Article

2003-10-24 -Short Attention Span Theater-

A sad day for aviation: Final take-off for Concorde

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-10-24 10:15:12 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The word "French" expalins why it failed quite well.

Posted by Charles 2003-10-24 11:41:39 AM|| 2003-10-24 11:41:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Charles, although tongue in cheek and possibly flip, your comment is right on the money as to why the bird is not flying anymore. Beside the future lack of parts and maintainability that was caused simply by the laxity of the French in safely maintaining their runway operations as well as plan maintenance. The Brits are livid and that is one reason Branson wants to buy a few birds and keep it going but the French control the parts and overhaul end of things. Be pretty expensive to retool that kind of setup.

Posted by Jack is Back! 2003-10-24 11:51:59 AM|| 2003-10-24 11:51:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 no not peshawar, govt spending lots of money on international prestige, euro cooperation, yadda yadda - definitely on topic.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-10-24 12:05:33 PM|| 2003-10-24 12:05:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 ..I've seen a couple of reports that one reason the UK and France have been so adamant to retire Concorde instead of letting Branson get them is that once he does, the world will quickly find out just how much it cost to operate those magnificent birds - something the general public isn't generally aware of.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2003-10-24 12:13:29 PM|| 2003-10-24 12:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The French put the knife to Concorde, it's true, but BA sank it in. She could could have kept flying if BA'd passed her on to Branson but the national carrier didn't want to lose face by seeing the flagship aircraft lost to a competitor.

Concorde was a bigger drain of Air France than it ever was to BA (which actually managed to make a small profit in the later years), and an irksome reminder that US business preferred London to Paris. Nevertheless, I don't think you can blame the French for everything contributing to Concorde's decline, for BA's inability to provide economical maintenance, for the economic after-effects of 9-11, or for the fact that so many people and countries objected to having Concorde overflights in the early days. The fact remains that without the French, Concorde would never have taken to the air in the first place, and for that you have to be grateful to them.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-10-24 12:15:22 PM|| 2003-10-24 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 It's easy to see why Lockheed backed out of the "SST" race. Neither the Concorde nor the Soviet TU-144 were truly profitable. They were international status symbols, period. Both cost their representative governments billions to build, to operate, and now to retire. Note that there are few, if any, follow-on supersonic aircraft waiting in the wings.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-10-24 12:20:41 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-10-24 12:20:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 FOD didn't help the Concorde, either. I saw the prototype at Fairbanks International Airport in February 1973 when it was there for cold weather testing. They would shut down the plane and cold soak it for 3 days, then run it up and fly it. Good simulation, by God! It was -55F that week. Pretty impressive aircraft. There is a prototype on display at the Imperial War Museum, Air Wing, at Duxford, England. Bulldog, take a trip up there. Well worth the while.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-10-24 1:05:31 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:05:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Concorde was nothing like a prestige project in the sense that the Apollo project was. The original, albeit misconceived, plan was for the supersonic airliner to be a profitable passenger jet filling a vacant niche in the air travel business. It was a brave project originating in Britain which became internationalised when the government belatedly realised it would be too expensive to continue with alone. The French were at an ealy stage of developing their own SST, were reaching the same conclusion as regards expense, and so the nations agreed to pool resources.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-10-24 1:09:46 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:09:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 AP, Had the opportunity to visit Duxford recently but didn't take it up :(. Will have to make do with the V-weapons at the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth, next week. Ho hum.

Was overflown by Concorde and the Red Arrows a month ago at an outdoors concert, though. Things could be worse.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-10-24 1:14:42 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:14:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Old Patriot, did you ever see the Discovery Channel show on the TU-144 accident at teh Paris air show? I found the episode facinating.

The was a write-up on detonation propulsion in Popular Science about a month ago that I am reading through. Such an engine might make SST travel economical but even noisier. It will certainly be useful in missile technology.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-24 3:12:09 PM|| 2003-10-24 3:12:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Here's a link to one of the pulse detonation sites: Caltech

Poular Science had better pictures. Looks as if Pratt Witney, GE and some Aussie in hos garage are racing to finish a working application. Eventually, the goal is to build a hybrid with a turbo-prop.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-24 5:35:57 PM|| 2003-10-24 5:35:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 SH, I don't watch television - too noisy! I did see some of the photos of the crash, and the aftermath. The TU-144 had a number of crashes, most of them fatal to all aboard, as well as a couple of times a group on the ground.

Something like the TU-144 and Concorde makes sense for very long trips, such as Moscow-Vladivostok, or London-Singapore, but not economical for such 'short' trips as London-New York. Could have used something more comfortable - and faster - on the Travis-Tan Son Nhut run in the early '70's. especially coming home!

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-10-24 8:21:29 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-10-24 8:21:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 The major reason supersonic air travel never got profitable is the Congressional ban on commercial supersonic overflights of the US. This followed agitation by a NIMBY/luddite combination which included everyone from farmers who were worried that their cows might be upset to greenies paniced over potential ozone damage. Blocking the transcontinental routes made the US airlines uninterested in SSTs... an important reason Lockheed dumped its SST project. And without the American companies involved in supersonic travel, the entire Pacific rim travel market was left unexploited.

It would be interesting to see what we might have now if Congress hadn't been stupid 30 years ago. At the minimum, 30 years of technological improvements...

Posted by Old Grouch 2003-10-24 9:03:53 PM|| 2003-10-24 9:03:53 PM|| Front Page Top

21:25 Aris Katsaris
07:53 Raptor
06:32 Tony (UK)
02:40 R. McLeod
00:20 Stephen
00:18 Korora
23:38 Anonymous
22:57 Bomb-a-rama
22:45 Pappy
22:45 Uncle Joe
22:41 Rafael
22:16 Robert Crawford
22:14 Robert Crawford
22:12 Robert Crawford
22:07 Yukonbill
21:52 CrazyFool
21:48 Super Hose
21:45 Denny
21:45 Bomb-a-rama
21:45 Steve White
21:39 Bomb-a-rama
21:38 Super Hose
21:38 Steve White
21:34 Super Hose