[Closed] Concorde - I wonder what conclusions will be drawn?

will never forget watching a programme few years back interviewing eye witnesses

where the plane finally crashed it was near a hotel, one bloke was sat at a desk on his laptop and saw the plane come towards the hotel it slowed right down and flipped up nearly vertical and slammed arse first back into the ground.

he said he was just frozen on the spot just staring at this happneing infront of him.

i dread to think what it must have been like for the people onboard in those last few seconds.

The Americans never liked Concorde. They were jealous. Such a shame that we've taken a great step backwards since Speedbird died. 🙁

I miss that sound and that sight.

This was the only Concorde crash and it grounded the fleet. It was a terrible tragedy but seemed a convenient reason to de-commission a service that wasn't viable anymore.

Not sure it needed to be viable, as such. It was a loss leader for years, but that's the thing.

During the boom years, before our current recession, people would have queued around the block to get on board. Still one of my regrets that I never got to experience it.

As you say, though, it was the only crash but grounded the fleet. If we took that logic along, when did you last fly on a 737?......Scary, huh?

Expensive,overpriced,and dated technology,noisy and poluteing,now used as a large prop at various museums.

Thing is, it was because of some debri on the runway, hardly a fault of the plane if thats the case, just the excuse they needed to get ride of it I guess.

dated technology

It was designed in the 60,s built in the 70,s and kept in service to long,at great expence.

If there was a need for a newer model it would have been built by private companies and not subsidised by the british and french governments as a way of job creation.

Also no other airline ever bought the model, unlike the Boeing and Airbus planes.

project - Member
It was designed in the 60,s built in the 70,s and kept in service to long,at great expence

So was the 747. What's your point?

Concorde was a step forward. Losing it was a step back. Name me another time when technology has taken a step backwards. None. We gave up on something amazing.

Sometimes you should do something just because you can. Viable or otherwise, the whole world admired Concorde.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

project - Member
It was designed in the 60,s built in the 70,s and kept in service to long,at great expence

So was the 747. What's your point?

Concorde was a step forward. Losing it was a step back. Name me another time when technology has taken a step backwards. None. We gave up on something amazing.

The advanced passenger train,failed due to lack of investment, and was taken foward by Fiat ,who produced the pendolino, tilting train.

CFH - concorde was no step forward, The 747 was Some good technology in it but basically it was a brute force solution and behind the times. Post 70s oil crisis it made no sense if it did before, Hugely expensive, polluting,thirsty, and ultimatly pointless.

I'd have love to have flown in one but be realistic. It was an ego boost not any sort of solution.

The plane equivalent of a Ferrari.( if you are being kind)

There were a huge number of options for Concordes, they were pulled when it was realised that it couldn't go supersonic over land, and thus was largely useless to a lot of the customers, including all the US airlines who had orders!

Hence it only ever really flew to Paris, Rio and initially to Bahrain.

It was a phenomenal feat of engineering, and a true shame that it's no longer flying, safe to say we're very unlikely to ever see anything else like it. Not because there's not a 'need', but because there's not the demand, as above it never made money anyway, but that wasn't the point!

The whole issue surrounding the piece of metal is rather contentious anyway if you read up on it, and there were a number of documented cases of tyre blowouts on Concordes in the past, some of which had been very close to causing serious incidents. The main issue was the significantly higher take off speed required due to the lack of flaps and the different wing profiles, and thus the issues with tyres disintegrating.

As for it hapenning to other aircraft, of course there have been incidents where fleets have been modified in the wake of a disaster, DC-10s after the cargo door fell off the Turkish one, and after Sioux City with the number 2 engine blowout. 747s after TWA800, and everything was modified after the IFE wiring melted and caused the Swissair MD-11 to crash off Nova Scotia. They're usually small modifications done as an emergency measure, this was not a quick fix, hence the grounding of the aircraft. They returned to flight, but it's safe to say that post 9/11 with numbers declining anyway, it's days were always going to be numbered.

A better car analogy is the Bugatti Veyron, it's purely a 'because we can' exercise which will never be replicated.

The advanced passenger train,failed due to lack of investment, and was taken foward by Fiat ,who produced the pendolino, tilting train.

What? The APT project was abandoned, but Pendos are produced by Alsthom, with variants operating in a number of other countries. They're not an evolution of the APT really, in any way.

concorde was no step forward

Erm, supersonic travel wasn't a step forward? OK, so let's not have broadband. Let's not have mobile phones. Digital TV, oh no, not in TJland.

Supersonic travel was a massive leap forward. That cannot be denied, even by you in your guise as Expert on Everything.

