Concorde

[Mat-Moo]

I've had a couple of e-mails now on this subject, so thought it was appropriate to actually start a thread on it I had the privilege today to watch the NY002 flight come over my house, as it did everyday. On Saturdays when I work on my kit car, I can almost set my watch at the time it would glide over, air travel has lost it's most prestigious aircraft from public service today IMO.

 

Thoughts rants and raves here

[Guest Tim Norman]

I've been on both the 001 and 002. Granted they were on the ground at Air Museums. But at least I can say I've been on Concorde.

 

One lasting impression was how little space there was inside.

 

I think BA should let RB have them if they won't fly them anymore.

 

BBBWTB

[Guest Battery Bill]

I agree totally, what a waste to just put these classic planes into museums.

Jeremy Clarkson said that when he steps off the plane today "It will be a small step for me, but a giant leap backwards for mankind" Very true.

Bill and Joey :boohoo:

[Guest mickmellors]

C R I M I N A L

 

They spent millions and millions resurrecting the Mary Rose from the sea because it was such an important piece of History and now they are doing exactly the reverse. I read that it is costing in excess of £175 million just to decommission the Concorde fleet and that is on top of all the costs involved in the decision making process that has gone before - you know, the lavish banquets at meetings in fancy locations in the sun and all the £500 per night hotels etc. etc

 

C R I M I N A L

 

Apologies if I havent made my feelings clear ! ! !

 

Mick M

[Guest Mike Perry]

I can only echo all of your sentiments.

 

I felt very priveledged to see all 3 of yesterdays Concordes coming in line astern to land at Heathrow. It brought a tear to the eyes.

 

What a retrograde step in taking these magnificent airplanes out of service.

[Guest Alan Harrison]

Agreed. Ba dosn't seem to be able to make any sound decisions these days. Or do they? I'm sure I the BA bosses wouldn't see it like that. To be fair, I get the impression that the CAA had more or less written the Concord off after the Paris crash. The fueltank mods and refit simpley alowed BA to run the service down gradually. Remember the fuss when that dropped the BA livery and went for those tacky artwork tailfins. The publicity was probably worth more than the cost of painting them.

 

What can we expect next? How about *bleep* BA.

 

Doh!!!!!! Thats another brilliant idea I've give away for nothing. I'll never be rich.

[Guest john]

Dr Beechings ghost returns in the form of an overseas whizzkid to inflict the same damage on another piece of our beloved engineering achievement.

If they can't make it pay, ( it was only 15-20% full) its only a matter of supply and demand. Drop the prices , fill the planes. Branson would.

 

it will be a damn sight harder to resurrect it once it is no longer airworthy.....ask the Vulcan restoration team.

 

 

Bloody shame, I say.

 

If they break em up, I want two seats for my robinhood.

[Guest mickmellors]

Having sat in one for 10 seconds at an airshow I was on guard at, I reckon you could probably get 3 Concorde seats in a 2B !

 

My posterior was a snug fit back then in my early 20's and I'm 5 stone heavier now so I think I'll stick to more conventional seating!!

 

I wouldnt mind one at my computer though ! ! ! - This is your Captain speaking ..........HMMM - now wheres that joystick ? ! !

[Guest Captain Daz]

Hi Chaps

 

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one as it is my thing. Concorde is a fantastic feat of engineering and testament to the British and French engineers who made it happen. We did, after all, achieve something even the Yanks couldn't! But she is ready for retirement. If you go in to the cockpit it is very, very old technology. It still takes three people to fly it and is no longer finacially viable. To give you an idea of the difference between Concorde and a modern jet:- in the holding stack waiting to land a Boeing 767 will have a fuel burn of about 4 tons per hour, Concorde's is about 12 tons per hour, that's 1 ton every 5 minutes!; because it is so old it takes four times the engineering man hours just to keep it flying compared to modern jets; conversion training for pilots takes 6 months versus 2 months on a conventional aircraft; it can't fly over land because of the sonic boom and each and every flight something breaks or falls off (not major) just like an old Lotus. With only one destination giving any kind of demand it has a very narrow band of usefulness. RB could not have flown it profitably and he knows it. He's just jumping at the chance of media coverage (oooh Richard, he's such a nice bloke, he wants to keep Concorde and everything).

 

I dearly love the aircraft and everything British it represents but all good things come to an end. What is most sad is that nothing progressed from Concorde. Theoretically we should all be flying space planes to Sydney in under 1 hour, and unless any of you can knock up a brand new propulsion device in your garage, I feel it will be left to the Americans to 'lead' the way once again.

 

Cheers

 

Daren

[Guest daveg]

Daren

 

I agree about the plane but NOT

oooh Richard, he's such a nice bloke, he wants to keep Concorde

he can't even make the trains run on time!

 

I have lost count how many times his trains break down :angry:

 

Dave

[Guest Battery Bill]

every flight something breaks or falls off

You want to see the amount of faults (and bits that fall off) RAF planes.

When I was on Tornado's When they were pretty new they were flying with sometimes 16 pages of faults in there log books, I agree they were not major faults but neither was Concord's. Aeroplanes are very complex machines and therefore some degree of problems have to be allowed for.

Back to the Tornado, a Very complex aircraft it needed a much higher number of groundcrew to keep it flying than the American F15 / F16 which was much Cheaper and probably better overall.

Just because you read in the tabloids That Concord has lost a bit of its rudder a few times should not make you think bits always fall off.

conversion training for pilots takes 6 months versus 2 months on a conventional aircraft

I'm not surprised the modern airliner flys itself most of the time, you only need pilots to keep the passengers happy.

If you go in to the cockpit it is very, very old technology. It still takes three people to fly it

The RAF Nimrod is bloody ancient having been developed from the Comet, yet it is still and deservidly so the top Maritime aircraft around, and it has 3 people in the cockpit too.

To give you an idea of the difference between Concorde and a modern jet

A modern jet does not cruise at 1400mph Nuff said!

No I think it could be a viable business proposition for Richard, and the amount of support it has recieved in the past few days shows that. :boohoo:

[Guest TerryBarry]

I.K.Brunel's Broad Gauge railway system was smoother and faster than Stevenson's 4ft 8in.

BetaMax was reckoned on picture quality to be a superior home video system to VHS.

But due to railway committees and US market pressures respectively both of these went to the wall.

Better doesn't always win - I rest my case

But I will miss the silver bird flying overhead a couple of times a day.

Terry

[Guest Battery Bill]

Terry

But I will miss the silver bird flying overhead a couple of times a day.

You were probably watching a different aeroplane, Concorde was white.

[Guest TerryBarry]

Bill,

I thought that I'd previously mentioned my need for glasses.

Of course it might have been a TU144.

Terry

[Guest Chris.A.]

I have read all these posts. And they say men are NOT romantic. Somehow , there is a direct link to the ROBIN HOOD ( I am not clever enough to put it into words, but there is.)

If we all abandoned big old birds who were a drain on our finances, we would all be single there is more to life than logic and common sense