Farewell

[Neo 721]

I very much dought that this will be the end to supersonic travel there will be more in the future, it does seem a bit pointless, its a bit like when they recently (about a year ago) too the hovercraft out of service.
also as a point of interest does anyone realise that richard branson offered to buy the entire fleet, they didnt let him though.
(not to mention the hotel concord crashed into, ive stayed there before.

[Barbarossa]

It's a sad day for aviation, one of the most beautiful machines ever designed and created will be flying no more.

I am really angry at BA for firstly taking her out of service, and secondly for not letting Richard Branson buy them, they were obviously scared that he would be able to make a success of them, and benefit fro the prestige of having them. It's basically selfish schoolboy antics.

Also I'm gutted I will never get to go on one.

However, I can well understand the other side of the coin..

1). It was very expensive to run.
2). It was very environmentally unfriendly. Sonic booms were loud!!
3). Threats of terrorism since 9/11 has decimated business travel so there simply weren't enough bums on seats to make it profitable.
4). The French crash was very bad publicity, even though the fault wasn't with the plane, but with debris on the runway, and the "improvements" made to Concorde after the crash were simply a very expensive PR exercise.

(Talking about the crash, although it was the only Concorde crash in 27 years of service, because of the very low numbers of Concordes actually flying, compared with other aircraft, it actually turned it from being the plane with the best safety record, to the plane with the worst safety record, overnight... Statistics are a mugs game&#33

I do think that there will never be another supersonic passenger aircraft, at least in my lifetime. The development costs are too high for any company to take the chance on it in the current climate.

Not one to be overly dramatic, today I feel as if an endangered species has now finally become extinct, and it is a very very sad day.

[lynx]

Sadly, American political pressure effectively killed Concorde right from the start.

By putting pressure onto US carriers not to buy the plane.
By barring entry into it's airspace, it ensured other carriers would not but the plane. Although this was eventually overturned after a great deal of international lobbying, by this time carriers which had needed to upgrade their fleets had already bought the 747.
By preventing it from flying at it's designed height. Concorde should have flown at 70000 ft, but the US deemed this to be military air space and could not rule out the possibility of the plane accidentally being shot down. At it's design height fuel consumption would have been halved.
By preventing supersonic flight over land because of the sonic boom, but at Concorde's designed height this would not have been a problem.

The culmination of all these meant that Air France and British Airways were the only 'buyers', although in effect they were given the planes. And because there was never any possibility of future sales, there was effectively no development which could have reduced polution, noise, costs etc. Technological developments made over 30 years ago in wing and engine design are only now being achieved by US aircraft manufacturers, think how far behind they might still be if there had been good reason to develop Concorde's achievements.

I understand that a UK company is showing interest in taking over maintenance of Concorde. Something along those lines would certainly be necessary if BA's rumoured intention of running 'special' flights is to be realised. We shall have to wait and see.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@27 October 2003 - 07:39
Sadly, American political pressure effectively killed Concorde right from the start.

By putting pressure onto US carriers not to buy the plane.
By barring entry into it's airspace, it ensured other carriers would not but the plane. Although this was eventually overturned after a great deal of international lobbying, by this time carriers which had needed to upgrade their fleets had already bought the 747.

First, let me say I am sad to see the Concorde go.

It was fast (WOW&#33

It was gorgeous.

It fairly oozed "manly" appeal.

But there was, apart from environmental concerns (which were, to say the least, overblown) and economic concerns (which were legitimate), also this:

The Concorde was a supersonic "tube" with all the amenities this implies; that is to say, NOT MANY.

A six footer might be able to stand upright in the aisle, but nowhere else.

It was a narrow, cramped design, which fit only the niche market it occupied; it could never have supplanted the Boeing design as a carrier of large numbers of people.

To enlarge the design to overcome it's capacity problems would have dictated "Concorde Only" airports, and exponentially compounded the economic issues.

Analogously, Ferraris are great cars, but they are not for everybody, and Ferrari will never (I predict) market a "mass-transit" sportscar.

So, to say it was, in effect, killed in the crib by U.S. greed and duplicity is misleading, to say the least.

BTW-While I have never flown on the Concorde, I have been onboard for a look-see.

My sister has flown both to the U.K. and Paris many times on the Concorde; she reports the plane, while "really cool and fast", was also small, tight, and, well, just plain tiny inside"

She knows whereof she speaks.

Edit:Spelling

[RGX]

Still doesnt mean we dont feel patriotic about it, madfe me feel extremley sad watching it go over our house for the last time in a roar of glory

Things dont have to be ergonomic and effecient to be loved and regarded as a huge achievment

[j2k4]

Originally posted by RGX@27 October 2003 - 15:37
Still doesnt mean we dont feel patriotic about it, madfe me feel extremley sad watching it go over our house for the last time in a roar of glory

Things dont have to be ergonomic and effecient to be loved and regarded as a huge achievment

RGX-

I have nothing but empathy for your sentiment; were I you, I would feel the same.

I thought the Concorde was the most beautiful civilian aircraft ever built. Sonic booms? Give me an un-ending succession of them-I loved that stuff!

I was responding to Lynx's post.

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 October 2003 - 16:19
The Concorde was a supersonic "tube" with all the amenities this implies; that is to say, NOT MANY.

In a tv prog last week they interviewed a number of former cabin crew who said that the facilities were exactly the same as on other airliners, except crammed into a much smaller space.

A six footer might be able to stand upright in the aisle, but nowhere else.