Polluting? Maybe, but with investment there could have been massive changes.

The 747 wasn't really a step forward. It was just something getting bigger.

The plane equivalent of a Ferrari.(

Without the likes of Ferrari or Rolls, ordinary cars would not have ABS brakes or traction control. Progress comes from going [i]beyond[/i] the bland and banal.

Captain F.: .

Name me another time when technology has taken a step backwards

We can't get to the moon any more. that's another step missed. It'll take us a few years before we can do it again.

Definitely with CF on this one, to say it's not a leap forward is absurd.

[i] as above it never made money anyway, but that wasn't the point![/i]

Actually for many years it did make money. They asked the regular flyers how much they thought tickets cost and, since most of them had PA's and big business to book it and pay the bills, none of them had a clue and all guessed way too high. So BA simply raised the prices to match the expectations! 🙂
It made money indirectly as well, as a kind of PR exercise for BA and Air France.

I used to cycle home along the A4 past Heathrow, could often time it with a Concorde landing. I'd just stop at the roundabout near the end of the runway and watch it come in right overhead. I loved that noise. My Mum's house is under the flight path as well (but much further out) and every evening at 6pm, we'd miss the first item on the news as Concorde went over.

It's sad to think there will be very few 'concorde' moments in the future.

It a demonstration of what man can do, everything now has to be commercially viable, with the exception of emerging economies like Asia and the middle east.

In theory we should be going twice as fast in our passenger planes 40 years on from when concorde first flew.

CFH - I just simply beg to differ, I think it was a fantastic thing - elegant and beautiful and unmatched in many ways. But to me to be a step forward it has to be innovative and move the technology on. It was neither and it proved to be a dead end.

I agree with everything else you say about it but it was no great step forward - or else we would be using the technology it pioneered now. But it wasn't and we are not. It was a beautiful dead end.

Crazylegs - you forget the massive development cost that were written off.

Edit - so where was the innovation? What technology did it showcase?

A French inquest in the crash of a French aircraft will never get to the truth.

Much as I agree it was a leap forward, the real world says that maybe it was one that wasn't needed?

In terms of technology there's always leaps forward, of which alot don't get taken forward, due to economics and practicality.

IMO Concorde took what they'd learnt from fighter planes and applied to passenger aircraft. It didn't lead to any huge leaps in passenger aviation - why not? Because its not needed? However the advances in fighter planes could always trickle down to passenger planes if we ever needed them to.

We made it to the mmon in the 60s but haven't since. Why not? Because there's no need.

If there was real demand to travel to NY in 3 hrs then other technologies would have developed - oh they have! Video-conferencing and broadband...maybe the cost of Concorde was so high that it spurred the development in telecomms?

And forgot to mention - in progress I think you have to have 5 or 10 innovations, of which 2 or 3 will actually be taken forward due to practicalities

It only didn't go supersonic over land because people complained about the sonic booms scaring their pets etc etc.

There is another Concorde "moment", its the Veyron......

TJ - You really do talk out of your arse sometimes:

Ogival wing design,
Adaptive fuel system for balance and cooling,
Sustained supersonic flight,
Droop nose,
Topology optimised internal wing structure,
Area ruling for fuselage on a commercial aircraft,
High altitude cabin pressurisation and electrical system config
Adaptive engine air inlets,
Bypass flow,

To name but a few....

But to me to be a step forward it has to be innovative and move the technology on. It was neither and it proved to be a dead end.

However the advances in fighter planes could always trickle down to passenger planes if we ever needed them to.

The whole argument against "technology taking a step backwards" appears to be a circular one anyway. If I suggest a bit of technology which hasn't been reused, you'll say the technology wasn't a step forwards, otherwise we'd be using it. If I suggest it has been reused then you'll point out that technology hasn't taken a step backwards 🙄

It only didn't go supersonic over land because people complained about the sonic booms scaring their pets etc etc.

What's your point? That's the reason all the US airlines cancelled their options, had it been able to do New York to LA in 2 hours it may have been rather more viable in the long run!

Agree with all of the above from folk saying it was a technological advance, just because it wasn't technology which continued to be used doesn't make it a dead end. Maybe just ahead of its time!

Arguably mind, the Tupolev TU-144 was ahead of Concorde, it flew first, it flew supersonic first, and it flew Mach 2 first! It also crashed first...

Ok - Point taken. We are slightly at cross purposes. To me a beautiful white elephant that did not move the mainstream on at all. If you go up a dead end do you go anywhere?

So what innovations did it have that are on other aircraft now? Thats my point.

