PDA

View Full Version : Air France Concorde (Final Flight)


Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2003, 02:32 PM
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/final_concorde_030530.html

The Air France Concorde took its final flight today :(

Saw one in NY on the flight line once, that's about as close as I ever got. Now only British Airways flies them and that ends in October.

D

patrick0brien
May 30, 2003, 02:39 PM
-Mr. Anderson

I hope the Smithsonian has a spot reserved for such an historical craft.

MacFan25
May 30, 2003, 03:19 PM
Maybe in the future they will be able to build faster planes! :)

maradong
May 30, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
Maybe in the future they will be able to build faster planes! :)
certainly.
even if at the moment nobody is really interested in supersonic planes.
By the way, concore has also been the most beautiful plane ever. Sharing this place with the DC - 3 the Cessna Caravan amphibian, and the Pilatus Pl-12 :D
huh god, i like those planes:D

iGav
May 30, 2003, 04:09 PM
They could continue flying... if BA wasn't so tight as to let Richard Branson take them over for his Virgin Airline... Even though technically BA didn't pay for the planes development... and purchased them off the government for a quid... (Government financed). Branson want's to buy them off BA for the same amount as BA paid... about a quid... But BA, being BA refused, insisting instead that they be sold and put into museums...

So I've read, BA are worried that Branson would make it profitable. :rolleyes:

CMillerERAU
May 30, 2003, 04:15 PM
Super sonic transports was a pie in the sky idea from day one. You know they never recouped what they spend developing the Concord? You should see the cockpit of one, its all 1960s technology and darn near impossible to fly. To think of all the money the British, French, and Americans have put into it for something that is the pinnicle of impracticality. I for one am kind of glad to see it go, talk about a waste of resources.

evoluzione
May 30, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Super sonic transports was a pie in the sky idea from day one. You know they never recouped what they spend developing the Concord? You should see the cockpit of one, its all 1960s technology and darn near impossible to fly. To think of all the money the British, French, and Americans have put into it for something that is the pinnicle of impracticality. I for one am kind of glad to see it go, talk about a waste of resources.

and when was it designed, and made??? no ****** it's old, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a beautiful aeroplane and has been imitated many many times with absolutely no success. talk about a waste of resources? jeez, you live in America, the world leaders of wasted resources. oh, and it's "Concorde", not "the Concord". In (kind of) the same way as "The Bronx" and not just "Bronx". I for one, would have loved to take a flight on the best ever passenger aircraft, bar none.

JesseJames
May 30, 2003, 04:55 PM
I'm sad to see it go. It was a great idea but it just never could appeal to true mass transit travel demands of people. Low fares and no frills.
Where other airlines turn a profit by cramming as much people into coach as possible, the Concorde just couldn't compete with first class being the only class and high fares to pay for the fuel and maintenance.
I hope they make a new generation of SST. The 21st century traveler deserves that option. Except now, make it so John and Jane Average can afford it. That's the stickler.

rjwill246
May 30, 2003, 05:33 PM
I have had the priviolege of flying on it twice and in spite of the comment above about being archaic and impossible to fly, the pilots raved about it. It was the one commercial aircraft where everyone was permitted to go up to the cockpit. The ride was wonderful .. 'sporty' as one captain said as we thundered down the runway.
I hope BA changes its mind and lets Richard Branson do well with it. They are simply too good to stick in museums.

pinks
May 30, 2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Super sonic transports was a pie in the sky idea from day one. You know they never recouped what they spend developing the Concord? You should see the cockpit of one, its all 1960s technology and darn near impossible to fly. To think of all the money the British, French, and Americans have put into it for something that is the pinnicle of impracticality. I for one am kind of glad to see it go, talk about a waste of resources.

P*ss off!

The yanks were determined to sink this European project from day one. Once their own supersonic project failed, they refused "Concorde" airspace to fly into the US. It was only overwhelming public demand that made them finally capitulate.

Yes, it may be impractical - but its European impracticality, and its more damn stylish than any other aircraft ever produced before or since. It may be overpriced and quirky. It may only appeal to a small percentage of the flying population. It may be a statement of aesthetic value, mechanical and technical genius and luxury user-friendly flying - but if we were to rubbish all products with these values over harsh financial practicality and accountability, this web-site could well find itself renamed Mac-Eulogy.com. There are some things worth pursuing in this life that go beyond the realms of economic practicality...

It flys over my house in west London every night at 5.35... I can testify to its beauty, power and ongoing facination as the very "pinnacle" of aeronautic engineering.

- pinks

WinterMute
May 30, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by pinks
It flys over my house in west London every night at 5.35... I can testify to its beauty, power and ongoing facination as the very "pinnacle" of aeronautic engineering.

- pinks

Well said, it comes over us in Blackheath a few minutes earlier (depending upon the days stacking arrangements) on it's approach.

I love the old machine, and it's passing is going to be sorely missed. Sure the cabin's like a bobsleigh, and it's noisy as hell on the outside, but the thrust on takeoff is the closest thing to a military jet you can get in civil aviation, and the mach counter still sets a real tingle.

