Concorde to be Grounded 543
Goonie writes "This BBC article reports that Concorde flights are to come to an end in October. It may be a noisy and costly anachronism, but it's sad to see the end of perhaps the coolest commercial plane ever to fly." The financial wires carried a story the other day showing how much jet fuel demand has dropped recently.
Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame.
Re:Shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Tupolev (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tupolev (Score:3, Interesting)
History lesson. [super70s.com]
The drooping nose, ogival wing, four engines in dual pods...there are lots of ways to solve each of these problems. It's not a coincidence that the Russians used
Too bad they couldn't come up with engines that didn't need to be overhauled after each flight.
Re:Shame (Score:4, Informative)
Almost as fast as Concorde? Concorde does Mach 2.2
Re:Shame (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shame - how is it "almost" as fast? (Score:3, Informative)
I won't argue the 'cheaper' bit but, IIRC, Concorde does ~ mach 2.0. How is 0.95 almost as fast?! That's what a 747 does!
Re:Shame - how is it "almost" as fast? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shame - how is it "almost" as fast? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shame - how is it "almost" as fast? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but its quanti-sonic architecture makes it do more work per mach-cycle, making mach .95 seem more like mach 2.2
Re:Shame (Score:5, Informative)
Concorde is capable of at least mach 2.2 and routinely cruises at that speed on trans-atlantic flights, I'd hardly call mach 0.95 "almost as fast" as mach 2.2. More significant to me is that "mass" commercial supersonic travel is coming to an end, albeit for now at least, unless the copied Russian version is still flying.
Still, at least the plane should find itself with a major entry in the history of aviation as the first supersonic passenger plane.
Concordski (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Shame (Score:3, Informative)
They were grounded [concorde-jet.com] in 73.NASA used to use them as flight test labs in late 90s, dunno about now.
The link seems to indicate that the Tu144 was the original , debuting slightly before the Concorde itself.
Re:Shame (Score:3, Interesting)
The Tu-144 only flew first. Although it had a few novel ideas to it, it was pretty much just a cheap knockoff of the Concorde they rushed through production. One glaring shortcoming of it was that the Soviets couldn't build a jet engine that would give the '144 enough thrust to go supersonic without afterburners. It was just a shameless propaganda pitch, really. It should never have been built.
Time is (a lot of) money (Score:3, Interesting)
Bouygues sent 2 persons carrying the cheque with the Concorde, to New York City. The plane took off at 11 AM (Paris local time), and landed at 8:25 AM (New York local time). The chequ
Re:Shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Sources, please? The only similar concept Boeing had that I knew of was the Sonic Cruiser, which they recently shelved (even before the paper study was completed, I think -- let alone "ready for production").
Oh, and the Concorde flies (flew) at Mach 2. Mach 0.95 is not "almost as fast"...
Re:Shame (Score:2)
I feel that the next kewl feature in passenger aviation must be vertical takeoff and landing. Airports are much too big with those long runways. If passenger jets could do the Harrier thing, then airports could be almost like bus stops. (Although some clearance round the side of the aircraft would still be needed.)
Trouble is, for a heavy passenger jet this k
Subsonic almost-as-fast (Score:2)
The Acella train can do 150 MPH (for a short stretch between NY and Boston), but the point-to-point speed averages only 70 MPH, and car travel is "almost as fast" (you could probably average 60 MPH if you ate in the car and held it in).
Re:Shame (Score:4, Informative)
Also, safety concerns must be considered. VTOL flight training is very counter-intuitive for pilots. When the USAF started training with Harriers, they lost quite a few pilots and planes. Hovering in a Harrier has been described as "balancing on the blade of a knife." Quite often, even if pilots were able to get the thing up off the ground, they'd try to transition to horizontal flight too quickly, aiming the thrusters directly backward before they had enough forward speed to generate lift over the wings. Surely you've seen numerous videos on the History channel of these things nosing into the ground and exploding? Sometimes the pilot got out, sometimes he didn't. But what chance would passengers have?
The Mach .95 Alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea is to take a handful of 990's (enough for daily JFK-Heathrow service), fit them with 4-across leather seats like what Midwest Express does with a DC-9, and run a Concorde-style first-class service with every amenity (free booze and gourmet food). These planes are Mach .95 capable (Whitcomb area-ruled fuselage, "shock pods" on the back of the wings), but since the speed of sound slows down in thinner air, I would fly them at around 20-25,000 feet, pedal-to-the-metal. Yes, this would burn fuel, but a whole lot less than Concorde, and while a 747 would make the trip in 6 hours, Concorde in 3, I think my service could turn in something like 4 hours and 45 minutes. Anyway, it was just an idea.
