For the aeroplane loonies

True, but just the noise of a big jet passing was still enough to make
the building vibrate.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Not for Concorde B.

OK the oil hike following the Israeli war put a downer on the fuel costs
but there were still enough people who wanted to fly Concordes.

The reason the government had the jigs of Concorde A cut up[1] was so
that B could not be produced. In deal done with the US so as to assure
international loans at a preferential rate to bail out the UK government
and save the US more aeronautical embarrassment with its failed
supersonic passenger bid.


[1]The same government who had the jigs of TSR2 cut up to keep another
country sweet.[2]

[2]No conspiracy theories it's all in the open now in George Brown's
interviews

 

Err?

No Champ, the oil price never went down again after the war, so the cost
level is still high but people still wanted to fly Concorde then and
today.

It did make Concorde (A) expensive on fuel, similar in seat mile cost to
the Boeing 747SP brought out in 1976. With one you had speed the other
you had range.

 

How old do you reckon a 747 is in terms of original design?

Ali

 

Really? Well, ITYF they are. A _lot_ closer.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Originally designed as a proposed heavy lift freighter for the US
military, was in the early 60s. It lost the fly-off to the Lockheed C5
Galaxy in 64/65. Then Boeing turned its US government funded development
of this freighter into a passenger aircraft. That's why it has an upper
deck, it was part of the military requirement to have a clear open
fuselarge for loading.

 

Very appropriate.

 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:39:43 +0100, "Alison Hopkins"

snip>

Not as old as Concorde.

How old do you think the original design is on latest generation of
Airbus?

 

OK Spill chuckers turned on again.

 

I know. And it is still flying. And the new version of the 747 is based on
the original design, albeit with new engines, of course. That was my point.

Ali

 

Actually, they weren't fully throttled back because they had the flaps
down and I think needed some power to control the descent rate.

When I were a lad we lived in HK. I'd get dragged down the market in
the part of Kowloon known as Kowloon City - bang on the flight path.

First one would hear the whine of the fans fading into audibility
above the traffic (as an aside, 747s of the 70's were easy to identify
because they had a distinctive drone).

The noise would swell quickly, and then all hell would break loose.
The whine turned rapidly to a thunderous roar and the aircraft would
flash briefly into view overhead between the buildings. For just a
couple of seconds, conversation had to stop - even shouting made
little difference. Then the roar would fade to a receding scream of
turbines.

Trust me: they're bloody noisy.

 

Ever hear a C5A on final? Sounds like a fucking hugs swarm of beez.

 

Stood underneath the damn things a few times as they thundered over me head
at about 100 feet.

Ali

 

The flaps and slats reduce the stalling speed of the wing so that the
approach speed can be reduced as much as possible. I didn't say fully
throttled back but they are nowhere near takeoff power.

After 30 years in the RAF you want to tell me about noisy aircraft?[/QUOTE]

 

Well yes, but it takes more power to shove a fully flapped & slatted
wing through the air, even slowly, especially at a high angle of
attack, of course.

True. We certainly knew when the wind was wrong for takeoff out to
sea!

There were other phenomena. Where we lived just before I left HK, we
were just off the flight path, to the south. On the relatiuvely rare
occasions that aircraft took off over the city, just once in a while,
the wind was in the right direction to blow what I assume were its
vortices our way; apparently they naturally descend. Half a minute or
so after the aircraft passed, there would be this odd rising whisper
of wind that would then fade and as it faded another would fade into
audibility.

This would repeat a few times over the course of perhaps a minute,
each whisper getting fainter.

Very rare event and actually sounded quite spooky.

Heh.

 

E3 sentry is based on the 707, and that's *old*.

People fly - sorry, flew - Concorde for the unmatched speed and
because it was, well, Concorde. Apart from the unsuccessful TU144 it
had no peers and still doesn't.

At one time the future contained great things; inspirational even.
Economic, maybe not. Efficient and eco-friendly...umm. But the best
the technology of the time could produce.

These days we have incredible technological marvels, miracles of
computer power and miniaturisation that fit in the palm of one's hand:
fucking mobile phones with cameras.

Whoop-de-doo.

 

Stood underneath a Antonov thingy at the end of Kinloss runway on
take-off, and could still talk without needing to shout. Dead quiet,
it was.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..87753../..22653.../..31893.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 84 Pts:1800 Miles:5704

 

I'll see your E3 and raise you a Nimrod. Or a Nasa B57 for that matter.

What you said. I am in violent agreement, here.

Ali

 

Entirely forgot about the Nimrod. The Comet lives.

<Googles B57>

Bloody hell. It's a Canberra.

 

Have you ever been to Colnbrook? They practically skim the tv aerials as
they come in to land.