I flew on Concorde in about 1994. It was a reward for selling lots of Novell software!
The flight took off from Heathrow, headed out over the Atlantic, cracked Mach 2 then slowed down and hung a left over the Bay of Biscay and returned.
The cabin had a mechanical "mach-o-meter" that was very 1960s.
Take off was awesome - like being strapped to a rocket but the rest of the flight was relatively normal. Con spidering the noise the thing made it was pretty quiet inside.
It was a pretty memorable trip but the girl I sat next to was unimpressed - she slept through most of the trip!
Con spidering
😆
Better than you understand overtaking, molly, which is ultimately a more useful subject in real life.
Well, I'd better give up now then when I'm up against formidable debating skills like that!
Anyway, of course it's true that A380 flights are cheap. That's the whole point of the 380.
Speed is les important than you seem to think. If you shave three hours off my travel time to Chicago it's still going to take me most of a day to get from door to door. Doesn't make much difference really.
Cracking thread. Thank you.
You also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place
No they didn't. They did however get them for a fraction of their true worth, representing a significant public subsidy. This proves my point that they were uneconomic.
He was happy to splash considerably more - I think his last offer was 5m. Not bad appreciation for something that hand only cost BA 5 quid in the first place.
No, £5 million represents a considerable loss. BA paid £16.5 million in 1983, according to Wiki.
There aren't many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there's no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was...
Number of Airbus A380s built to date: 106
Number of Concordes ever built: 20.
"Another example would be like the Concorde being retired and the fact there is no supersonic passenger transport. I think that is sad. You want the future to be better than the past, or at least I do."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23666173
You won't convince the soulless...
I did it, BA001 LHR-JFK, in about 2001.
IMO, it felt like a plane!
The windows were small, the cabin is more train sized than plane sized. The acceleration and (even more so) the deceleration were absolutely ferocious. The sky was very dark when you look up out of the windows. It flexed a ridiculous amount when taxiing - looking along the aisle towards the flight deck the front was bouncing all over the place. The visibility out of the windscreen was crap too.
That's about it, didn't feel faster or anything.
Was absolutely awesome though.
The future is better than the past, in air travel.
Not sure I agree, in pure engineering terms Concorde was awesome! Anything now is just incremental improvements.
Great thread.
I lived in central London and we used to look forward to seeing it come over at 5 every day. Never ever got fed up and was always amazed.
BA are now just another airline. They had an aspirational aircraft that they may have not made any money from but now they have nothing that sets them apart.
Anything now is just incremental improvements
You could not be more wrong.
The Aerospace industry has made massive advances, far in advance to anything seen in Concorde.
GTF engines - 25% less fuel burn
Composite fueselage and wings
Health Monitoring Systems
Significantly improved reliability, significantly reduced maintainance costs.
Electrics brakes, Eletric TRAS, Electric steering, Electric Primary and Secondary Flight controls
Lighter and stronger cabins leading to better air cabin pressure and quality.
That is all the visible stuff, if you looked in detail in the advances in material technology then it goes much further.
Technological improvements are far more than just throwing a load of fuel and power at something and shouting look how fast i can go (in a Jeremy Clarkson style).
The future is better than the past, in air travel.
Why, are they making a bigger, faster, more fuel efficient Concorde?
Faster does not equal better.
Based on this rational an aircraft could be
Less fuel efficient
Noisier
Carry less people
Be more unreliable
Cost more to operate
Cost more to travel on
Have worse air quality
but if it is faster, it is superior.
Walked on and off Concorde at the Farnborough Air Show. Was amazed at how small it was inside, like a single-decker bus with wings.
Also watched it take off it was just incredible
Concorde. A small, uncomfortable aircraft affordable by only a few that flew very fast. Hmm.
Personally, I'm much more impressed by the A380. Something that big looks like it just shouldn't be able to get off the ground. Like a skyscraper laid sideways.
I've been up in a 747 but I'd REALLY like to travel in one these impressive monsters.
Yes, ^^^^^ that is more like it.
