Concorde......how........it....is...

[EagleRJ]

Re: CONCORDE....HOW........IT..IS.....

America did use a TU144 in the 90's to find ways of creating your own SST. You found the costs were too high so the project was once again scrapped.

NASA flew a TU-144 for a few months several years back, collecting data for the National Aerospace Plane project. The plane was returned to the Russians, and the NASP project is now on the back burner. NASP was to have been a Mach 15 airliner that could reach halfway around the world.

The Russians plagiarized nearly all of the TU-144 from Concorde, but they did add one innovation that improved the aircraft. They added the retractable canards, which added pitch authority during takeoff and landing. This also prevented the flaperons from levering the main gear into the ground during rotation, which magnified the load on them during the point of greatest stress. This was the primary cause of the numerous tire problems the plane suffered throughout its service.

Boeing was developing an SST at the same time Concorde was being developed.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/sst.html
It was cancelled mostly due to the fact that it wouldn't be allowed to fly supersonic over the continental US, and even over the ocean, it wouldn't be profitable. It was much bigger and a little faster than Concorde, and was to seat 300 passengers.
Boeing tried to solve the problems associated with a delta wing by trying a variable-geometry design. That would have allowed supersonic flight, while reducing deck angle as well as takeoff and landing speeds to normal. The design was too heavy, as the weight of the wing hinge assembly would mean the plane couldn't carry a profitable payload.

I don't think Concorde was ever profitable, despite $10,000 ticket prices. The planes originally had several dozen airlines interested, but the 11 planes built were eventually sold to British Airways and Air France for £1 each. The Concordes probably attracted extra business to those carriers due to their prestige, but they weren't profitable, since they burned twice the fuel of a 747 but only carried a third as many passengers.
It would be nice to see one returned to the air, since it was such an aviation milestone, but I don't think it will happen unless the UK or French governments sponsor it.

 

[Dizel8]

The Concorde is the prettiest airplane ever built and her accomplishment will always stand as second to none.

Just sad, that I missed my chance of riding on her, so close. Seeing her back in the air, Rolls Royce Olympus in reheat screaming, would be a joy indeed!

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE.....HOW......IT...IS....

She certainly is a most beautiful plane, definitely worth the fight to return one to flight:

With regard to profit:

For me, Concorde is all about people’s emotional aspirations and its association with the BA brand. How can you value the iconic and aspirational presence of such a product solely via operating profit or loss?

Perhaps BA should have should be adding the marketing value of Concorde to the profit and loss calculation.

Having said that, Concorde was most certainly profitable for BA. I have no information on the profitablity of the AF Concordes.

BA....." DID NOT" want to take Concorde out of service, it was forced upon them by a French conspiracy.

I hope you will sign the Petition....
SAVE CONCORDE

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE........NEW SITE....

Hi.......we have launched our new site this morning , I hope our American friends will pop over the pond and say hello....

NEW CONCORDE SITE.........


Hope to hear from you soon.....don't forget the petition....

Kind regards


Steve

 

[EagleRJ]

Re: CONCORDE.....HOW......IT...IS....

With regard to profit:

For me, Concorde is all about people’s emotional aspirations and its association with the BA brand. How can you value the iconic and aspirational presence of such a product solely via operating profit or loss?

Perhaps BA should have should be adding the marketing value of Concorde to the profit and loss calculation.

Using the same logic, the US airlines should restore some Lockheed Constellations and return them to domestic service, replacing MD-80 and A-320 routes. Would using such a beautiful and iconic aircraft not offset the lack of operating economy, reliability, and passenger comfort?

It's all about profitability! Concorde wound up as an icon and symbol of national achievement and pride for England and France, but it was not profitable. It wound up as an aircraft no one wanted to buy, so the French and UK national carriers were given the plane.

BA....." DID NOT" want to take Concorde out of service, it was forced upon them by a French conspiracy.

Come on! I know you guys don't get along with the French, but that's ridiculous!

Do you have any data on Concorde's load factors in the last few years of its service? They weren't very impressive!

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA.....

CAN.......I SAY AGAIN......CONCORDE......WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA.....AGAIN.....CONCORDE WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA........CAN YOU PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND........

THE FRENCH TOOK THE DECISION TO GROUND CONCORDE.....THIS WAS THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT, AIR FRANCE......AND AIRBUS.....BA WERE POWERELESS TO STOP THE FRENCH........FOR GOODNESS SAKE WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM......

FROM A BA MAMAGER........

It was a difficult year for the French as they were trying to privatise Air France and this accident was the last thing they needed! The resulting investigation by the French Authorities was scandalous to say the least! A huge cover up and also no access to the wreckage was permitted to the British Authorities (who had lawful access by the way!) and much of the real evidence such as that given by the Airport Fire Service who were litterally yards away from the accident, was not admitted to the enquiry.