It's a 30 year old design (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially the design has fullfilled its function for a loooooong time. Imagine the improvements that can be made.
The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk) has some good info.
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:4)
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:4, Funny)
that's JUST what we need, flying chernobyls
Nuclear engines and people trying to stifle them (Score:3, Insightful)
People thinking that fallout will land in their yards have stifled innovation of nuclear propulsion (esp. in manned space travel) for a long time. I'm not saying you/they don't have a good a
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:3, Interesting)
The re-engine plans were drawn up by Boeing, and involve replacing the existing eight engines with four from the civil lines. I forget which model, but the 757 comes to mind.
As for the nuclear engines... I don't know where you he
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:3)
* cue-in "Johnny Comes Marching Home" music *
Maj. Kong: "Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don't want no horsing around on the airplane?"
I laughed hysterically to this image. However, you just missed the Slashdot demographic by about 20 years! Made my day though!
For those that didn't get the great reference:
Dr Strangelove or 'How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb' [imdb.com]
Re:It's a 30 year old design (Score:3, Interesting)
Design is part of it (Score:3, Insightful)
I would suggest that the design and the economics of flying the thing go hand in hand. It has a very small passenger complement, requires extra-long runways and loads of fuel.
A newer design might have solved some of these problems. The Sonic Cruiser, which now looks like it won't ever be built, seated more than twice as many people.
I live...... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing better than watching concorde coming home on those special occasions when it is taken off normal flying patterns, they close the road and it flies right over your head, amazing.
The only thing that comes close is being sat in my garden watching filton airport as the spitfire fly's around doing stunts that would put modern planes to shame..
sigh..
nostalgia-tastic
One of the most beautiful planes... (Score:5, Interesting)
But the first Concorde to fly was in Toulouse, France, with a French pilot which became famous for that. He took off the plane without any issue, did a loop, and grounded sooner than expected because of a heat problem.
There are two interesting things to notice about Concorde, in addition to the fact that it certainly is the most beautiful plane ever built: 1) the cooling system is using the plane's fuel! 2) the onboard computers are really really old design, with tubes instead of transistors!
A Concorde pilot also said that piloting a Concorde was exactly the same feeling as piloting a jet-fighter, that he could do exactly the same things with this plane, with hundreds passengers in the plane!
I'm sad to hear that the Concorde will stop to fly, especially without a similar plane to replace it.
There are great pictures of Concorde on:
http://benoit.rajau.free.fr/concorde.html [rajau.free.fr]
Re:One of the most beautiful planes... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Beautiful Planes": Try the SR-71 Blackbird (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Beautiful Planes": Try the SR-71 Blackbird (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I live...... (Score:3, Interesting)
I came close. Once I got to see the Shuttle (on its 747 "tow truck") shortly after takeoff.
Re:I live...... (Score:4, Informative)
check this
http://www.concordesst.com/history/building/bui
bearing in mind directly opposite are the rolls royce factories where plane engines are made
S
Concorde fallacy... (Score:2, Funny)
Concorde (sunk-cost) fallacy [skepdic.com]
Now, it's unfortunte that the Hollywood stars are going to have to go down a level and fly first-class like the rest of
Long time to wait (Score:4, Informative)
The process nearly bankrupt both companies and were heavilly bailed out by their respective governments (UK and France). As such I can't see a replacement happening for a long long time. There will have to be some serious incentive (money) for a replacement to be comissioned - until then its a case of what we have will do...
.
Re:Long time to wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Concorde(sunk-cost) fallacy [skepdic.com]
"When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can't stop now, otherwise what I've invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless.
This fallacy is also sometimes referred to as the Concorde fallacy, after the method of funding the supersonic transport jet jointly c
Re:Long time to wait (Score:4, Insightful)
The current fall in international flights is not going to convince the manufactures that a replacement is worth chasing any time soon.