Woppster, see Musk's quote at the top of the page.....
I'm more impressed with the floatation of something that big, than the speed of something not much bigger than a pencil.
Sorry. 😉
Concorde, was i think primarily "of its time", and over the years came to symbolise the best in engineering and technical achievement.
I'm sure the youth of today, brought up with every conceivable electronic gadget and practically hooked to the web 24/7 wouldn't see the attraction, but to me, growing up in South Oxfordshire, the 11 o'clock mid morning rumble served as a sort of informal reality check. It's hard to believe these days, but back then we were probably quite isolated as children, with just a small group of local friends and the TV (somewhat rationed by parents worried we would get "googly" eyes!) to remind us of the rest of the world passing by outside.
So, we would often run outside, and watch, hands shading our eyes to try to spot the plane first, seeing it slice into view and carve overhead in a shallow north turning arc. We'd wonder who was on board? are the famous? would we recognize them? what were they going to do in the US that was so important they could afford to be transported by this amazing machine? (when we flew we just chugged around on tiny slow propeller planes!). The noise was incredible, visceral even. How could such a tiny thing, by that point often climbing up through and way above the cloud layer, make such a noise? Even when it was gone from sight the noise remained, echoing off and around us from all directions.
As a symbol it was unmatched, as an object it took on a personality all of its own, and for me, transcended its mere collection of mechanical and electrical parts. I suspect that this childhood wonder was at least partially responsible for my interest and subsequent career in Engineering.
When F-BTSC crashed at Gonesse in the summer of 2000, i was by then 26, but to this day remember feeling incredibly moved by the loss of the actual plane, and not just the 113 people killed. Wondering how a plane feels is, of course, completely illogical, but that is the feeling i had, such had been the draw of Concorde to us youngsters.
Like the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.
Sat here in 2013, its pure technical achievements have been surpassed, and commercial air transport has necessarily become a game of economics rather than just the application of technology. But back in the late 1970's and early 1980's Concorde WAS the future, a sum of far more than just its parts, an embodiment of the dedication put into the project by the men and women who developed it.
I never flew on it, but somehow i don't regret that. We never called it "a Concorde", to us it was simply "Concorde", and our world would have been a poorer place without it.
Like the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.
Unlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.
Unlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.
If you measure usefulness by numbers of people killed
If you measure usefulness by numbers of [s]people[/s] enemy pilots/bomber crews killed
Fixed. That.
Fixed. That.
Not really. The spitfire was successful because it was good at killing people.
Yes, really.
If you measure usefulness by numbers of people killed
Or put another way, ability to repel a planned invasion by a fascist mass-murderer.
As utility goes, it's slightly higher than ferrying a very small number of rich people somewhere quickly, at the general public's expense.
Or put another way, ability to repel a planned invasion by a fascist mass-murderer.
Well, if you put it like that then, it was considerably less useful than a series of nondescript weatherboard huts near Milton Keynes.
And probably less useful than the decisiveness of a certain B-29 bomber's payload.
Well, if you put it like that then, it was considerably less useful than a series of nondescript weatherboard huts near Milton Keynes.
It also required a pilot, an airfield, petrol and mechanics. What's your point?
And probably less useful than the decisiveness of a certain B-29 bomber's payload.
You do realise that the facist mass-murderer had already been defeated by then?
What's your point?
That the soulful, iconic spitfire contributed considerably less, and was therefore less worthwhile, than some men and women sat in sheds. And the Hurricane.
You do realise that the facist mass-murderer had already been defeated by then?
I am, but I trust you are aware that WWII didn't end in May 1945.
That the soulful, iconic spitfire contributed considerably less, and was therefore less worthwhile, than some men and women sat in sheds. And the Hurricane.
Well no. It was all inter-dependent. The fact is, we could not have repelled a German invasion if we had lost the Battle of Britain. Winning that battle relied on many things, including successful fighter aircraft.
The Spitfire was useful. Concorde was not.
I am, but I trust you are aware that WWII didn't end in May 1945.