Essentially, the French wanted Concorde binned! It was a real problem for them, so much so that they withdrew their aircraft from service way ahead of the expiration of the aircrafts' C of A in France and of course way ahead of the British!

Airbus, who held the Type Certificate for the aircraft - part of the agreement under which Concorde was built - then expired that Certificate, effectively shutting the door on Concorde's future for any purpose that involved flying!

It is a international scandal that the French could get away with this and that the UK Government made no representation to the European Union over the issue!


DON'T BOTHER ME WITH YOUR IGNORANCE....GOODBYE !

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE......HOW...IT....IS....

BA would have still been flying Concorde if the French had not decided to trash her.........the British and French position on Concorde is totally different......

BA desperately wanted to keep Concorde flying, that is common knowledge in the UK aviation fraternity....

Regards


SteveNEW SITE IS LIVE....GO FOR IT !!!

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE.......HOW....IT....IS..

FOR THE GENUINE LOVERS OF CONCORDE.......please drop into the new website.....we have a petition just waiting for your signature........many thanks........Steve
NEW CONCORDE SITE

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE...PETITION.....

Good afternoon from a sunny England.....we are approx 1000 signatures short ( target 10K)....on our online petition.

Am hoping you guys will bridge the gap......come on over....
www.save-concorde.co.uk

Many thanks


Steve

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE.....HOW........IT.....IS.....

Hi All........nearly there with the 10k petition......only a few hundred short......if you haven't signed already, please do so now......many thanks......www.save-concorde.co.uk

Regards


Steve

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

CONCORDE MEMORY....

NEW YORK.....LONDON...
As we pulled up to the end of our runway, I could sense the anticipation of my fellow passengers. The takeoff, itself, was exhilarating. The afterburners were switched on and the Concorde raced across the ground at a much higher speed than other aircraft before she actually left the ground. Once in the air, the afterburners were cut, and there was a significantly noticeable reduction in noise and thrust as the aircraft flew toward the clouds at a steep incline whilst performing a hard left turn. The best way I can describe it is as a normal jet takeoff with the G-forces exaggerated to the point where it's actually FUN! As we rocketed down the runway, slightly pressed against our seats, video cameras of some passengers were rolling, anticipation turned to excitement, and smiles on many faces grew from one ear to the other. I could tell that everyone was very pleased with this speedy start to their Concorde flight.

What heavenly bliss.....we simply must see Concorde fly again....

Do you have a Concorde memory...IF, THE ANSWER IS YES,come over and share it with the Brit pack at
SAVE CONCORDE GROUP

 

[NJA Capt]

With all due respect, it is time to park the Concorde. It was ahead of its time in 1976. In 2004, it is a dinosaur. Please let it end its days in glory instead of trying to squeeze another few years out. The way Michael Jordan should have done it the first time he retired. It is expensive, noisy, inefficient, and yes, antiquated. If a government consortium finds it cost prohibitive, how do you think a private fund could afford it?

These are only a few of the rudder separations. How many were recorded in other parts of the world? The scary park is that many of these flights were continued into supersonic flight, and crossed the Atlantic, AFTER the crew felt the airframe vibration!



NYC03WA057
On February 27, 2003, at 0818 eastern standard time, an Aerospatiale Concorde, French registration F-BVFA, operated by Air France Airlines as flight 002, was found to be substantially damaged when it landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport……..Examination of the airplane revealed that the lower half of the lower rudder was missing from the airplane.

IAD03WA020

On November 17, 2002, at 1156 universal coordinated time, a British Aircraft Corporation, Ltd. Concorde, G-BOAE, operating as British Airways flight BA0001, lost a section of rudder over the northern Atlantic Ocean.

NYC99WA006
On October 8, 1998, about 0900 eastern daylight time, a BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde 102, United Kingdom registry G-BOAC, operated by British Airways as flight 001, experienced a partial separation of the lower rudder while in cruise flight over the North Atlantic, off the coast of New Foundland, Canada.

12th April 1989: Concorde G-BOAF (216) whilst on its supersonic circumnavigation charter lost a section of rudder on a flight from Christchurch, New Zealand to Sydney, Australia.

Concorde loses part of rudder
Thursday, February 27, 2003 Posted: 1:49 PM EST (1849 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- An Air France Concorde lost a piece of a rudder during a flight from Paris to New York on Thursday but landed safely and on schedule.
It was the sixth time since 1989 that a Concorde has experienced a rudder breakup, said British Airways, the only other airline flying the supersonic jet.
Preliminary indications were that one-third of the left side of the lower rudder and two-thirds of the right side of the lower rudder were missing.
BA spokesman Richard Goodfellow said the rudder piece was not "critical" and the plane was able to fly safely without it.


