Author Topic: The Concord (Read 4177 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2003, 02:37:20 PM »

Yeah, it also attracts people with superiority complexes but don't have the nationality and history to back it up. Or they do have a history, but would rather forget it.

I'm sure it's a very comfortable band-wagon, as it was back then.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2003, 02:39:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
And comparing a 747 to a Concord is a apples and oranges argument if ever I saw one.

No its not, they two approaches to the same problem - increasing passenger demand for air travel. Boeing chose the right way and you guys chose wrong way - there are hundreds of 747 all around the world there are nor only a dozen or so concordes - why is that? Or are you telling me it was always the britis and french master plan to ever only build and operate only 12 of the damn things after investinbg countless billions into their development. I know you are prolly a bigtime socialist dowding but even you cant be that finiancialy inpet and ignortant - the concorde was a giant failiure plain and simple the only reason it was kept was for mnatinal prestige.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2003, 02:39:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah, it also attracts people with superiority complexes but don't have the nationality and history to back it up. Or they do have a history, but would rather forget it.

I'm sure it's a very comfortable band-wagon, as it was back then.

So thats why the USA speaks english..

crabofix · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2003, 03:29:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Dammit Dowding! When will you British start controlling that miserable colony of yours, huh? They even have guns now, WTF?!?

They have guns?...MY GOD!!:eek:

Dowding · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2003, 03:36:56 PM »

Quote

No its not, they two approaches to the same problem - increasing passenger demand for air travel. Boeing chose the right way and you guys chose wrong way - there are hundreds of 747 all around the world there are nor only a dozen or so concordes - why is that? Or are you telling me it was always the britis and french master plan to ever only build and operate only 12 of the damn things after investinbg countless billions into their development. I know you are prolly a bigtime socialist dowding but even you cant be that finiancialy inpet and ignortant - the concorde was a giant failiure plain and simple the only reason it was kept was for mnatinal prestige.

Come off it. The 747 and Concorde had two completely different design briefs - even you must see that. The central concept of one was capacity, the other was speed. Even Boeing recognised the difference by entering the SST competition in the first place - and failing.

Concorde was not the success it was meant to be, true. But it succeeded in other areas and the cost was justified. One of those was national pride.

Furball · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2003, 03:52:40 PM »

it was a political project too, Because britain was entering the EU at the time.

straffo · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:02:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
12 planes flying low hours and one of them crashing killing all aboard is an overall safety disaster. Departures per accident is the worst on record by far

Add speed to your equation and all of a sudden it's sound stupid.

Of the Mach 2 capable commercial planes Concorde hold the best safety record.

Seriouly you don't thing you forgave something in your reasonning ?

@GRUN : Concorde is also pretiest than any fat/obese Amerucann 747

AKIron · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:24:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Add speed to your equation and all of a sudden it's sound stupid.

Of the Mach 2 capable commercial planes Concorde hold the best safety record.

Seriouly you don't thing you forgave something in your reasonning ?

@GRUN : Concorde is also pretiest than any fat/obese Amerucann 747

Dunno if that beats the Russians, they have mach 2+ planes and spacecraft for hire (makes them commercial right?) without 100+ fatalities.

straffo · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:31:43 PM »

I disagree with your definition of a commercial plane mine is : in exploitation/used by a aerial company with your definition the space shuttle is almost a comercial plane

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:32:53 PM »

They were different approachres to the same foreseen problem - increased passenger demand. One team thought they could do it with speed and the other thought they could do it with capacity. Of cousre the designs are different, they were going at the same problem from different perspectives.

I am asking you if you really belive that the Concorde was always intended to be just a luxury $10,000 a hop plaything for millionaires , if you do then it was a glorious sucess. If you dont then it was a misreable business failiure and was only kept afloat for reasons you allude to - national pride..

Straffo the Concorde sure is pretty - I look forward to vising one in a museum later this year..

straffo · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:38:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I am asking you if you really belive that the Concorde was always intended to be just a luxury $10,000 a hop plaything for millionaires , if you do then it was a glorious sucess. If you dont then it was a misreable business failiure and was only kept afloat for reasons you allude to - national pride..

Straffo the Concorde sure is pretty - I look forward to vising one in a museum later this year..

Yep ,you are concorde was kept in operation only for prestige economicaly it a catastrophe.

I've visited one in the Bourget I think it's number 001 (not sure)

straffo · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2003, 04:41:20 PM »

I love what happened the 17 June 1974

Quote

Concorde 02 décolle de Boston à l'instant où un Boeing 747 décolle de Paris C-D-G_CONCORDE ravitaille à Paris escale de 50 min et repart pour Boston où il se pose 5 min avant le Jumbo

it's bed time here so if you've trouble translating this text I'll do it tomorrow

Boroda · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2003, 05:36:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Dunno if that beats the Russians, they have mach 2+ planes and spacecraft for hire (makes them commercial right?) without 100+ fatalities.

Hehe, definetly the Tu-144 ticket price was affordable for an ordinary engineer on 120 rubles monthly, not only for millionaires.

Tu-144 was abandoned mostly because it was impossible to keep the prices low enough so SOMEONE could fly it without being arrested on arrival for illegal income.

Another problem was that it was supposed to be Moscow-Khabarovsk non-stop, and the existing engines were too fuel-hungry. So the only "commercial" route was Moscow - Alma-Ata.

I made a brief search, so Tu-144 was on cargo (!!!) routes since 1975, and on passenger flights in 1977-78. The It was removed from service because another crash on test flight with new economical engines. So we have only 2 machines lost out of 16 produced, and casualities count incomparable with Concorde...

Hmmm... Interesting. I didn't know that the 1978 crash was not fatal, the crew managed to land it but 2 crew members died. The investigation showed that it was a crew's fault...

Scootter · « **Reply #28 on:** May 11, 2003, 05:57:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
lol American scientists? Some of them had a very convincing German accent, eh? And comparing a 747 to a Concord is a apples and oranges argument if ever I saw one.

The Americans couldn't do it - and it wasn't just about environmental and economic concerns. Money counts for nothing in terms of international prestige - Americans should realise that just by watching the pictures of golf being played on the moon. The US design was too ambitious to be realised, it was too probablematic to be solved and it was easier/less costly to give up and pretend it didn't matter.

'Viable' is a relative term.

He-he "The Americans couldn't do it", if you mean make a profit then you are right, as it seems no one can, if you mean the US could not build one, then you must really get out more. If the US needed to build one I think we may have struggled our way through the complexity’s and somehow made it work.
The Concorde is a beautiful aircraft and the world is a better place that it was built and that we have experienced it, to bad it is being pulled from duty. I have seen them in flight and really enjoyed the experience, I understand the flight inside is really a non-event, just that you get somewhere faster. This is from a client that lived in Germany and has flown round trip three times on business.

Furball · « **Reply #29 on:** May 11, 2003, 06:23:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Hmmm... Interesting. I didn't know that the 1978 crash was not fatal, the crew managed to land it but 2 crew members died. The investigation showed that it was a crew's fault...

that the paris airshow crash?

if so - it was fatal for all crew, saw a program on it not so long ago. Crew pulled too many neg g's and the plane fell apart.

Theres a thoery that it had to pull away like that because a french mirage was spying on it!