I don't recall making any claims about the Spitfire's role in defeating Japan, so perhaps you might try responding to what was written.
The Spitfire was useful. Concorde was not.
As I said, useful at killing people.
Only not as useful as the much less flashy, much easier to build, and much easier to repair hurricane.
It wasn't much use at crossing the pond with over 100 passengers in three hours either.
I don't recall making any claims about the Spitfire's role in defeating Japan, so perhaps you might try responding to what was written.
No, but you did make the point about the spitfire being useful. I'm saying its usefulness was outlived rather quickly; c/f statements about Concorde vs A380 buses
As I said, useful at killing people.Only not as useful as the much less flashy, much easier to build, and much easier to repair hurricane.
It wasn't much use at crossing the pond with over 100 passengers in three hours either.
The Spitfire was good at repelling an invasion by a fascist dictator. Concorde was good at swallowing vast quantities of public money in order to move a very small number of rich people somewhere else.
No, but you did make the point about the spitfire being useful. I'm saying its usefulness was outlived rather quickly; c/f statements about Concorde vs A380 buses
Concorde was never useful.
Concorde was never useful.
Unless you wanted to get across the pond in three hours
The Spitfire was good at repelling an invasion by a fascist dictator.
No, the dull Hurricane was. The Sexy Spit couldn't be built or repaired in the numbers required.
For anyone less interested in practically pointless petty bickering, and more interested in details of Concorde, her design, development, and operation, see this legendary thread on PPRUNE:
[url= http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html ]PPRUNE Concorde Question[/url]
Something like 90 odd pages of amazing and often first hand info!
😉
I'm not sure whether to thank you or not for that link, maxtorque. I may be some time.... 😀
Unless you wanted to get across the pond in three hours
At great expense, using a vast public subsidy, to a very restricted number of people to a very restricted number of destinations at a very restricted number of times.
If that's useful, the word has no meaning.
No, the dull Hurricane was. The Sexy Spit couldn't be built or repaired in the numbers required.
The Hurricane was useful. The Spitfire was useful. Radar was useful. You're not really getting this inter-dependency thing, are you?
If that's useful, the word has no meaning.
It was useful to those people, yes.
You can be as melodramatic as you like, but you can't rewrite the dictionary.
It was useful to those people, yes.You can be as melodramatic as you like, but you can't rewrite the dictionary.
If you wish to consider it at the scale of the tiny number of rich people who benefitted from this public subsidy, be my guest, but it's irrelevant at any meaningful level.
but it's irrelevant [s]at any meaningful level[/s] in my view so I'm going to perpetuate this tedious argument for a little while longer in the hope you'll see black is white.
Mrs deadly and I were doing a bit of shopping for bits for wee deadly some months ago in a well known department store (never knowingly undersold) and were having a coffee afterwards. An older couple sat in the seats alongside us and as often happens when you've got a baby (well, it seems to happen more often these days), we got chatting to them. I ended up chatting to the chap who was retired now so I asked him what he used to do. After a bit of digging (ie. me being a nosey ****er), it transpired he had worked most of his life on Concorde. He'd been one of the development engineers on the engines from concept to delivery 😯 and had worked supporting it until its withdrawal from service. To be honest, I've always been a bit meh about concorde (no strong feelings either way) but it was a fascinating half-hour or so chatting to someone who'd been in his position. It was most likely wasted on me though to be fair. 😆 Just goes to show that it's often a good idea to just chat with older folk - they sometimes have very interesting stories to tell.
He probably thought it useless too, DD 😉
He probably thought it useless too, DD
🙂
Ah no...there was a certain quiet pride in his stories. All he wanted to talk about was timber ****in floors (he'd just had some put in) so I had a job trying to keep him on topic.
timber **** floors
Infinitely more useful - you can stand on them and efrifink
but it's irrelevant at any meaningful level in my view so I'm going to perpetuate this tedious argument for a little while longer in the hope you'll see black is white.
You already see that black is white, and certainly require no help on that score.
I had hoped to persuade you otherwise, but you seem quite happy to be wrong, so I'll leave it there.