I can’t believe he said the rudder is “not critical”

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

Boeing 747s have been involved in four recent accidents,2000 report:


On 23 September 1999, a Qantas Boeing 747, carrying 407 people on a flight from Sydney to London skidded off a runway during a tropical rainstorm at Bangkok Airport.

On 6 March 1999, an Air France Boeing 747-200 cargo plane exploded in a fireball after it crash-landed in southern India, but the crew members were rescued.

On 6 Aug 1997 a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 crashed over Guam, killing 228 of the people aboard.

On 12 Nov 1996, nearly 350 people were killed when two aircraft, one a Boeing 747, collided with a Kazakh cargo jet over India, in the worst incident in Indian aviation.

Apart from the ill-fated AF Concorde no other Concorde has ever crashed.....do you really,really, really think that BA one of the world's greatest Airlines would have contined to fly Concorde if there was an inherent safety fault.

You are totally unaware of the profit contribuition from Concorde......how can you describe the "ONLY" supersonic civilian aircraft in world as a dinosaur....am stunned by your lack of knowledge, you simply haven't got a clue what you're talking about........regards.....Steve


CONCORDE......FIGHT.....FOR.....FLIGHT....

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

Boeing 747s have been involved in four recent accidents,2000 report:


On 23 September 1999, a Qantas Boeing 747, carrying 407 people on a flight from Sydney to London skidded off a runway during a tropical rainstorm at Bangkok Airport.

On 6 March 1999, an Air France Boeing 747-200 cargo plane exploded in a fireball after it crash-landed in southern India, but the crew members were rescued.

On 6 Aug 1997 a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 crashed over Guam, killing 228 of the people aboard.

On 12 Nov 1996, nearly 350 people were killed when two aircraft, one a Boeing 747, collided with a Kazakh cargo jet over India, in the worst incident in Indian aviation.

Apart from the ill-fated AF Concorde no other Concorde has ever crashed.....do you really,really, really think that BA one of the world's greatest Airlines would have contined to fly Concorde if there was an inherent safety fault.

You are totally unaware of the profit contribuition from Concorde......how can you describe the "ONLY" supersonic civilian aircraft in world as a dinosaur....am stunned by your lack of knowledge, you simply haven't got a clue what you're talking about........regards.....Steve


CONCORDE......FIGHT.....FOR.....FLIGHT....

 

[:-)]

Good Luck to you Chaps with getting your Bird back in the air.

Why do all of you detractors try to bury this Concorde rebirth? If some non-profit group want's to spend all its cash turning dead dinos into noise with a supersonic aircraft, what's it matter to you?

Man, what a tough crowd.

 

[Britpilot]

Good Luck to you Chaps with getting your Bird back in the air.

Why do all of you detractors try to bury this Concorde rebirth? If some non-profit group want's to spend all its cash turning dead dinos into noise with a supersonic aircraft, what's it matter to you?

Man, what a tough crowd.

Well said.
They are a bunch of wankers.

 

[Britpilot]

With all due respect, it is time to park the Concorde. It was ahead of its time in 1976. In 2004, it is a dinosaur. Please let it end its days in glory instead of trying to squeeze another few years out. The way Michael Jordan should have done it the first time he retired. It is expensive, noisy, inefficient, and yes, antiquated. If a government consortium finds it cost prohibitive, how do you think a private fund could afford it?

These are only a few of the rudder separations. How many were recorded in other parts of the world? The scary park is that many of these flights were continued into supersonic flight, and crossed the Atlantic, AFTER the crew felt the airframe vibration!

So what? Would you like me to dig up all the problems that Boeing has had with the 737 rudder control that has cost two airframes and large loss of life?
The group is trying to preserve an airworthy airplane. There are lots of old airplanes kept in flying condition around the world. They are not attempting to return it to commercial service, just keep one flying, you know, like the Commemorative Airforce does.
A group in the UK is also close to putting an Avro Vulcan back into the air, it will be for airshows not for current warfare.

 

[NJA Capt]

Boeing 747s have been involved in four recent accidents

how can you describe the "ONLY" supersonic civilian aircraft in world as a dinosaur....

There have been 1300+, B747s produced, and a grand total of 11 Concordes. Obviously there will be more recorded incidents. The Concorde is a dino in the sense that it is 30 year old technology, doesn't meet stage III, and has a steam gauge cockpit.

The Concorde is probably the most majestic and graceful aircraft to ever fly and has a most distinguishable mystique. I will truly miss seeing it fly. From your posts, it seem you hoped for a return to service. If the goal is only to preserved flying example (airshow model), then you have my support.

Funny, how quick you chaps resort to calling names when someone is not perceived to agree with you.

By the way, there is a large picture of the Concorde's cockpit hanging on the wall behind my desk.

 

[Britpilot]

There have been 1300+, B747s produced, and a grand total of 11 Concordes.

Wrong. there were 13 in service plus the prototypes.
Not one 747 ever flew supersonic as far as i am aware.

