The President of TWA saw a lot of promise in the Concorde. He said that in just a few years (this was in the late 70s/early 80s) that all commercial air travel would be supersonic, and jumbo jets would be relegated to flying cargo...but TWA didn't buy any supersonic jets, so it failed.
If they can find something more economical than the turbojets, the SST would be a whole different story.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;25529834]...part of a $36m plan to let tourists see the aviation icon.
[/QUOTE]
36 [i]million[/i]? Seriously?
[QUOTE=Ridge;25531907]The President of TWA saw a lot of promise in the Concorde. He said that in just a few years (this was in the late 70s/early 80s) that all commercial air travel would be supersonic, and jumbo jets would be relegated to flying cargo...but TWA didn't buy any supersonic jets, so it failed.[/QUOTE]
He sure sucked at predicting stuff just as he sucked at keeping an airline alive.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25530850]You must keep everything well fastened, and probably in a material that doesn't shatter easily.[/QUOTE]
Yes because a sonic boom is going to cause major damage to my house, god knows what will happen from a thunder storm.
[QUOTE=Canary;25532852]Yes because a sonic boom is going to cause major damage to my house, god knows what will happen from a thunder storm.[/QUOTE]
Ever had a sonic boom occur over your house multiple times? I've had windows, china, and glass products crack due to low level sonic booms.
[QUOTE=Tu154M;25532732]He sure sucked at predicting stuff just as he sucked at keeping an airline alive.[/QUOTE]
Having one of your jets on the way to Europe explode fantastically just moments after takeoff probably doesn't help, either...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkWXBTsgsA[/media]
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;25532274]36 [i]million[/i]? Seriously?[/QUOTE]
Most jumbo jets sell for only a little bit less than that [i]used.[/i]
[url=http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/AIRBUS-A340/1997-AIRBUS-A340/1167319.htm]Example[/url]
What a depressing sight.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25532955]Having one of your jets on the way to Europe explode fantastically just moments after takeoff probably doesn't help, either...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkWXBTsgsA[/media][/QUOTE]
Lazy bastards could've shut the AC off :colbert:
(Not really it was waiting to happen)
The hell with london, I went and saw it while I was in scotland!
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2d9vayu.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]A never ending reminder of how corporations will use any accident or excuse to get a well-made product off the market so they can sell their obsolete technology.
To everyone who doesn't know.
The Concorde was the fastest commercial airline plane ever, however because it was so good it was a massive threat to any one who made 'Normal' commercial airliners.
And even though it has the best crash rate ever, with only ONE crash, EVER.
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you on absolutely nothing.
I didn't know it was possible to disagree with facts.
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]A never ending reminder of how corporations will use any accident or excuse to get a well-made product off the market so they can sell their obsolete technology.
To everyone who doesn't know.
The Concorde was the fastest commercial airline plane ever, however because it was so good it was a massive threat to any one who made 'Normal' commercial airliners.
And even though it has the best crash rate ever, with only ONE crash, EVER.
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
Well let's not jump to conclusions... Should the Concorde have been taken out of service? No. Not as long as people were willing to pay the outrageous ticket prices. It was Debris on the runway that got run over, caused a tire to explode and hit the fuel lines, setting them on fire, Blame the people in charge of making sure the Runways are clear, not the Concorde... It could have happened to any commercial aircraft, and has. But while the Concorde was fast, it was EXTREMELY expensive to fly on one, Fuel efficiency per passenger was utter shit (Sure it carried a lot less people than a 747, but an Airline that gets over 100 Miles Per passenger Per Gallon of fuel is far cheaper to fly than one running Airliners that get 17)
It was good, but it would no WAY replace today's commercial aircraft, It just cost too much to fly on one.. We're talking $6,500 to $9,000 a ticket... You can go JFK to Heathrow for under $500 and it still takes less than 8 hours flight time (Barely)
It was just too far ahead of its time I think, to be of practical use, Also 1 crash with a fleet of 20 is not that great of a track record... Southwest Airlines makes 17Million flights per accident, with never having a fatal accident (Aboard a plane anyway, There was a kid in a car on the interstate that died in an accident not too long ago) And they have about 550 737's And are one of the cheapest airlines to Fly
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]A never ending reminder of how corporations will use any accident or excuse to get a well-made product off the market so they can sell their obsolete technology.
To everyone who doesn't know.
The Concorde was the fastest commercial airline plane ever, however because it was so good it was a massive threat to any one who made 'Normal' commercial airliners.
And even though it has the best crash rate ever, with only ONE crash, EVER.
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure it was because it's a gas guzzler and low passenger capacity, it also can't fly supersonic over the United States because of the tendency of sonic booms breaking windows. Don't get me wrong its a cool airplane and a marvel of aerospace technology its just not practical.
