Concorde RIP

M J Carley wrote

No they weren't.

 

It's either that or a very big duck.

 

Can you see if it's got a canard wing?

 

[snip]

Or an improbable whale?

 

"plum sauce, anyone?"

 

AOL. I popped out to London Bridge to have a look. It's a shame I
couldn't hear them over the traffic.

Farewell Concorde :-(

 

Sadly my old firm has been taken over, but they've kept the "AI"
business going:

http://www.jsr.co.uk/semen.html

 

Andy Bonwick wrote

I haven't forgotten at all. It is prolly those very same engineers who
built the thing in the first place. Problem is that they weren't
allowed to pass their skills on to the next generation.

 

Because this is only considering the capital cost of the aircraft. it
doesn't include
- fuel
- maintenance
- crew
- airport costs
- ticketing, marketing, etc etc etc

Try thinking a little harder.

 

I thought they were

 

Champ wrote

I'd hardly call what you do thinking.

 

Using the patented Mavis Bacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

Well, that settles that then.

They weren't... ;^)

 

You are most likely right. It was from memory but could it be that the
1988 average tanker was not as efficient as some of the new stuff. I
understand that the new supercharged two stroke diesel cathedral engines
are the most efficient engine available by a long way.

 

When all the options were cancelled, yes.

 

{FX} Looks embarrassed and shuffles feet.

The Russians did and the Americans tried to.

AF put a lot more air miles on them than BA there was a regular VIP run
Paris Kourou for example

Oh yes.

At the time they did before:
Fuel prices went sky high.
When the British government refused to allow extra tanks so it could fly
further.
America because it didn't have a SST tried to kill off Concorde by:
Insisting the ticket cost was twice the first class American carriers
first class then it could land at JFK.
When it got sold and rebadged in flight so it could fly to Dallas as an
American plane sold and rebadged on the return trip the US passed a law
closing the loophole.
America refusing to allow it to use the trans US supersonic corridor.

Sort of an up hill climb really.

 

Concorde's payload capacity is almost the same as the long distance
747SP. Two different type of transport one short distance and Mach 2,
one long distance Mach 0.8 both fulfilled a role.Boeing still flogs 747SP's

 

Aaah, if Greville Wynne is to be believed (and I see no reason not to)
the rather spectacular demise of the Tu-144 Concordski was the result of
a BAC spy turning and feeding the soviets duff plans.

 

Aye. During the past week, I've been sure I've been hearing a faint
double boom coming from the south of here just before 11am. Assuming
that it was Concorde going supersonic to the south of Ireland, I'm
thinking the pilots weren't really giving a shit about keeping the noise
down the last week of its scheduled use.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6? DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#16? FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19