Concorde RIP

How can something that's been doing commercial flight for as long as
I've been alive, be classed as a failure?!

what kind of sttitude is that?!

 

As visitors to the paris airshow 1973 could testify

 

Let's see:

As eventually completed, Concorde has a payload capacity of only 7%
of its take-off mass, a ratio more reminiscent of a satellite
launcher than a normal airliner. It can cross the Atlantic, but only
just. London-New York and Paris-New York are possible; Frankfurt-New
York is not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1064750,00.html

It can't carry many passengers, it can't go very far and it burns huge
amounts of fuel.

The attitude of an aeronautical engineer. The development cost of
Concorde was written off by the government and the airlines got them
for almost nothing. Even then, they couldn't make money with them.
Nice aeroplane but a dead end.

 

So, that's a woosh, then?

 

You & me both. Another of those "one day I'll...." dreams crossed off
the list.

I remember visiting Weybridge and seeing it (or bits of it) being
built, in 1972.

I really, really think they should keep one or two in flying order,
probably as RAF aircraft. You never know when you might need something
that can transport a large(ish) number of people very, very quickly.
Concorde can do that. No other aircraft on the planet can.

And, God, is it beautiful or what?

 

If we're talking baout concorde then it's a
WHOOOOSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! accompanied by the sound of rattling
window frames

 

M J Carley wrote

Well obviously. There is this variable in the equations of acceleration
about the amount of energy you need to do it and if you accelerate to
higher speeds than anyone else you are going to need more fuel. Plus
when you get to the speed you want the forces of drag are always
insisting that you need to go slower so you need more gas to stay at
that speed. Anyone who thinks that going faster is more economic in
terms of fuel is a ****.

Oh nothing, nothing at all. Why the **** do you think that we weren't
allowed to use the bloody thing to its best effect then?

And the leaders in supersonic military aircraft development are the
frogs, us, the ruskies and the merkins. Where do you think us and the
frogs got our skills from?

 

Des Coughlan wrote

<vbg>

 

Actually, at high subsonic speed, going faster is more economical, if
you do it right. Very roughly ($150 million depreciated over 10
years), a 747 costs $0.025 per seat mile. A 747 makes 200.000 seat
miles a day (the TGV makes about 700.000 seat miles). Concorde can't
touch that kind of productivity and no supersonic aircraft ever will.

What is the best effect of an aircraft that can only fly one useful
route?

In-house.

 

The last few were sold for a pound and a franc each, no?

 

M J Carley wrote

You are comparing apples with oranges. I thought this bit of the thread
was about raw costs of throwing the thing through the air, where faster
is more expensive.

 

I've just had to listen to a speil telling me how much faster Weblogic
8 is than Websphere, and how fucking cool JRocket is. I fell asleep.
Java - it's rubbish.

 

But...but...it looks pretty!

 

I'm only learning websphere because this month I've had 2 people calling
me about it, offering jobs.

 

Lets hope no-one calls you about a pig wanking job.

 

*Supersonic* is (a lot) more expensive. A380 is planned to go a little
bit faster than a 747 but more economically. I threw in the TGV
figures because they're interesting.

 

That's OK, I work with him and can always subcontract it out.

 

class.

 

Using the patented Mavis Bacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Des Coughlan

Can't the new Merkin F22 do 'mach cruise', or something, i.e. going Mach
1+, without the use of reheat ?[/QUOTE]

'Supercruise'. It uses reheat to punch through Mach 1, but can then
sustain supersonic cruise without it.

Something that Concorde has been doing for > 30 years, BTW.