Concordes On Jan. 21, 1976

[PhilDernerJr]

Some people are taking this too personally and seriously I feel. Sit back and relax. No needs to post manifestos. :)

As much as I love the Concorde, I feel that, given the current economic state of the world, there is not much of a market for the Concorde anymore unfortunately. I do think someone would have created a new one if that was the case.

The aircraft was also quite a gas guzzler, and therefore unpopular with the world's current environmental needs as well.

I am sure that the natural progression of technology will bring back supersonic passenger transport within fifty years. I think that at that point, all planes will be supersonic because of the steady advancements in engines that simply will take aircraft beyond transonic speeds.

Until then, we'll have to sit back, wait, and enjoy Mirrodie's seats!

[Jetinder]

I can't believe that I started such a discussion pro and con regarding Concorde. Such a debate attests to her greatness;

We are only having a healthy debate :) we are not in a fight or argument.

Concorde always brings out peoples emotions and passions, we all have our views i feel she is the greatest thing since the invention of milk chocolate, other feels no...........

So no worries :), live and let live :) 8)

I believe that Concorde, some built at Aerospatiale at Toulouse, France and Airbus, are basically the same corporation re-named and re-financed.

She was built by Aerospatiale in France and UK, roughly half of each Concorde was built in France and UK before being stuck together.

In the 1970's Aerospatiale became Airbus, but during the last 10 years officially i think EADS took over Concorde while Airbus concentrated on subsonic planes, but Airbus still made parts for Concorde and told BA + AF when to service her etc, but EADS is also the parent company of Airbus............. the above is confusing.

For what Concorde did she was more fuel efficient than the TU144 and any other airliner.

Concorde could have been modernised look at what the USAF have done with the 1950s B52s........... but now in 2009 thats all acedemic as the bird will never fly again.

I am sure that the natural progression of technology will bring back supersonic passenger transport within fifty years. I think that at that point, all planes will be supersonic because of the steady advancements in engines that simply will take aircraft beyond transonic speeds

I agree :) but in 50 years time i probably won't be around as I'm 40 now............ doh.

Some say "son of Concorde" will make sub orbitall hops............ dunno.

[mirrodie]

Tom Fitzpatrick :mrgreen: , stop pissing on our parade!

Let's remember needlenose!

I agree on Tom's points wholly. Only sad truth is that in every technology, things usually get better. Phones, computers, boats, conputer data transfer speeds, everything gets faster. Too bad the airlines' progress is measured in terms of fuel efficiency as opposed to time efficiency.

[Tom_Turner]

I recall reading one (seeming well reasoned) assertion that had the resources not been diverted to developing Concorde, the Caravelle would've seen later competitive versions and kept pace (to a reasonable extent) with the DC-9/MD-80. If true, that alone indicts concorde as a huge mistake, as it set back the European Aviation industry.

In her defense, I too recall that BA certainly (and quite possibly Air France) made profits from operating to North America. So by that measure, Concorde was a commercial success from the airline point of view, but presumably not from the manufacturers.

Also, Jetinder there was, I would agree, at least for a time, significant "celebratory" interest in the airframe amongst the public to generate some margin of revenue. Hence Braniff's flirtation with subsonic use of the airframe.

From a spotter's point of view, The Boeing SST, had it been realized, I think quite possibly would've thrashed concorde aesthetically, though the debate would exist (almost akin to which constellation was the most visually pleasing - the basic design or the Super Connie with wing tip fuel tanks).

Could be wrong on this, but I believe it was the US Congress that killed the Boeing SST - and indeed the issue was noise and not fuel in those days.

Agree also there is a market per se for supersonic flight still; but as Phil indicated the economics kills it for the time being. Also, and this is bad luck/happenstance, but in several of the world wide city pairs that might be expected to have such demand, the distance/speed ratio work out to inopportune departure or arrival times, defeating the would be advantage of probably the business traveler, leaving only the latter day "jet set" (to use an old term), and you probably need both of those types of passengers to make it work. (Again, at least for now..)