All other civil air travel is a mere shadow. (OK, first class on a megatop 747 is fairly cool)

CMillerERAU
May 30, 2003, 06:43 PM
Well I guess I should set a few things I said straight due to all the flames I got. For one, the plane is difficult to fly compared to modern airliners because there is zero automation, no glass cockpit, and several more things to keep track of while going mach 2. And I think we can all agree it was a big waste of money, if it turned a profit I wouldn't have such bad feeling towards it but it didn't. And if you want to bring up the "no supersonic flight over the US" I have a simple explaination: Noise abatement. The same reason small aircraft have to tip toe around airports surrounded by housing is the same reason we don't want sonic booms 8 times a day. Realisticaly I wish they would do away with that rule for high flying craft being that the shockwaves are mostly dissipated by the time they hit ground. But most people aren't pilots and when they think super sonic they think their windows will get blown out every time a plane flies overhead. True the Concords were neat planes to fly in, they were sleek and elegant. But a mechanical and commercial failure.

cubist
May 30, 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by pinks
... It flys over my house in west London every night at 5.35... I can testify to its beauty, power and ongoing facination as the very "pinnacle" of aeronautic engineering. ...

When I lived in Manassas I'd often see a Concorde flying in the sunset on my way home. What a beautiful aircraft... It may have had old technology but it is unquestionably the most aestetically beautiful flying machine ever made, and it has to be one of the most beautiful things of any kind ever made by man. I shed a tear when the one crashed in Paris a couple of years ago.

thekaiser
May 30, 2003, 08:16 PM
There is no doubt that the plane is great. They do actually have one of the remaining 5 slated to go to the Smithsonian. The others will be placed around the world. There are talks of keeping one operational for fly-by's at air shows. This would be very cool in my opinion. Also note that the US was not completely anti-concorde. Lockheed Martin had to help Europe overcome some key hurdles in supersonic flight. By this point LM had already begun developing the SR-71...a real modern marvel. This help is not highly talked about, but can be seen on Discovery Wings specials on the Concorde. Either way as a member of the aviation community, the Concorde will be greatly missed. It was perhaps ahead of its time, but lasted the test of time.

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2003, 09:57 PM
Its also basically money as the issue here. Why not have a 747 or AirBus takes hundreds of passengers intercontinental and make more money, than have a premium priced supersonic aircraft.

Some day in the near future there will be something that will come along and replace the Concorde. Until then this plane will be a cornerstone in aviation history. Rightly so if you ask me.

D

applemacdude
May 30, 2003, 10:16 PM
wonder what theyre gonna do with the planes


night

senseibiz
May 30, 2003, 10:25 PM
Very sad to see them go. I was in one of them a few years ago, In New York for college trip. It was part of a school assigment.
I just saw the news come across CNN.

CMillerERAU
May 30, 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by applemacdude
wonder what theyre gonna do with the planes

I'm sure they'll be sold off to several museums, I highly doubt any of them will be scrapped. They're extremely historic and novel not to be preserved.

maradong
May 31, 2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Super sonic transports was a pie in the sky idea from day one. You know they never recouped what they spend developing the Concord? You should see the cockpit of one, its all 1960s technology and darn near impossible to fly. To think of all the money the British, French, and Americans have put into it for something that is the pinnicle of impracticality. I for one am kind of glad to see it go, talk about a waste of resources.
aericans didnt pay a cent.... not a single cent. infact they even didn t allow the concodre to fly over its territory...

LethalWolfe
May 31, 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by evoluzione
oh, and it's "Concorde", not "the Concord". In (kind of) the same way as "The Bronx" and not just "Bronx".

The correct syntax depends on where you are from. I noticed that American's use "the" much more when refering to something specific than people in the UK do. I noticed, for example, while I was living in London that Brits would say, "I am going to hospital" where as I, being an American would say, "I am going to the hospital" when talking about going to the local hospital.

Just a cultural difference.


Lethal

evoluzione
May 31, 2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
The correct syntax depends on where you are from. I noticed that American's use "the" much more when refering to something specific than people in the UK do. I noticed, for example, while I was living in London that Brits would say, "I am going to hospital" where as I, being an American would say, "I am going to the hospital" when talking about going to the local hospital.

Just a cultural difference.


Lethal

While I agree with your statement, in the case of Concorde, it's not true, I believe I read an article somewhere, some time ago that even said this. I've a feeling it was a brochure picked up from Concorde when my Dad flew to NYC on it once.

Anyways....

Originally posted by CMillerERAU
And if you want to bring up the "no supersonic flight over the US" I have a simple explaination: Noise abatement.

This as far as I know is the case (as is the reason it only flies to a tiny number of locations), which is, in typical US logic, stupid. I live in Brooklyn, on 5th Avenue, so there's a fair amount of traffic. In the early hours of the morning when the garbage trucks come along to take away all the restuarant's trash, you can hear them coming blocks away. Same with the oil trucks. I swear they customise these trucks to make them as loud as possible, no silencing, nothing. It's crazy, when they downchange to slow down, you can feel the noise, and hear it literally 5+ blocks down the road.

wdlove
May 31, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by rjwill246
I have had the priviolege of flying on it twice and in spite of the comment above about being archaic and impossible to fly, the pilots raved about it. It was the one commercial aircraft where everyone was permitted to go up to the cockpit. The ride was wonderful .. 'sporty' as one captain said as we thundered down the runway.
I hope BA changes its mind and lets Richard Branson do well with it. They are simply too good to stick in museums.