To that end, how was the 747 any more 'innovative'? What did the 747 have first that other aircraft still have.

It was just a bit bigger than previous models.

So what innovations did it have that are on other aircraft now? Thats my point.

That was the 747s innovation. It was bigger. Have any of you been on Concorde? It's awful, really cramped, you put up with it simply because you could go to JFK and be back in time for tea, not because it was a nice place to be. But a 747 (especially in 1st) is a very very nice place to be, and it can go to all the airports that Concorde can't and it was a fraction of the cost, and you could get more self loading cargo on it, and it was cheaper to run...

The fight was faster or bigger..Bigger won

No sure about knowledge working its way through to Airbus designs TBH, aracer. Subsonic and supersonic flight are two very different soups...

But back to the OP and the title question: I reckon they'll all agree it was simply an awful tradegy and let everyone off cos Concordes were simply ace.

Or might that be simplifying it a little too much...?

I was lucky enough to fly to new york on her...

[img] [/img]

Arguably mind, the Tupolev TU-144 was ahead of Concorde, it flew first, it flew supersonic first, and it flew Mach 2 first! It also crashed first...

Charger doesn't even get to the table:

1. Industrial Espionage
2. Suffered horribly with porpoising
3. Unreliable
4. Concorde entered service first
5. Withdrawn after a handful of flights

I guess it is like Apollo 11, it wasn't really needed after all was it? 😯

I hope one day they bring the Big Bird back. With newer engines etc but supersonic nonetheless.

Subsonic and supersonic flight are two very different soups...

BA002 JFK to LHR on 29th April 2003 (G-BOAD).

Flippin loved all 195 minutes of it never mind 4 days in New York beforehand positively weeing myself about going home.

Shame.

Also lucky enough to be on Filton airfield for the last ever landing of a concorde in the world. Ever.

[img] [/img]

Jeremy Clarkson would love this thread 😆 - I'm sure it was him masquerading as Flashy at one point.

I'm with TJ in the begrudgers corner. Yeah, lovely, gorgeous, blah blah but technology hasn't taken a step backward because a non-viable beautiful thing is sat on the ground.

Lucky? 😐

to make a bike analogy, would you say bike technology hasn't move forward from hardtail to full suss just because the full suss isn't economically viable for lots of people and not particularly needed for many of the trails everyone rides there 6 inch travel sofa on? just because it isn't need doesn't mean its not innovative or a step forward.

TandemJeremy - Member

So what innovations did it have that are on other aircraft now?

Ogival wing design, - F22
Adaptive fuel system for balance and cooling - Almost everything flying
Sustained supersonic flight - F22, F35, T50, Eurofighter
Topology optimised internal wing structure - A380, 787, A350 XWB
Area ruling for fuselage on a commercial aircraft - 787, A350 (wing root only)
High altitude cabin pressurisation and electrical system config, - Dunno TBH...
Adaptive engine air inlets - X35b et al
Bypass flow - ALL modern military Turbofans

RS- agree totally has technology gone backwards because Marzocch don't make the 12 inch travel MTB fork any more and the most travel they have is 8 inches?

technology gets pushed on when we see how far we push it and then reign it back in and find something that works for the norm rather than the top end

Daffy - I defer to your fine display of plane geekery there. 🙂

Its still not a massive amount of innovative tech passed over into mainstream airliners is it? And how much of than was new on concorde?

I think the bike analogy would be more with something like the whyte with the funny front suspension? an excursion down a dead end that did not have great effects on the mainstream.

Don't get me wrong - I think it was a great plane and the world is a poorer place for its passing. However it proved to be an expensive irrelevance in the end. A step forward does not go down a dead end. It becomes the mainstream like disc brakes or oil damped forks

No, a better bike analogy would be carbon monocoque time trial bikes - eg Hotta, Lotus etc. A step forward in technology, but killed off because the rules changed.

I did some contracting work not far from the end of the runway at Heathrow for about 15 weeks. Every evening we always stopped what we were doing to watch her go.

Amazing sight and noise. It made me feel proud somehow.

I wonder if the French have a better runway cleaning regime these days? I blame them 100% for the mass grounding of Concordes. Tw4t5

I remember in the early 90s, when I moved to Farnborough and was working on the A331: Every morning, at about 11am IIRC, there was that distant, menacing, growing rumble as Concorde arced across the sky
Every day, every single person working on site would pause, shade their eyes and look up, mostly in silence.

To me, for what Concorde did, what it meant, and most importantly, the grace it did it all with, was second to none. Without a doubt the most beautiful machine ever created IMO, and I don't think we'll ever get close again..... 🙁

Wasn't Concorde the first fly by wire plane? something that is used in almost all modern airliners?

