Because one bit of debris could bring the whole thing down.
Could have happened to any plane surely?
no, was to do with the location of the fuel tanks and the fact they were single skin.
plus BA and Air France didn't think it was economic to make changes to airframe on such old aircraft.
Concorde was a tiny niche product with very limited appeal. One crash would probably have put just enough people off to scupper the whole business model. I am sure BA were looking for an excuse to get shot.
Because that terrible incident exposed a serious design flaw which many had known about for years. Would have cost far too much to change design.
EDIT: Yes, Continental are partially at fault, but Concorde should not have been flying. It was only a matter of luck that this hadn't happened sooner (and almost did at Dulles)
But didn't they retrofit kevlar protection to the fuel tanks to reduce the risk of it happening again - and then scrapped it 🙄
And the titanium that caused it was a banned product which continental used anyway...................
Concordes tyres were bursting regularly without being exposed to shards of metal.
I think it was an excuse jumped upon by the relevant airlines to justify stopping flying an uneconomical but icon/flagship aircraft.
So why did they scrap Concorde?
Because it was designed at a time when Western countries could still dictate to oil producing countries what the price of oil could be, ie, slightly more than bugger all.
Israel's behaviour in the late 1960s convinced many OPEC countries that they didn't owe the West any favours.
But it was totally awesome, I have been around the one at the Museum of Flight in East Lothian. Surprisingly small, and ahead of it's time. People were flying in this when the calculations to build it took a computer the size of a warehouse. And the controls look like the Liberator in Blake's 7 !
But it was totally awesome
Good point well made.
I reckon that it was just the excuse they had been looking for. Not sure why they bothered doing all the mods to it though, to can it a few months later.
Worth remembering that Concorde was making money when they started flying again after the crash
I wish I had a chance to go on it.
Something I find perplexing is that there is no-one trying to fulfil the demand for this kind of uber travel.
It's not perplexing - there is very little demand. If there was, there'd be someone filling it.
Concorde was astonishingly expensive, cramped, uncomfortable and a gimmick really. Better to spend 6 hours in luxury, eat a meal and have a kip than be rushed to New York in 2 hours, no?
Surprisingly small, and ahead of it's time
Not at all - it was OF its time. It was designed at a time when air travel was an expensive niche. Now the market for flights demands either cheap fares in economy or opulent luxury and space in the upper classes - both of which are best served by big planes, not fast ones. The market for planes demands the ability to offer the above, low fuel economy and stuff like noise. Again big planes win over fast ones.
9-11 happened and around 100 of Concorde's most frequent fliers were killed.
Concorde was astonishingly expensive, cramped, uncomfortable and a gimmick really. Better to spend 6 hours in luxury, eat a meal and have a kip than be rushed to New York in 2 hours, no?
No. You cant do a business day trip to New York on a normal airliner - which is apparently what many of Concordes regulars used it for
Why didn't they just fit mudguards?...
How many actually wanted to do that though?
It was designed at a time when air travel was an expensive niche.
Although a better description of that era would be, it was designed at a time when air travel was starting to become far more available to ordinary people, and was no longer seen as the exclusive privilege of the wealthy few.
I believe that originally, it was envisaged that many hundreds would be built and it would herald a new age in aviation history. However, it entered service straight after global oil prices had quadrupled to new level which as it turned out, became permanent. As a consequence, very few were ever built and Concorde's operational costs meant it was indeed exclusively used by the wealthy few.
Zedsdead - Member
Why didn't they just fit mudguards?...
Everyone knows mudguards look gash...
Even without the crash i doubt it would have lasted through the global recession and the ash cloud.
geoffj - MemberBut didn't they retrofit kevlar protection to the fuel tanks to reduce the risk of it happening again - and then scrapped it
I believe that cost a few pounds as well. It received a cert of airworthiness just as the twin towers were attacked which apparently severely affected the numbers of execs using the London to New York service which was it's (Concorde's) bread and butter if you will.
Shame it no longer flies, I hate overuse of this word but it was 'awesome'
I seem to remember some chat about re commissioning some or one of them to coincide with the Olympics?
