, and shortly thereafter the public will benefit greatly from that sacrifice made by that selfless British and French public. They had to be quite selfless to not have formed a united lynch mob to eradicate all of their politicians after having spent 11bn sterling pounds on Concorde!
-TalHadar a.k.a. drbardo
OM MANI PADME HUM
Ok, publicity, and he'd probably run it at a loss, yada yada, but if anyone can make a profit from Concorde, Branson can. BA (or whoever) not wanting him to have it reeks of schoolyard childish logic - if I can't have it nobody can - and besides, it was the UK and FR *governments* that invested in it, not BA, so it should be the governments that decide if it should go to Branson.
And I don't see why crashes that kill people mean the whole thing has to be decommissioned. Motorbikes kill; they are still legal. Cars kill, and GM haven't been put down. 11/9/01 doesn't mean we all now live and work in bungalows. Smoking kills and it hasn't been banned. So what's the beef with Concorde?
$6000 for a one-way ticket is not cost effective. Concorde burns about 10x as much fuel per passenger-mile as the latest subsonic aircraft. That figure is independent of any R&D. The physics of supersonic flight given the technology at the time simply don't allow you to get much cheaper.
The thing that killed the aircraft was purely and simply American sour grapes when Boeing finally admitted that their own late entry into supersonic air travel was over budget, overdue and over weight and would never fly. There were plenty of American airline with options to buy, but they all pulled out when the American government then decided to ban overland commercial supersonic flight, making the aircraft practically useless to American airlines.
Which of course explains why Concordes were flying all over continental Europe all the time, right?
As far as reliability goes, one fatal crash in 30 years of operation is actually pretty good. Admittedly, the somewhat spectacular film of the doomed flight didn't help.
That one crash turned Concorde from the safest commercial airliner to the most dangerous commercial airliner. Granted airliner crashes are rare enough that there are huge uncertainties in the statistics you compile about them. But its safety record was not "pretty good" by any stretch.
I've seen a lot of anti-US sentiments, some founded, some not. But this is the first time I've seen someone try to blame the limitations of physics and economics on US policy.
In the colonies, we refer to distinct inanimate objects with a "the." "He is in the hospital."
Oxford English speakers refer to indistinct inanimate items without "the." "He is in hospital."
My certificate reads: BROKE THE SOUND BARRIER ON BOARD THE CONCORDE ON [caps theirs]
The Concorde.
Le Concorde.
Concorde.
But "Concord"?
I live in Hounslow, near Heathrow airport. Despite the loud noise and the vibrations I still love the site of Concorde taking off and landing. Sad to see it retiring. Last weekend news paper commented that it is a giant step backwards for mankind.
The end of the concorde is really depressing. It, to me, fortells the demise of western culture.
The future itself was embodied in supersonic flight, space, and reaching the planets.
It's all dead now. The united states isn't even a space-faring nation any more.
Perhaps China and India will pick up the ball and carry humanity into the future.
Nice.
Dead Germans in Concorde accident = funny.
Dead Americans in Wtc attack = Oh laaawd! The humanity!
If anyone is interested...
r cr aft_genericsearch=Aerospatiale-BAC%20Concorde&dist inct_entry=true
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?ai
- Jimbob
...It does poorly.
I am repeating myself, but it is still true.
The Concorde program was financed by the European tax-payers, who never got their money back -- despite the grotesque ticket prices. Their paternalistic politians considered it a great idea, because, you see, they were great men with an even greater "vision". Crossing the Atlantic in 4 hours is great, but if it can be crossed in 8 hours for 15 times less money -- well, thanks, but no thanks (rough esitmates).
It was not entirely useless, but the free market would've done much better job...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Rich... very, very rich people. Their families can hire very, very, very expensive lawyers to make a corporation pay very, very, dearly for their mistake.
On a civil case like this, lawyers go on contingency, so no money is out of pocket for the individual. This scenario is very likely since a settlement is virtually guaranteed. Therefore being really rich has no particular bearing on the situation.
Lots of money for lawyers helps on criminal cases (when you're the accused) or when the case does not have a guaranteed settlement, and you wish to use lawyers to irritate someone.
Incidentally, let's say this were the case anyway...and flying really rich people around was a higher insurance risk due to the liabilities if something happened. The insurance companies who underwrite the airline woudl take this into consideration and charge higher premiums. Those higher premiums would translate into higher airfares for those rich individuals, meaning that they were essentially insuring their own expensive asses.
Fact is that the response to Concorde by the US was bound to be infuenced by its 'foreign' build and the need by Boeing and others to constrain competition.
All the nonsense about noise of operations would have been swept aside if the US flag was slapped on the side.
The withdrawal of Concorde from service without a supersonic replacement will leave a massive void for travellers and manufacturers. It is a testament to the Concorde development teams that they solved the design issues at a time when it took real skill and engineering talent to produce a conventional airplane, never mind a craft that is still world beating after all these years.
Goodbye sweet bird, farewell sweet Concorde!
If I could take a automobile to the moon, yes you could make such a comparison (even then, the car would probably still come out ahead, but I don't know the figures). But until I can, it's pretty useless to compare the two. Commercial aircraft (including the Concorde) make tend to make the same flights and are used for the same purpose, making the original comparison valid in the first place.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
All right, apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?