Author Topic: Concorde crashes in Paris  (Read 536 times)

Offline Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3817
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2000, 06:15:00 AM »
Djust read an story about an 21 yo girl who was in the hotel when the Concorde came right for it, she had djust opened her window an couple of minutes before the crash and without thinking she djust jumped out the window when she saw the disaster aproching fast...(dont know what story but it was not ground level)

Her decicion to jump saved her life....

Regards

------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-


   
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/
Warbirds handle : nr-1 //// -nr-1- //// Maniac

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2000, 05:41:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by funked:
Torquila, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

1.  F-BTSC, the aircraft in question, made its first flight in 1975.  There are many commercial aircraft in service that are older than this.

2.  F-BTSC had less than 12,000 hours on the airframe.  Many commercial aircraft less than 10 years old have more hours than this.

3.  No evidence that fatigue contributed to this accident.

4.  Your insinuation that the manufacturers and operators of the aircraft would not or could not predict and inspect for fatigue damage is disgusting.


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]

Funked, RAM i really don't appreciate being flamed ASAP. I dont think that this is the appropriate topic for that childish stuff. BTW my view would be quite flawed because of my lack of knowlege of the commercial aviation buisness.  Something 30 years or more seems pretty damed old to me (no offence to you middle-aged people out there).  Also i dont really want to think about this accident to much (Is flying from Malaga- Zurich on the 31st)
 *shivers*


[This message has been edited by Torquila (edited 07-26-2000).]

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2000, 06:01:00 PM »
Some British Airways Concorde's were refitted a few years ago with replacing sections of the wings, fusilage and main joists (I think that just one being done at a go and not sure if they've gone through them all yet).  The BA Concorde's should be pretty good on fatigue.  I have no idea of the refitting programme for Air France Concorde's.  

I do believe Indian Airways owned a Concorde too, but I don't think this flies anymore.

'Nexx'
NEXX

funked

  • Guest
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2000, 06:10:00 PM »
Sorry Torquila, I'm very sensitive to criticism of aerospace engineering issues by the media and other uninformed people.  Your foolish speculation that the age of the aircraft had something to do with this accident hit a raw nerve.

Furthermore the bit about profit was irritating.  They charge about $10,000 US per passenger per flight, but you seem to think they are cutting corners?  If profit wasn't a concern... we wouldn't have supersonic transports in the first place.

Good luck on your trip.  

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-26-2000).]

Offline Dinger

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2000, 09:08:00 PM »
Saying "you don't know what you're talking about", isn't a flame, nor is it authorization to be pedantic and accuse others of flaming you.  In this case, it's a statement of fact.  Hell, even "think before you talk" is an adequate admonishment.  Saying, "you are a x", or "I can't believe that even a idiot/fascist/gun-toter/nazi/tree-hugger/republican such as X would hold such a position" is a flame.
It's the difference between attacking someone's argumentation (or basis for arguing) and the person himself.  So you can't escape that way.  After all you've been through lately, you should be able to recognize a hardcore flame from someone telling you you're full of it.
The fatigue of sitting in a hangar can't compare with that of wicked temperature gradients and pressure differences at twice the speed o' sound.  And don't go thinking that the engine is the same one from 75.

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2000, 02:32:00 AM »
Agree with Funked and Dinger.

Not a personal attack there, Torquila, but a simple fact: before even serious data was known about the crash, before the engine failure was evident for everyone, you already were here saying that a 30 year old plane cant be in service (BTW NO concorde is 30 years old, and ALL of them have passed through an EXTENSIVE overhaul. The one crashed was, in effect, a 2 year old airframe after its overhaul).

AS Funked said, your assumption of the incident caused by the plane's age is, at least, disgusting. Concorde has been for 2 decades the most reliable in-service aircraft. A disgrace like this doesnt change that, all other models of commercial aircraft have had way more problems and crashes than Concorde.

So, as I said, think before you talk. Or at least next time wait until some official data is of public knowledge before making assumptions.



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-27-2000).]

Offline Torquila

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2000, 02:34:00 AM »
Your absolutly right dinger,  so is funked and RAM, I never think before i talk. Also  I know  funked's comments were not a flame, i just didnt want another topic directed towards me again. I was hoping we could just forget about my idoicy and lack of knowlege and talk about the topic at hand.

funked

  • Guest
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2000, 06:40:00 AM »
Hehe <S> Torquila.

Offline qts

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
      • None yet
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2000, 11:37:00 AM »
I work in the aerospace industry, and was talking over the accident. I learned the following:

1 - Because Concorde is so fast, it isn't subject to the water damage that affects other planes.