If fuel was extremely cheap then I could definitely see most people flying planes like Concordes, but that shit costs about 6 bucks a gallon today, Jet A does, anyway
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]A never ending reminder of how corporations will use any accident or excuse to get a well-made product off the market so they can sell their obsolete technology.
To everyone who doesn't know.
The Concorde was the fastest commercial airline plane ever, however because it was so good it was a massive threat to any one who made 'Normal' commercial airliners.
And even though it has the best crash rate ever, with only ONE crash, EVER.
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
:frown:
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25531957]If they can find something more economical than the turbojets, the SST would be a whole different story.[/QUOTE]
Scramjets. Once NASA finishes polishing the technology for their spacecraft I really hope scramjets find their place in passenger airliners.
The theoretical max speed of a scramjet is between mach 12 and mach 24, London to New York faster than you can have a wank.
[QUOTE=Nilrus;25535203]Scramjets. Once NASA finishes polishing the technology for their spacecraft I really hope scramjets find their place in passenger airliners.
The theoretical max speed of a scramjet is between mach 12 and mach 24, London to New York faster than you can have a wank.[/QUOTE]
I find the acceleration of an average jet already intense, what would this be :O
[QUOTE=Nilrus;25535203]Scramjets. Once NASA finishes polishing the technology for their spacecraft I really hope scramjets find their place in passenger airliners.
The theoretical max speed of a scramjet is between mach 12 and mach 24, London to New York faster than you can have a wank.[/QUOTE]
Problem is, you need to get up to about Mach 3 [b]before[/b] a Scramjet even begins producing useful thrust, so you're stuck with using conventional engines, as in the concorde, up to that Mach 3 figure, so not really much more economical I would think.
Wow, i should visit it sometime
If I remember correctly, the Concordes were the center of a lot of noise complaints, even in the airports. They were known to crack/shatter the windows at airports or building near the area.
[QUOTE=rieda1589;25529913]It traveled very fast... How could you not know, are you like 10?[/QUOTE]
Okay what the fuck? He didn't know the speed at which a long time decommissioned jet moves at thus he is 10?
Should stick a Vulcan there instead.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25532955]Having one of your jets on the way to Europe explode fantastically just moments after takeoff probably doesn't help, either...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkWXBTsgsA[/media][/QUOTE]
Videos like this are part of the reason I have a fear of flying on jumbo jets.
The problem with Scramjets on passenger airliners is You already have to be going extremely fast before Scramjets are useful, To get to that speed with conventional engines you'll need two things. 1) Lots of oxygen to be sucked into your regular engines, which you aren't going to get at extremely high altitudes, which brings us to the second thing you need. Special metals and alloys that can withstand heat... The Concorde was limited to about Mach 2 because of the heat that would build up on the nose... To hit Mach 24 you NEED to be in space, look what Mach 24 does to the space shuttle on re-entry... A Hop across the Atlantic would be a waste of resources and efficiency for some sort of Scram Jet aircraft
We're talking Aussie to California distances and beyond, and the Maintanance and Fuel Costs would be so high, the ticket prices would be high. So the only people who would/could fly on them already have their own frickin' Lear Jet
[QUOTE=Religous Nutjob;25538136]Videos like this are part of the reason I have a fear of flying on jumbo jets.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, all jets can explode just the same. :smile:
Rofl they have "the best crash rate ever," because they weren't in service long at all. Expensive as hell too. Also to people thinking the sonic boom had any effect on noise pollution, you are now aware that no planes(military or otherwise) are allowed to breach the sound barrier while below 10,000ft. MSL
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]A never ending reminder of how corporations will use any accident or excuse to get a well-made product off the market so they can sell their obsolete technology.
To everyone who doesn't know.
The Concorde was the fastest commercial airline plane ever, however because it was so good it was a massive threat to any one who made 'Normal' commercial airliners.
And even though it has the best crash rate ever, with only ONE crash, EVER.
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
Concorde went back into service after the crash. It was taken out of service because it wasn't economically viable. "The Corporations" as you call them, have no impact on how the airlines run, it's the opposite way around, Air France, United, Emirates or BA says jump ( jet? ) and five companies climb over one another shouting how high ( Capacity ). It's just better economics to operate huge capacity conventional jet aircraft on atlantic routes, rather than one very small capacity supersonic plane.
I know we all wish that the super fast jet fighter airline that looks totally badass was still flying around because that would make us feel like we're living in some really advanced future. But that overused phrase is in fact correct, concorde WAS ahead of its time. Too far.
[QUOTE=Lust;25529862]
The corporations jumped on that single crash and used it to get them ALL taken out of airports.[/QUOTE]
No, after the crash, people didn't want to fly on it, and after 9/11 hurt air travel as a whole, there wasn't enough demand for such an expensive aircraft to make it worth the high operating costs.
There is one under restoration, with plans to make a demonstration flight at the 2012 Olympics
[url]http://www.dailytech.com/Iconic+Concorde+Could+Return+for+2012+Olympics/article18627.htm[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