 

[NJA Capt]

Wrong. there were 13 in service plus the prototypes.
Not one 747 ever flew supersonic as far as i am aware.

I was referring to accident statistics. There is very little difference in splitting hairs between 1300 vs 11, or 1300 vs. 13. If you want to get real picky, there were 1372 747s ending in 2003. Again, with more 747s than Concordes, there is going to be more accident data for the larger fleet. Not sure why you brought up the supersonic reference. I was only comparing accident percentages.

By the way, rudders have come off 747s too.

 

[ashtonvillageuk]

NOT ANOTHER RUDDER.....

Many thanks for your input Brit Pilot........I have learnt so much about rudders.........I hope you will come over to the Save Concorde Group forum to say hello......best wishes Steve

SAVE CONCORDE GROUP

 

[Britpilot]

I was referring to accident statistics. There is very little difference in splitting hairs between 1300 vs 11, or 1300 vs. 13.

Simple you said that there was a "grand total of 11" concordes and you were wrong.
The supersonic referance is simple too. No other commercial aircraft fly at supersonic speeds. There foreyour "statistics" are worthless.
No name calling from this chap.

 

[NJA Capt]

Again, my comparison was between accident rates of two aircraft not two supersonic aircraft. I too could say it was invalid because the Concorde didn’t carry 300+ passengers. By the way, ashtonvillageuk brought up the 747 comparison.

I guess we were both wrong anyway. There were 14 in commercial service. 20 were built. 2 prototypes, 2 preproduction, and 16 production. Two of which didn’t enter commercial service.

Prototypes:
F-WTSS (001)
G-BSST (002)
Pre-Production Aircraft:
G-AXDN (101)
F-WTSA (102)

Non-commercial Production Aircraft:
F-WTSB (201)
G-BBDG (202)

French Production Aircraft:
F-BTSC (203)
F-BVFA (205)
F-BVFB (207)
F-BVFC (209
F-BVFD (211)
F-BTSD (213)
F-BVFF (215)

British Production Aircraft:
G-BOAA (206)
G-BOAB (208)
G-BOAC (204)
G-BOAD (210)
G-BOAE (212)
G-BOAF (216)
G-BOAG (214)

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Concorde

 

[Britpilot]

Ok, fair enough.
I do belive , however that Air france operated 6 aircraft and BA 7. I used to based at LHR oppisite the MX hanger for the Concorde fleet. Still the best looking airplane I have seen. I hope that they can get one flying again.

 

[Britpilot]

Re: NOT ANOTHER RUDDER.....

Many thanks for your input Brit Pilot........I have learnt so much about rudders.........I hope you will come over to the Save Concorde Group forum to say hello......best wishes Steve

SAVE CONCORDE GROUP

Be happy to Steve. I usually get over to the UK about once a year to visit family. Good luck, Nigel.

 

[EagleRJ]

Statistically speaking, the B-747 is more than seven times as safe as the Concorde.

Boeing 747: 1.62 fatal accidents per million departures
Concorde: 12.5 fatal accidents per million departures

That happened simply due to the fact that the Concorde fleet didn't fly anywhere near as much as the B-747 fleet. The plane went from being the safest aircraft in the world to the most dangerous in one day.

Not one 747 ever flew supersonic as far as i am aware.

Not intentionally, at least. There were several in-flight loss of control incidents where a B-747 was thought to have been supersonic momentarily before recovery. During flight testing in the 1970s, Boeing dove the aircraft up to a speed of M 0.99, too. That the plane could go through that without coming apart is remarkable!

ashtonvillageuk,
I have to say, you're certainly the most enthusiastic aircraft-restoration buff I've run across! The Save Concorde group is lucky to have someone with your energy. Best of luck getting the old girl back in the air!

 

[Britpilot]

Statistically speaking, the B-747 is more than seven times as safe as the Concorde.

Boeing 747: 1.62 fatal accidents per million departures
Concorde: 12.5 fatal accidents per million departures

eagle, your stats are not good as you are comparing a 300 seat airplane to a 100 seat airplane. You may as well include a C172 in there. *(apples to apples)
Also those are supersonic miles for concorde. I do not think there is any data for supersonic miles for the 747.

 

[EagleRJ]

The seating capacity of the aircraft is immaterial, as those are the statistics per departure not per seat mile.

The Concorde probably has more departures per mile flown, too. Most B-747 routes are long-haul, in the neighborhood of 6-10 hours. Concorde routes were typically 2-3 hours.

Again, I think overall, the Concorde was a safe aircraft. It's just because it didn't fly very much that a single accident could have such a dramatic effect on its statistical safety.

 

[Loafman]

Still the best looking airplane I have seen.

Looks like a lawn dart to me.

 

[350DRIVER]

Looks like a lawn dart to me.

Thought that was the EMB-145


3 5 0