Congratulations, rjwill246 on having the privlidge of flying on the Concorde. Did they still allow passengers to visit the cabin after 9/11? It would be nice to be able to visit the plane at a museum. Otherwise they might do like the US and place the planes at an abandon air strip in the desert! :(

iJed
May 31, 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Well I guess I should set a few things I said straight due to all the flames I got. For one, the plane is difficult to fly compared to modern airliners because there is zero automation, no glass cockpit, and several more things to keep track of while going mach 2. And I think we can all agree it was a big waste of money, if it turned a profit I wouldn't have such bad feeling towards it but it didn't. And if you want to bring up the "no supersonic flight over the US" I have a simple explaination: Noise abatement. The same reason small aircraft have to tip toe around airports surrounded by housing is the same reason we don't want sonic booms 8 times a day. Realisticaly I wish they would do away with that rule for high flying craft being that the shockwaves are mostly dissipated by the time they hit ground. But most people aren't pilots and when they think super sonic they think their windows will get blown out every time a plane flies overhead. True the Concords were neat planes to fly in, they were sleek and elegant. But a mechanical and commercial failure.

If Concorde was a waste of money then what was the moon landing?

I suppose though, in the case of Concorde, the Soviets beat the British and French to it with the Tupolev 144 which made its first flight in 1968. An upgraded Tu-144 was also used by NASA in the '90s to do supersonic testing.

rjwill246
May 31, 2003, 10:15 PM
To the question about letting people in the cabin after 9/11, I do not know. I can say that the sevice from takeoff to landing was not matched by any other service I have experienced to date.. and of course, it should have been at the price.
The most amazing thing that happened on the first flight is that I was allowed to sit behind the pilot on landing in London and that was as good as experiences get. Since there are no flaps, the plane uses an almost 45 degree angle of approach to "brake" and then the nose drops and in a few minutes it touches down and then you get pinned back!
I think that anyone who bashes this plane is just plain churlish. Indeed, it cost the Americans zip and it was pure jealousy and Boeing pressure that prevented it from coming to the US on a regular basis. The idea of the noise pollution was pure bull... the bloody tractors and bulldozers across the street on the new housing construction are way more intrusive.. oh and any thunderclap is at least comparable and often times worse. That was an outrageous excuse to stop the panic in the US about Boeing being caught with their pants down and the US losing the advantage ( if only psychological ) in commercial plane building. And despite the above comments about it not being completely "auto" both crews told me that this was jewel in the BA crown and that they would fly a Concorde over a 747 any day. Thus any "outside" criticism remains just that.. they are empty words, "full of sound and fury....." -you know the rest.

nspeds
Jun 1, 2003, 09:25 AM
I think a lot of individuals are overlooking the main purpose of this aircraft, and what it left behind. The aircraft's main purpose was to propel passenger's at a faster speed towards their location. Unintended Consequences: High maintanence, eats up the fuel, high ticket prices, and airports had to pay extra for the ability to service the Concorde. What it left behind: A status symbol, the fact that only the rich could fly such a plane, it was also a cultural symbol, and finally it was a symbol of technological progression: Our desire to go faster and faster. That being said...

I don't think that there are going to be any fast aircraft between now and 2010, yes Boeing DID anounce the subsupersonic cruiser, but that project was scrapped. If you go to Boeng's website now, it will show you the 7E7 concept which is almost a 777 but more aerodynamic (I will explain these benefits later on). If there is a plan to build such a plane, the timeline states that the plane should go into service by 2007. Airbus refuses to go supersonic and is heavily into the A380, which should go into service by 2006. In these economic times, travellers are not looking for the fastest way per se, but are looking for the most cost effective ways. Hence the more seats available, the cheaper they are (don't quote me on that one claim, I'm a bit shaky on that).

On Aerodynamics:
After seeing the latest 737, the modifications are quite clear. The wings have flips at the end. It is known that just with the flips (which make the plane more aerodynamic), the actually 737 CAN travel from New York to Japan. Hence, by making planes more efficient in its design, we could achieve greater distances with cheaper costs (which is ultimately what needs to be done). When you look at the 7E7 concept, you can clearly see that its aerodynamic. I think its quite clear that it can go far distances...

ND
Hated By Many
Confronted By None

JesseJames
Jun 1, 2003, 02:15 PM
Also, wasn't there an environmental issue with the Concorde? I think that the exhaust release at high altitude caused damage to the ozone or something. I remember something like that about it way back.

wdlove
Jun 1, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by JesseJames
Also, wasn't there an environmental issue with the Concorde? I think that the exhaust release at high altitude caused damage to the ozone or something. I remember something like that about it way back.

I caught the news report on it's last flight from NYC to Paris. That was ironic with Lindhberg's flight, that ended up in a museum. The reason given to end the flights was the extremely high maintenance cost!