2 - UK Concordes fly approx 1/3 the hours that other planes do, and is molly-coddled to boot.

3 - Concorde was profitable within 5 years.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2000, 12:38:00 PM »
Torquila's statement has some substance to it, lets read:


From Aviation Weekly:

The Olympus 593 engine, made jointly by
                      Rolls-Royce of the U.K. and France’s Snecma,
                      is a derivative of a Bristol-Siddley engine that
                      was conceived for the British Vulcan bomber. It
                      uses 1950s engine technology. Rolls-Royce
                      bought Bristol-Siddley in the 1960s.


                      Rolls had a 60% share of the Olympus program
                      and was responsible for the hot section. Snecma
                      made only non-moving parts on the engine.

                      Because only 14 Concordes entered revenue
                      service and the Olympus partners had stockpiled
                      a large supply of spares, no parts have been
                      made for years. So although the Concorde’s
                      engines are carefully maintained and inspected,
                      there have been no improvements to their
                      technology. In addition, the spares are aging
                      even as they sit on a shelf.


                      As engine-related scenarios take center stage
                      among the list of possibilities, investigators will
                      want to determine if the crash was caused by a
                      single engine failure or whether the initial
                      failure damaged the adjacent powerplant.

                      John Wiley, a USAirways captain and training
                      pilot who recently “flew” British Airways’
                      Concorde simulator, wrote in Aviation Week’s
                      Show News that he doubted a single engine
                      failure was responsible. “It is always dangerous
                      to speculate about air crashes from the 2.5 hr. I
                      had in the simulator, (but) I doubt it. We were
                      able to sample the handling with various engine
                      failures from single engine failures at V 1 to dual
                      engine failure at Mach 2.0. With the V 1 engine
                      failure, the Concorde showed better than
                      average manners.”

                      When the captain for Monday’s flight reported
                      the thrust reverser problem, Air France found the
                      spare parts weren’t available in the parts
                      warehouse. But “given the technical tolerance
                      authorized by the manufacturer, the aircraft could
                      take off again without being repaired,” the
                      airline said today in a prepared statement. Flight
                      4590’s captain, however, chose to go ahead with
                      the repair anyway, so mechanics found the parts
                      on “another spare Concorde,” the airline said.
                      The repairs took 30 minutes.

                      Neither engine maker would discuss the accident
                      yesterday.

                      “We have started gathering the known facts of
                      the incident,” said Christopher Springham,
                      Rolls-Royce director of media relations. “We
                      will not speculate on the facts of the crash
                      because it’s premature. A board of inquiry has
                      been established, and we cannot give out any
                      information on the status or history of the engine
                      or airframe.”

                      Parallel investigations will be conducted in
                      France. The French accident investigation
                      bureau, or BEA, will search for the technical
                      causes of the accident. British accident
                      investigators also will join the probe under
                      terms of an agreement between the two
                      countries. The second probe will be a judicial
                      one that will attempt to determine who is
                      responsible for the accident.

                      Because the flight carried German tourists on a
                      charter flight bound for New York, investigators
                      from Germany and the U.S. National
                      Transportation

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-28-2000).]

funked

  • Guest
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2000, 01:22:00 PM »
Rip YES the engine design is old.

NO there is no evidence that the age of the engine design (or any other aspect of the engine design) had anything to do with this accident.

An engine failure by itself is not enough to bring this plane down - as the pilot in your quote makes clear.  An engine failure would only be a safety problem if it were an uncontained failure, causing collateral damage.  But there is no record of past uncontained failures on the Concorde's engines, nor do the engines recovered from the crash site show signs of such a failure.

To reiterate, there are plenty of planes with older designs, more years in service, and more hours than the Concordes.  The age theory is pure crap.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-28-2000).]

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2000, 01:59:00 PM »
I'm speaking along the lines of the "age theory" in regards to what happens to old metal parts used for engines when they sit on a shelf....

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2000, 02:05:00 PM »
Arent they saying it was a blown tire anyway? Saw a pic on CNN earlier, looks like 2 shredded tires on the left side slung into in the wing causing the fuel leaks and god knows what else.

I saw the other day where they said the concorde's takeoff speed is 250 mph. Thats a lot to ask out of a tire. How much does a fully loaded concorde weigh anyway?

Offline Coolridr

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2004, 07:28:42 PM »
remember when this happened?

HARRRRRRRR!!

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Concorde crashes in Paris
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2004, 08:10:30 PM »
wtf Coolridr? You must be really bored...