It was a narrow, cramped design, which fit only the niche market it occupied; it could never have supplanted the Boeing design as a carrier of large numbers of people.

I completely agree it was rather 'tight' (understatement of the year?), but had it not been for the arguments about landing rights and supersonic overflight it would have been on the market before the 747 and DC10. The lack of supersonic flight over continental USA meant that no American carrier was going to buy it without the possibility of high speed coast to coast operations, and with the uncertainty that other countries might follow suit effectively killed off all other purchasers. The subsequent small number of aircraft produced dramatically increased maintenance costs to such an extent that they have eventually become the significant deciding factor for cancellation of operations.

To enlarge the design to overcome it's capacity problems would have dictated "Concorde Only" airports, and exponentially compounded the economic issues.

This assumes there would be no development in engine design. Given that the technological advances gained in the development of Concorde's engines lead directly to the super quiet 'fan' engines later developed by Rolls Royce, I suggest that there was dramatic scope for improvement, but with such a small fleet it was not cost effective to explore the possibilities.

Concorde has made several 'excursion' type flights from my local airport, but there has only been one operator flying the super people carrier type aircraft. That was Ward Air, which flew DC10s to Nova Scotia, then on to Toronto. The reason they were the only ones to fly such a large aircraft (I don't believe there have been any 747s) is because of the SHORT runway. The large aircraft could not make the full transatlantic run because they could not take off with sufficient fuel!!!

The "Concorde Only" airports (I don't think it was quite put that way, but I'll use your phraseology) was yet another (earlier) myth put about to dissuade potential purchasers.


Given that the US objections were "to say the least, overblown", yet supposedly the potential market for such flights was tiny, I am somewhat at a loss to understand the logic behind the objections. Perhaps it was jealousy, perhaps it was partly that there was almost no chance of future parts supply by US firms (almost unheard of both then and now not to have the option of US built engines, for example), perhaps the market was not as small as we have been led to believe, especially as a larger fleet would have brought massive savings in terms of maintenance costs.

It will be sadly missed.

[blackhatknight]

Totally agree this is sad. Science and business just don't always mix, on a more positive note many of or militrary aircraft are capable of speeds faster than Concorde so science lives on! Even if the general public will never experience it in the foreseeable future

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx+28 October 2003 - 16:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 28 October 2003 - 16:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 October 2003 - 16:19
The Concorde was a supersonic "tube" with all the amenities this implies; that is to say, NOT MANY.

In a tv prog last week they interviewed a number of former cabin crew who said that the facilities were exactly the same as on other airliners, except crammed into a much smaller space.

A six footer might be able to stand upright in the aisle, but nowhere else.

It was a narrow, cramped design, which fit only the niche market it occupied; it could never have supplanted the Boeing design as a carrier of large numbers of people.

I completely agree it was rather &#39;tight&#39; (understatement of the year?), but had it not been for the arguments about landing rights and supersonic overflight it would have been on the market before the 747 and DC10. The lack of supersonic flight over continental USA meant that no American carrier was going to buy it without the possibility of high speed coast to coast operations, and with the uncertainty that other countries might follow suit effectively killed off all other purchasers. The subsequent small number of aircraft produced dramatically increased maintenance costs to such an extent that they have eventually become the significant deciding factor for cancellation of operations.

To enlarge the design to overcome it&#39;s capacity problems would have dictated "Concorde Only" airports, and exponentially compounded the economic issues.

This assumes there would be no development in engine design. Given that the technological advances gained in the development of Concorde&#39;s engines lead directly to the super quiet &#39;fan&#39; engines later developed by Rolls Royce, I suggest that there was dramatic scope for improvement, but with such a small fleet it was not cost effective to explore the possibilities.

Concorde has made several &#39;excursion&#39; type flights from my local airport, but there has only been one operator flying the super people carrier type aircraft. That was Ward Air, which flew DC10s to Nova Scotia, then on to Toronto. The reason they were the only ones to fly such a large aircraft (I don&#39;t believe there have been any 747s) is because of the SHORT runway. The large aircraft could not make the full transatlantic run because they could not take off with sufficient fuel&#33;&#33;&#33;

The "Concorde Only" airports (I don&#39;t think it was quite put that way, but I&#39;ll use your phraseology) was yet another (earlier) myth put about to dissuade potential purchasers.


Given that the US objections were "to say the least, overblown", yet supposedly the potential market for such flights was tiny, I am somewhat at a loss to understand the logic behind the objections. Perhaps it was jealousy, perhaps it was partly that there was almost no chance of future parts supply by US firms (almost unheard of both then and now not to have the option of US built engines, for example), perhaps the market was not as small as we have been led to believe, especially as a larger fleet would have brought massive savings in terms of maintenance costs.

It will be sadly missed. [/b][/quote]
All excellent points, Lynx.

I meant to point out that, corporate machinations aside, the trend toward ultra-competitiveness (somewhat) coincidental with the introduction of the Concorde was more-or-less responsible for the U.S. airline industry defaulting to the larger-capacity, yet much less exciting 747, and no doubt the collective "ego" of the industry took a hit in the face of the development and deployment of the Concorde.

While the "environmental" concerns were par for the course (at that time), I still feel, as I did then, they were a sop to the U.S. industry&#39;s macho engineers; the restrictions enabled them to cop out on the argument over their capabilities.

[j2k4]

As a total aside, I find it appropriate to also bid a belated farewell to the ultimate jet-powered flying machine: The SR-71 Blackbird.

Link: http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srqt~1.htm

Hope it works&#33;