I hate overuse of this word but it was 'awesome'
For me it was more impressive than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and certainly a lot more impressive than the Mona Lisa. It was in fact, one the of the most impressive man-made things I have ever seen, and probably the most beautiful from a purely 'artistic' point of view. Even when it was just sitting parked on the tarmac. A combination of the grace and beauty of a wondrous vehicle, and the grace and beauty of a wondrous insect/bird.....pretty cool 8)
It was a beautiful piece of engineering - granted. However there were major flaws. It's minimum take off speed was and still is dangerously close to the maximum that any tyres can cope with - look at the number of instances of tyre bursts on the accident database and it's a wonder it there wasn't a catastrophic failure earlier.
e.g. Tires no. 1 and 2 burst on takeoff from New York-JFK and caused a hole in the no. 5 fuel tank and damaged the no. 2 engine (ingestion). The tire was running deflated when the tread detached.
[url= http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=081 ]Concorde Accident Stats[/url]
I went to see the one at East Lothian. Went with my dad and my two sons. It's fantastic!
We were surprised at how small it is. Lovely looking machine and a shame it doesn't fly anymore. But it does look very old close up.
I'd like to see a modern one but I doubt it will happen any time soon...
I believe that originally, it was envisaged that many hundreds would be built and it would herald a new age in aviation history.
Yes, I think that they were thinking that they'd make the bulk of their money from linking New York and LA, but the US authorities denied it permission to fly supersonic based on concerns over noise and sonic booms. A lot of people think however that that was just sour grapes because Boeing couldn't make a supersonic plane and the Europeans could, so they intentionally scuppered it...
I really miss hearing it at night. You used to be able to set your watch by it. Oh it's cowboy time!
"one the of the most impressive man-made things I have ever seen"
+ googleplex in agreement.
BA and AF made plenty of money from Concorde, both directly and from the cachet.
But the feelings I have for it have nothing to do with commercial viability. I'm struck dumb at its powerful beauty and swell with pride in its French and British creators. If it's parked on a runway as you pass on the bus, and someone says "there's Concorde", [b]every head turns to look[/b].
IMO, Concorde was our Apollo 11 and a totally iconic object that will be revered for generations.
It was of a time before weblinks, want a face to face business chat these days use a web cam. It was built when flying over the Atlantic was still exotic, it was an amazing achivement. Customers died out, so rhe reason for running it needed to change. It's too expensive to run as a novelty and too slow in world of Internet. Richard Branson made an offer to take it over, he knew it would be rejected so turned the takeover into a publicity stunt. Sad to see it grounded, there will never be another.
I agree it is possibly the most beautiful engineering creation of all time. And a fabulous thing.
But they are ultimately just there to serve a market.
want a face to face business chat these days use a web cam
as much as it's going OT, face to face > web cam. always will be
Also had the coolest call sign with air traffic control- speedbird!
I was told by a pilot who flies out of Heathrow that the main reason Concordes support was withdrawn, apart from the crash that is, is that it was often running very low on fuel by the time it got to Heathrow and would frequently push in ahead of other planes to as it had to land. Apparently this happened one day and the pilot called Bingo fuel, which he said was the term for being very low on fuel and was allowed to push in, he messed up his approach and had to go around again, he then did the same on his second approach, on the third he told the tower he was putting it down whether or not he hit the runway. On landing the plane had only seven minutes worth of fuel left.
Now this may or may not be true, he may have just been blowing smoke up my arse, he seemed like a pretty genuine bloke to me at the time.
All BA aircraft use the Speedbird callsign.
I used to live very close to farnborough and as a result, went to the air show many times and even worked on the posh people carparks on occasion
everyone was blase about planes and had seen them all - Concorde stopped everyone talking and got a standing ovation every year
A spectacular plane indeed. I grew up in North Devon to the soundtrack of the nightly almost sonic boom as it passed overhead.
Witnessed it doing a touch and go at RAF Chivenor at one of the airdays, Chivenor being one of the runways used in an emergency. Not that it would be able to take off again though. An awesome sight.
Well worth watching Concorde's Last Flight if you are a fan of the plane. Part one here:
The other 4 parts are linked to the first on YouTube.