The Concord

[rc51]

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.

LOL I say you britt's have a wicked sense of humor .

[Fatty]

Nuke is our blitz, you guys should know that by now.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Fatty
Nuke is our blitz, you guys should know that by now.

Understood.

[Dowding]

Yeah GScholz. But I think it went nose down to avoid something above it - the French Mirage recon plane apparently. It's called 'bunting' when you push the nose forward like that? The engines did actually restart, but the alt was too low for a safe pullout and the pilot over-stressed the air-frame in attempting to avoid the ground.

[Scootter]

I guess you are right there is no way the US could have built a SST we just don't have the technical know-how  to do something like that.





Perhaps we didn’t need the boost in our national image (read pride) to continue with something that has no real market (read profits). But what do I know.

If anyone really thinks the US could not have built one, well there is no sense arguing with you, as you really are an idiot. Nothing personal here just a fact. (deference given to any real clinical idiots)

The beauty of capitalism is when profits are available then the motive for the research is a given and money is spent to realize that goal, look at this countrie's medical achievements. Most (over 72% see note) of the new discoveries in drugs are from the US, this is because companies are willing to spent millions on research hoping the new discoveries will meet the trials and approvals and someday return a profit. (Point: most drugs never reach the market and the costs are made up on the ones that do)  
(note: PHARMA and ADA statistic’s from 2002 as well as US FDA statistic’s from 2001 averaged)

From what I understand the Concorde has never made a dime in profit, ever (if this is incorrect and if the airlines are making money with them please correct me). Considering the government in total paid for its development, so this cost was never born by its customers, this program would not be considered a success by any measure except as a source of national pride.

Nothing wrong with doing something just to say you did it and have no real cost benefits except for national pride, The US did that with the Apollo program, so we went to the moon, and you made a fast jet, we are even, sort of. Of course if we spent what we did on the moon program on fast jets most Americans would have them in their garages.

Given the financial condition our airlines are in today I for one am very glad we have no SST’s, but I am sorry to see them go.

Oh and as for the copying thing, I believe the mission requirements dictate the design more then anything, what, would you want the Russian STS to look like the Starship Enterprise? Human technology still has to agree with the laws of physics, and this requirement is why the physical similarity exists more then anything else. IMHO

[maddog]

You guys are great..... Dowding you got the right avatar...

When am I going to see you guys (Dowding and Boroda) on Saturday night live...... funny

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Scootter
Perhaps we didn’t need the boost in our national image (read pride) to continue with something that has no real market (read profits). But what do I know.

From what I understand the Concorde has never made a dime in profit, ever (if this is incorrect and if the airlines are making money with them please correct me). Considering the government in total paid for its development, so this cost was never born by its customers, this program would not be considered a success by any measure except as a source of national pride.

If you think the US runs on capitalism alone you are quite wrong. The US has a solid history of propping up non-profitable industries to A) boost its national image  B) keep someone in the whitehouse at the time.

Although sometimes its choice of protectionism is quite amusing (sheep for example). I mean - the Frogs and Pommies propping up the Concorde project is quite understandable. But ahh propping up your sheep farmers? Whats with that?

[2stony]

The Museum of Flight in Seattle is supposedly getting a Concorde for their collection.

[Scootter]

Vulcan,

      I am well aware of this, which’s why I mentioned the Apollo project. The fact is that the SST project was not viable and we didn't need or want to spent government money on the project with  no commercial value. And no company wanted to go broke paying the bills for a doomed endeavor, pure and simple. The US project tried to get the passenger count in the design but that was still a non starter as well due to the environmental concerns that were very political in the 70's. The last word is the US could have built any kind of SST it wanted to (see the XB-70, SR-71,B-1B, B-2 etc.) if that was the mandate but it was not. I take nothing away from the two SST designs as they are perhaps the prettiest commercial aircraft since the Constellation of the 50's, and may be for a very long time to come.

Regards

[Ouaibe]

Haaaa Constellation. A desing stolen from the Caravel from Sud Aviation !
And, yes, Russian stole the blueprint of a prototype of the Concorde. They didn't change the wings, they were like that on the blueprint of the prototype they have stolen. But the English/French change the design after that.
Anecdote : a russian general at a presentation of the final prototype of the Concorde look at it and says 'Hoo, you've done it like that ? That's not what we had on the blueprint.'

It comes from memory so i don't sware it's 100% true... But seing the records of this forum it shouldn't bother anyone

[Scootter]

Ja I guess we stole the Wright Flyer design from you guys also:rolleyes:

[straffo]

Originally posted by Ouaibe
Haaaa Constellation. A desing stolen from the Caravel from Sud Aviation !

I believe you are wrong on this one
the Connie was a 4 prop engine flying long before the caravelle

[midnight Target]

Caravelle

Constellation

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Furball
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.

Did you know that we had a programm on XXX TV channel about CIA stealing MiG-25 blueprints to build F-15? (it's a joke, Russians are not dumb enough to believe such fairy-tales).

It's ridiculous.

We had supersonic bombers in early-60s. In mid-60s there was a competition for a second-generation supersonic-bomber capable of M2+, mostly between Sukhoi and Tupolev. Sukhoi made "Sotka", Tupolev worked on what became a 144. Tupolev was famous for "under-carpet" intrigues. He always lobbied his designs, and they usually were adopted by VVS and GVF, even when better ones were availible. Look at Myasishchev's 3M and M-4 bombers. They were decades ahead of their time. Look at "Sotka", it looks almost like 144, but had some design innovations and was abandoned mostly because of cost and development of rocket anti-aircraft artillery.

USSR was (and still is) ahead of the West in airplane design. Too hard to admit it, I understand. Soviet designs are traditionaly more progressive and are supposed to use technological processes inferior to the West. We simply have better engineers who can make a nessesary thing using cheaper and simplier technology.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Naso
You asked for it, Boroda.

ROTFLMAO!!!

I was just bored and jealous that everyone pays too much attention to French and British