kgwilson Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 In the news reader is an article from Gizmodo Australia entitled "The Concorde took its first flight to failure 25 years ago". Where did they get that from? :thumb_down:Prototype 001 (F-WTSS) first flew on 2 March 1969 & 002 (G-BSST) on 9 April 1969. That is over 41 years ago. Even the pre-production versions 01 (G-AXDN) and 02 (F-WTSA) flew on 17 December 1971 and 10 January 1973 respectively. Full production standard Concordes began in 1974 and that is over 36 years ago. In all 16 production Concordes were built plus the 4 prototype and pre-production aircraft. Initial orders were 6 for Air France & 7 for BOAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I certainly don't consider the Concorde was ever a failure. It was in fact a considerable success with a design that was certainly pushing a very big envelope at the time it was designed. For it to become a very big success story as the worlds only succesfull, supersonic, commercial airliner for many years, proves that. It is a shame it ended as it did, through one very unfortunate accident....................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Agree with the above 2 posts. Trouble is these "nerds" who write this BS, don't do their research and it's down in print for ever. Journo's have a big part to play in a free society, and we are being let down. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Perhaps people are misled at the objective of news services.They aren't to inform, but rather to sell advertising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I have been a fan of Media Watch on ABC for years. The ineptitude of the press is astounding and becoming worse. It is about $$$ rather than news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Media Watch is a CLASSIC.. They even give the ABC a serve when necessary... Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 Right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I reckon it was a typo and they have since corrected it to 35 years, which is when it entered scheduled service. However, I don't see the point in this useless hit piece. Does the the author have a grudge or something? Why would a TECHNOLOGY publication have something against such a technological achievement? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Ignition, Yes the Concorde was getting toward the end of it's operating life, and needed some upgrading. However after the Paris accident the necessary upgrades were made and funded. This included an entire interior and passenger seat redesign, and upgrade, plus the necessary protection on the wingtanks to elimate the blown tire incident ever re-occuring. The protection on the fuel tanks had been considered before, but had been deemed unnecessary (wrong!).These upgrades and safety improvements cost around $100 Million I believe, out of an already stretched British Airways budget. So basically Concorde was ready to go again, for who knows how many years. They thought they could possibly get another 10 years out of them. Then along came the 9/11 attacks in New York. Passengers reacted in droves, sending many airlines big and small to the wall. It also affected the high-end market which is what the Concorde mainly catered to, and simply they just could't put bums on seats. The end had come through no real fault of the aircraft. BA just couldn't see the chance of getting a quick return on their recent considerable investment. One of our local pilots who also owns a very popular local Cinema had a dream of flying on Concorde, and was on the last flight into New York, before the aircraft was sent to a US museum. He said it certainly was a rareified way to go, and well worth the money !.We can only hope we see another era of supersonic airline travel sometime in the future.........................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Good on you Ign......................................................................................maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselten Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Definition of a journalist: someone who is good for 2 minutes on any subject under the sun. Alternative definitions: Journalist - a failed author. Editor - a failed journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I have it on good authority (second hand from a Concorde pilot) that many British pilots did not want an upgrade to a glass cockpit. They were more than happy to stay with the old steam gauges, knobs, switches and levers. I think it may be that they were kept busy at all times and flight therefore seemed shorter. I wish I had a copy of the full flight video, London ,N.Y. and return to share with you. Really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I know many of the original Concorde pilots were ex-RAF Vulcan and other V-bomber pilots, so I can imagine they would be quite used to, and happy to stay with round guages......................................................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hamilton Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Concorde made an tidy operating profit for the airlines, Folks, Probably what you would expect from a website by that name, but Concorde never made a profit, by any normal definition of "profit". What most people don't seem to remember, is that the two Governments actually owned the aircraft and all the spare, and effectively "gave" the aircraft to BA and AF. "All" the two airlines had to do was crew and fuel them, and cover other direct operating expenses. Even so, they never made a profit. It cost the taxpayers of the UK and France very dearly to support this piece of flying national prestige. As we now know, the problem of what happens when a tyre tread slapped the underside of the wing was already known, it had happened before, but a fire did not result Commercially, the project was doomed from the time of the first oil price shock and the establishment of OPEC, prior to that, Jet A1 prices were so low, it hardly registered in airline operating costs ---- and after ---- the rest is history. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Nice A/C but the fuel rate was 16.6 litres per passenger per 100 Km at cruise.Not very economical.747-400 was/is about 2.6 litres per passenger per KM.It all comes to dollars and cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now