Last but not least, I will once again bring up the point that Concorde went from statistically the safest of all airliners to the most dangerous, with that terrible crash in France. That was a significant design flaw. Had concorde been manufactured in the numbers of the 737 that would be the equivalent of a crash every week or two (take off and landings). Of course, once the "fix" was implemented, the issue would resolve, but for what its worth...

Tom

[Gerard]

>Some people are taking this too personally and seriously I feel. Sit back and relax. No needs to post manifestos. :)<

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He said "manifestos"!!!

[Jetinder]

Last but not least, I will once again bring up the point that Concorde went from statistically the safest of all airliners to the most dangerous, with that terrible crash in France. That was a significant design flaw. Had concorde been manufactured in the numbers of the 737 that would be the equivalent of a crash every week or two (take off and landings). Of course, once the "fix" was implemented, the issue would resolve, but for what its worth...

Tom

Thats debate-able.

The Paris crash had nothing to do with Concorde's design, Until Paris Concorde had covered countless thousands of miles and carried countless millions of people safely at mach 2 for around 20 years.

Even if bits of her came off in flight, Concorde never broke up or crashed, she safely got people home that proves she was 110% safe.

During Concordes development she was tested more than any other airliner to make sure she was safe, her pilots where better trained than any others.

Not sure about Air France, but with BA they always had 2 Concordes per flight at LHR.

So if one didn't feel right people where moved to the backup Concorde which was parked close to it and had also full mach 2 capability.

On mine my backup was G-BOAG (one now in Seattle), my main one was G-BOAD.

During her life more there where more fatal crashes of subsonic planes inc 747s, 737s, DC10s etc than Concorde.

Concorde only had one and then press used "statistics" to make her out to be the bad guy when she is not.

According to "statistics" you're more likely to get hurt walking down the road to buy a newspaper than you are in flying on a plane, but every one still walks down the road.

When i flew I had 110% confidence in her and in my pilots, she never let me down, so i for one would extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely happy fly on her again with no worries.

Paris crash was caused by a number of things main cause was a bit falling off a DC10 (which was left on the runway), as Concorde reached take off speed she ran over it, this blew her tyres, bits of tyre hit the wings, fuel raced out and was ignited by the after burners and the pilots lost thrust, but where at V1 so had no choice but to try and take off and then crash land some where else.

Some reports say she could have crash landed safely and lives could have been saved had the pilots not switched off a few of her engines.... others say it was the DC 10 bit + dodgy back wheels (which AF engineers had not properly fixed).

Concorde's safety was also down to how she was looked after and how she was flown.

In the past I spoke to BA Concorde engineers and heard many years ago an AF Concorde had landed at LHR and needed a service, BA Concorde engineers helped out but where horrified at how badly looked after the AF Concorde was.

AF had a few dodgy moments with their Concordes, one of them was where an AF Concorde landed to heavily on a runway and this heavy landing basically recked airframe, that was down to pilot error and not the plane.

1 fatal crash in 30 odd years means the plane is extremely safe.

If you look at "statistics" BA Concordes are still the safest in the world as no BA Concorde ever crashed, so in the right hands Concorde is the safest airliner ever made.

So its horses for courses.

[PhilDernerJr]

If you do the math, 12 airframes with one flight a day and one crash attributed to a design flaw compared to the amount of 737s built and how many cycles they operate in a single day....statistically makes the Concorde one of the most dangerous planes. Again, that's the math on it. You can type as much as you want, but that's a statistical fact in terms of passenger/flight cycle ratio.

Again, I love the plane, but the reality is that there were a few variables that made it impractical and unnecessary. :(

[Jetinder]

Phil

I respect the views of every one on here but as to her being safe or not lets agree to disagree on this :)

I feel she is 110% safe others don't....... so no worries :) 8)

[PhilDernerJr]

I'm not saying it's unsafe, but that the odds of crashing on a Concorde is higher than almost any other airliner. That's fact that can't be disputed. It's not opinion, but math.

[727C47]

I just loved to watch her curve around the Canarsie approach and envelop me in her roar,as she scorched her way toward 13L,aesthetically she was priceless, a true classic,like my beloved DC-3,and 727,and that can never be taken away from her.