Author Topic: The Concord (Read 4178 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #45 on:** May 12, 2003, 05:22:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Exactly the same thing was said about the 747 - it was after all a cancelled military project.

was speaking of comercial market, which the SST was designed for.

Vulcan · « **Reply #46 on:** May 12, 2003, 05:23:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
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.

So whats the issue? The USA continually props up any failing industries. What may be perceived on the outside as financial failures may internally have other successes internally. The Concorde kept the Euro Air industry alive for a bit longer. Looking a the bigger picture it may not have been a failure - long term for the Euro aviation industry.

NUKE · « **Reply #47 on:** May 12, 2003, 05:24:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Environemental : yes.
Market : No
according to this page : http://www.the-sst.com/aircraft/b2707/

Straffo, if an SST can't fly super-sonic over land, or land at major airports, then the economics of the plan seem to come into play.

Vulcan · « **Reply #48 on:** May 12, 2003, 05:25:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
was speaking of comercial market, which the SST was designed for.

So was I. At the time it was a massive gamble to continue the project. But it paid off

Industry critics claimed the 747 would be a massive failure.

straffo · « **Reply #49 on:** May 12, 2003, 06:43:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Straffo, if an SST can't fly super-sonic over land, or land at major airports, then the economics of the plan seem to come into play.

From http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/07/25/concorder.history/

Quote

In 1972, the plane's future looked bright. More than a dozen airlines had placed orders for the aircraft, and even at a staggering $3.5 billion development cost, France and Britain expected to recoup their investment.

But a year later, the Arab oil embargo hit the fuel-guzzling Concorde hard, as the price of fuel spiralled and prospective buyers dropped out.

Eventually, the British and French governments were forced to write off the cost of the plane's production.

Please read this : http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

Boroda · « **Reply #50 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:02:23 AM »

What really surprises me is that noone in this threads accused Soviets of stealing the Concorde design...

straffo · « **Reply #51 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:05:09 AM »

don't forget the soviet stealed the concorde design.

Happy now Boroda ?

Boroda · « **Reply #52 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:11:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
don't forget the soviet stealed the concorde design.

Happy now Boroda ?

Tu-144 made a first flight 2 months before Concorde

It's just funny to see Americans bashing someone else but not me

Furball · « **Reply #53 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:16:44 AM »

Boroda, it was a stolen concorde design. Just because it flew 2 months before doesn't mean it wasn't. The soviets just changed the wing design (which lost stability to they had to install retractable canard foreplanes).

Furball · « **Reply #54 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:21:04 AM »

look familiar?

Russian Shuttle

B-29.... err i mean Tu-4

straffo · « **Reply #55 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:23:06 AM »

Just wait a bit the american horde is just having the first coffee of the day

Let them have 1 hour to warn-up as the night service is gone sleeping ...

Boroda · « **Reply #56 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:24:50 AM »

WTG Furball!

Classics.

"That bloody Russians always steal our designs! They already fly a plane that we wanted to build five years later!"

Furball · « **Reply #57 on:** May 12, 2003, 09:59:47 AM »

Boroda, the KGB stole the blueprints for it. There was a BBC documentary on the issue. While the British/French were developing the Concorde, the Russian's rushed it into production to beat the Concorde into the air - with disastrous consequences.

They also said the Russians changed the wing design so it was not identical to Concorde. The wing was very carefully designed by British/French and the changes the russians made was largely due to its failure.

If you do not see the direct copy of the Tu-144 to Concorde you are either blind or just ignoring the facts.

Furball · « **Reply #58 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:01:39 AM »

Quote

In 1962, Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev learned France and Britain were going to build a supersonic airliner. He erupted in fury that these `petit-bourgeois capitalist' nations could steal a technological march of the mighty Soviet Union. Khruschev ordered a crash program to beat Concorde.

When the USSR's respected Tupelov design bureau ran into trouble designing its supersonic TU-144, KGB was ordered to steal Concorde's blueprints from the west.

KGB agents in Britain repeatedly sought to obtain data on Concorde's powerful Olympus engines which had been used in Britain's V-series heavy bombers. Other KGB agents targeted French plants manufacturing Concorde's fuselage and wings. The Soviets were not alone in stealing aircraft technology. Soon after, Israeli spies stole plans of France's Mirage-III/V, which became Israel's `Kfir' fighter.

The chief of Britain's RAF Bomber Command, the late Air Vice Marshall Stewart Menaul, revealed to me in the mid-1980's that British intelligence teamed up with French counterparts, DST and DGSE, to thwart KGB and teach the spying Russians a lesson. Menaul said the British doctored Concorde's drawings so that its center of gravity was too far to the rear. KGB agents were allowed to steal the corrupted blueprints.

The Soviet TU-144 was rushed into production. Its first flight came on 31 Dec, 1968, beating the Concorde's debut by three months. All foreign observers who saw the TU-144- immediately dubbed `Konkordski'- commented it was `nearly identical' to Concorde. So it was, except for the Soviet innovation of small canard wings near the cockpit. In fact, `Konkordski' was a Chinese copy of Concorde.

The Soviets proudly debued TU-144 to the world at the 1973 Paris Air Show. After performing a sharp turn at 1,500 ft, the aircraft broke up and crashed, killing 14 aboard and three children on the ground. This embarrassing public catastrophe brought worldwide ridicule on the Soviets and delivered a fatal blow to their supersonic program. After a second TU-144 crashed on the way from Moscow to Central Asia, the Soviets wisely mothballed `Konkordski.'

Quote

After the Paris fiasco, there were stories, probably spread by KGB disinformers, that a French Mirage fighter had burst from clouds on a collision course with the TU-144, forcing it into a sharp turn whose g-force proved lethal to the airframe. The Mirage, according to this version, was trying to photograph TU-144's canard winglets. Moscow whispered the French had provoked the accident so that TU-144 would not steal the limelight from la belle Concorde.

This sounds like something the French might cook up. The often out-of-control spooks of France's foreign intelligence - DGSE- were not above occasional sabotage - recall the case of the `Rainbow Warrior' - and knocking off irksome enemies of the Republic. But it was Her Majesty's Secret Service that apparently delivered this nasty, below-the-belt blow to the Soviets. Perfidious Albion had the last laugh on the spying Ruskis.

from http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/goddess.html

Naso · « **Reply #59 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:04:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
What really surprises me is that noone in this threads accused Soviets of stealing the Concorde design...

You asked for it, Boroda.

ROTFLMAO!!!