Conc was kind of fly by wire. It passed electrical signals directly from the control inputs to the control surfaces rather than using a mechanical system.

A modern FBW control system processes the signal as well (or the pilot moves the controls which tells the computer what what to do to the control surfaces).

Feel the hairs fly off the back of your neck. Starched collars and a stiff upper lip are mandatory. And there's Raymond Baxter. They should make this vid part of the 'British Citizenship' test.

Just try and ignore the bit about BA standards of service at the end.

TandemJeremy - Member
Daffy - I defer to your fine display of plane geekery there.

Its still not a massive amount of innovative tech passed over into mainstream airliners is it? And how much of than was new on concorde?

Teej, seeing as Daffy hasn't answered, I'll do it for him. Those bits of tech were massive steps forward. In paticular the adaptive fuel system is used everywhere. It's a bit like a genius ltd. Massively expensive and over performing for most people, but the tech trickles down to most things eventually.

Oh, and all those things Daffy listed were new on Concorde and hadn't been done before.

Ta Tree

[img] [/img]

Every day, every single person working on site would pause, shade their eyes and look up, mostly in silence.

I never tired of looking at Concorde, and would always stop for a moment and gaze up when it flew overhead.

[i]"Without a doubt the most beautiful machine ever created"[/i]

Yep for me too.

Concorde has had more than one accident/crash. I remember being told of the wings coming off on landing. Another one is where they were on a test flight and the thing kept climbing, can't remember if it was 40,000 or 60,000 feet and climbing. Some fo the top engineers were aboard and they didn't have a clue what was wrong!

Another accident would be not opening the hanger doors, and trying to take her into the hanger... surprise surprise.... New wings please!

I'm lucky enough to have been on all of BA's Concorde's, although didn't get to fly, someone nicked my space to NY!

[img] [/img]

Watched it launch and land a few times at Manchester.

No that was the Fein Multimaster 😀

No seriously, the only plane I'd ever stop whatever I was doing and stare as it flew over.

mmmmmmm Concorde......was lucky enough to fly on it back from NY a couple of times. Didnt exactly feel like state of the art technology but boy oh boy that thing could move. Whole thing leant right back as it gained altitude.

Black space above, curve of the earth below, 3hr flight home, Dom Perignone, Jonny Walker Blue Label, lobster, caviar.....all at Mach 2.2

**** it who cares how much it cost, it was brilliant. And now it is gone.

Thank you all the TJs off the world as you lead us in the relentless pursuit of mediocrity.

However the advances in fighter planes could always trickle down to passenger planes if we ever needed them to.

Except that as I mention above, in some ways Concorde was more advanced than modern fighter jets. If they were to make another superonic passenger plane it would owe a lot more to Concorde than current fighters.

At the time of her ending service, wasn't she the fastest plane anywhere in the world, military or civil? She could certainly outrun the standard Mach 2 fighter...

Another accident would be not opening the hanger doors, and trying to take her into the hanger... surprise surprise.... New wings please!

Clearly the plane's fault then...

That was the 747s innovation. It was bigger. Have any of you been on Concorde? It's awful, really cramped, you put up with it simply because you could go to JFK and be back in time for tea, not because it was a nice place to be. But a 747 (especially in 1st) is a very very nice place to be, and it can go to all the airports that Concorde can't and it was a fraction of the cost, and you could get more self loading cargo on it, and it was cheaper to run...

Yep I flew on it to New York, also on G-BOAD actually, and as shown from the picture, it's not exactly "awful"! The windows are small yes, but so what.

Having also flown First on 777s and 747s I'd say if anything they're more claustrophobic, particularly in seats 1A/K on a 747 where you're staring straight at the bulkhead.

Being smack in the middle of the economy cabin isn't exactly pleasant either, I'll take Concorde over that thank you. And if you honestly think that's a nicer experience because the ceiling's further away then you sir, are a moron.

747s aren't exactly known for being able to fly everywhere, the whole c10000ft of runway is rather limiting! Yes it's proved more ecomically viable in the long run, but it wasn't as technologically advanced.

The TU-144 was killed off by horrendous fuel consumption. Th erange was so short, if it took off from Moscow, it couldn't leave the country without refuelling.

The US took an example of the Tu-144 and put the best US engines available in it. It still wouldn't work. It looked like Concorde but it was a poor imitation. That's the danger of looking over someones shoulder but not understanding what you see.

Branson should have been allowed to take them over; but the politics killed them stone dead.

