« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: The Concord  (Read 4161 times)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
The Concord
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2003, 06:50:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
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!


I meant the second crash, after which the commercial flights were stopped.

I heard several opinions about Paris crash. The one that I value most is from a guy who worked in Tupolev DB, and is based on his Father's story. He said it was a bug in a test version of a control software in on-board digital computer. The program "went crazy" after the pilot had to pull up too hard to avoid collision, and it resulted in fatal control surfaces movement. Another version was that some journalist dropped a camera and it locked some controls.

Here is a link to a detailed article about 1973 Paris crash

Sorry for using a translation robot...
Logged

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
The Concord
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2003, 07:13:51 PM »
Bottom line:

America was and is fully capable of building an SST. We had a mach 3 bomber flying in 1964.

Concorde was a waste of money and owns the worst saftey record of any major aircraft flown today by far. Crashes per departure the worst of any airliner by a VERY large margin

Britain and France are not making any more Concordes because it's a waste of money, pure and simple...... unless they forgot how to make them.
Logged

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
The Concord
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2003, 07:24:44 PM »
A Brit merely has to look at the terminals at Heathrow to see which is superior... the 747 or the Concord.

It may be a source of national pride, but as a passenger jet it really just made for a good source of national pride.

Would have loved to have flown in one... and only saw one fly once (BA trying to find Pacific landing sites that would allow them)... but always thought they looked cool.

MiniD
Logged

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
The Concord
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2003, 03:45:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE

America was and is fully capable of building an SST.



Go on then.  We're waiting......

Logged

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
The Concord
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2003, 03:49:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swoop
Go on then.  We're waiting......



Are you implying that America is not capable of building a sst?
Logged

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
The Concord
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2003, 03:56:49 AM »
Are you capable of crapping a 16lb terd?

If so....well I'll believe it when you call the plumber and not before.

Logged

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
The Concord
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2003, 04:01:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swoop
Are you capable of crapping a 16lb terd?

If so....well I'll believe it when you call the plumber and not before.



So you believe that building an SST is beyond are capabilities until you see it built? You are funny.
Logged

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
The Concord
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2003, 04:02:05 AM »
And you cant spell "our"

Logged

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
The Concord
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2003, 04:23:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
So you believe that building an SST is beyond are capabilities until you see it built? You are funny.



Nuke, why do you argue with obvious things? :D

Even USSR that didn't have a market position for SST have built it, and you, hm, refused?! Just to buy a flying-lab SST from Russians?

:D :D :D
Logged

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
The Concord
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2003, 04:29:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Boroda
Nuke, why do you argue with obvious things? :D

Even USSR that didn't have a market position for SST have built it, and you, hm, refused?! Just to buy a flying-lab SST from Russians?

:D :D :D


You are smart because you built something there was no market for.

We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market  for it.
Logged

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
The Concord
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2003, 04:29:57 AM »
LOL Nuke.

Sometime I am amazed by the discussions you put yourself in. :)

BTW, there are many projects about Hypersonic planes, this may mean that there's still some market for "fast planes".

I dont understand why it's so painfull for you and some other "pride-guy" the fact that the only 2 operative supersonic passengers planes were Russian and French/UK made.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2003, 04:34:00 AM by Naso »
Logged

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
The Concord
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2003, 04:47:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
You are smart because you built something there was no market for.

We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market  for it.


Wrong affirmation, at the time the studies started there was a market.

The 1st oil shock increasing cost of operation of the plane killed the bird.
Logged

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
The Concord
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2003, 05:06:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Wrong affirmation, at the time the studies started there was a market.

The 1st oil shock increasing cost of operation of the plane killed the bird.


America canceled it's SST program in 1971 due to noise ( sonic booms) and market.

It wasn't viable then, and isn't viable now.
Logged

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9886
The Concord
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2003, 05:18:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
You are smart because you built something there was no market for.

We are stupid because we didn't build the SST, because there was and is no market  for it.


Exactly the same thing was said about the 747 - it was after all a cancelled military project.
Logged

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
The Concord
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2003, 05:19:04 AM »
Environemental  : yes.
Market : No
according to this page : http://www.the-sst.com/aircraft/b2707/
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 11   Go Up
« previous next »