I live in hope that there will be one resurrected, like the Vulcan. It serves no purpose except to make peoples jaw drop when they see it in action.

That, and the whole 'blowing up infront of a large crowd at the Paris air show' thing...

McBoo - I didn't say don't do it, I didn't say mediocre was best. I said I believed it to be a dead end

good viewing;

There was one other quite famous incident with Concorde when a fuel leak developed over the Atlantic. The pilot refused to land at Shannon to refuel and carried onto Heathrow. The engines failed on the runway as it taxied to the terminal although BA covered it up very well by claiming it was due to the angle of the fuel tanks as the plane was on the ground and there was actually enough fuel for a further 20mins of flight.

The best 24hrs of my life was an all day mid-summer bar crawl around Greenwich Village and Soho, clubbing all night, unbeatable New York deli breakfast then straight to JFK. Barely able to stand at check-in I had a regular business ticket on a 747......

"We have a Concorde flight leaving at the same time. Shall I transfer you across Sir?"

oh Sir says yes.......got home hours early to Mrs McBoo (then g/f) she had a load of pals round for a BBQ, weather was fantastic.....more beers, wine.....

You just dont get weekends like that under socialism......

One of them there 'normal' planes pottering along in the same direction 20000 ft below (same direction). Sorry for the crappiness of the pic but it was moving across the window from right to left at the same apparent speed as it does when looking up from the ground. Wish I'd videoed it.

EDIT - Mcboo - love that story.

[img] [/img]

looks effin awesome, sadly never had a go in one.

depressed to see photo above, where all the usual suits are onboard, and everyone in picture is head down working on their laptops.

business men eh? where's the excitement?

or maybe they are on STW discussing being on concorde with each other?

I dunno, it did seem like a bit of a ceremony when I was on it, everyone got invited onto the flight deck, and virtually everyone went and had a look.

The most remarkable part of the flight I remember was the acceleration and the braking on the runway, absolutely insane!

Not trying to get in the way, just seeing if I can still post - A. N. Other thread doesn't seem to be accepting my replies.

Sorry to interrupt...

[i]And if you honestly think that's a nicer experience because the ceiling's further away then you sir, are a moron.[/i]

njee20, is there any reason you feel the need to be offensive? Have I upset you in some way?

Some great stories, Mcboo wins, what an upgrade and your right you dont get weekends like that under Socialism, unless you are on a Socialist MPs
expenses structure.

I miss the great sporting moments when Concorde just happened to be passing the stadium or pitch at the right time and the whole crowd would look up, i dont think anyone could not stare in awe at such a machine.

When i lived in Leeds you knew when she was coming in, you could not see her but you could hear here for sure from both sides of the Aire Valley.

Very tragic way for it all to end in such an horrendous event.

Oh c'mon, that's hardly offensive! Perhaps I should've added "IMO", or a smiley afterwards.

Would you honestly rather be sat in the middle of an economy cabin on a 747 vs Concorde? Really?

Genuine curiosity.

njee20, is there any reason you feel the need to be offensive? Have I upset you in some way?

If you're offended by someone tongue-in-cheek calling you a moron on an internet forum, then I think you confirm his views. Sorry....

Can remember watching it fly over in the early 90's when I used to attend Reading festival over the August BH weekend, beautiful sight and loud enough to drown out whoever was on stage at the time, something that is sorely missed, concorde, not reading festival 😀

Anyone who reckons it wasn't technically innovative should read The Concorde Story by Chris Orlebar (I think that's his name).
I can't remember it all off hand, but most of the things that got it to do what it did had to be invented.
And this was done in the days before computers did all the work.

I was at uni @ Brunel & you could see it take off from our halls of residence.
We sometimes used to go to one of the Heathrow access roads & watch it take off. Hmmmm, it was definitely an emotional experience.

2nd time I flew, the plane in front of ours in the queue was Concorde & the noise & vibration when it took off was incredible; loads more than when we actually took off!!

Sad that a bit of debris from another plane ended up grounding her....but I reckon they were just waiting for an excuse to stick her in a museum.

Incidentally, our work Christmas dinner was at Duxford in the main hangar, with dinner served (and the dance floor) under the wing of Concorde. I spent a large portion of the evening just looking at it.

2nd time I flew, the plane in front of ours in the queue was Concorde & the noise & vibration when it took off was incredible; loads more than when we actually took off!!

Yes, we were sat on the apron once when it took off, absolutely incredible!

Such a shame that we've taken a great step backwards since Speedbird died.

I miss that sound and that sight.

too true used to come over twice a day when i was little and lived in reading, always looked ace - whet to heathrow to see that three come into together for the last time - very sad