Remember Supersonic flight changes the rules for design, manufacture and materials - all more costly. Supersonic flight puts mush more stress on the craft and is also subject to a change in physics (relative to subsonic speed..no flames please). IIRC the cross section of a supersonic body has to change within a given constant...hence why Supersonic jets look similar. Supersonic speed does not lend its self well to providing lots of space within the craft/plane - once again not very cost effective for ferrying people or goods over the globe.
.
Oh Concorde, you will be missed (Score:3, Funny)
Supersonic Relic (Score:2, Insightful)
Still a shame tho.
Re:Supersonic Relic (Score:4, Interesting)
At a business level, possibly. Perhaps. Vaguely. However, on a personal level, absolutely not.
I think modern air travel is rubbish. I think this primarily because it's so slow. I'd love to nip over to the States and back in a day (I live near London), but the seven or so hours just to get to New York are rather off-putting. I went to Singapore - took about twelve/thirteen hours. UK/Australia is a fairly common trip too - that takes a full day. Name another form of transport that hasn't got faster since the sixties?*
I'd rather see faster planes than bigger planes. Airline companies, of course, would rather see bigger than faster. There's a fundemental gap between consumer and provider there, and it's unlikely to be bridged anytime soon.
Cheers,
Ian
(*to those in the UK, Connex South Central doesn't count...)
It has done well (Score:3, Interesting)
Concorde has certainly had a long and illustrious history, especially considering the way it was looking as a complete failure when they were first built and marketed... until they upgraded it from general air travel to exclusive/expensive air travel.
I remember a couple of years ago there were special offers advertised in the national papers where you could phone the BA hotlines and get tickets for about £10 !!! A lot of people didn't bother because they could believe it, whereas those who did became pleasantly surprised (until everyone else caught on, but they'd sold out by then).
I wonder what the future will be for supersonic air travel, it seems most of the new Boeing/Airbus planes try and cram more people on them... funnily enough I flew to the US 4 months ago on one of Virgins new A600 Airbuses and they take off like a bloody rocket! They also had personal entertainment systems in each seat with video on demand, except in our compartment the media stations kept crashing (it was nice to see a Mandrake Linux reboot rather than an M$ bodge job) so they only worked for about an hour in the entire flight.
Re:It has done well (Score:2)
Probably my more pro-Linux sentiment there ;-) but the particular plane I was on was only 2 weeks old, and you know what they say about the new vs. older but well oiled... although with that it did make me a little more worried about the plane crashing rather than the media centres!
I suppose I should have re-worked that little comment, but I suppose it boils down to who Virgin contracted to do the IT systems. I prefer their use of Linux in the sense that they have more leeway to iron out these initial teet
Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the best Airbus wings, with isentropic recompression still can't go more than Mach 0.8 without generating wing shocks too big to be uneconomic. Either government pays or we don't have them I suspect.
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:2)
Because they cost less to develop, have a lager sales base and are in demand - all commercially justify "cranking out either bigger, more luxurious craft" than a supersonic craft.
Tickets for BA Concord cost around £4000 (~$6000) each. This somewhat caps your potential market and in the current economic climate makes them somewhat redundant.
The current fall in international flights is not going to convince the
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, there is still the problem of the shockwave made by exceeding the sound barrier. IT requires a different design of aircraft and it still makes lots of noise. Even if a new SST crops up (not happening soon what with the decrease in air travel), it will probably be for over seas stuff only.
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The plane is very noisy due to its engine design.
2. The plane only seats 100 passengers, so its fuel efficiency is very poor.
3. The plane's range is barely enough for a transatlantic crossing from New York to Paris or London.
However, today's aerospace technology is MUCH further advanced than the 1960's when the Concorde was being developed. During the late 1990's, NASA and Boeing did a major research study for a High-Speed Transport (HST). They concluded it was technically feasible using modern aerospace materials for a SST seating up to 300 passengers to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at Mach 2.0 yet meet today's strict rules for jet engine noise and exhaust emissions; the only reason why Boeing didn't turn it into a real airliner project was its US$18 billion cost in 1998 dollars.
I believe that with the retirement of Concorde it could be the impetus for Boeing to revive HST and team up with EADS/Airbus Industrie and/or the Russian aerospace industry to build such a plane. Unlike Concorde, HST's much longer range, much higher passenger capacity and quieter engines means HST could fly many more transoceanic routes profitably yet be acceptable to environmental-conscious airports around the world. Imagine flying Los Angeles to Sydney or New York City to Johannesburg in half the time it takes now even with one fuel stop; imagine Paris to Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo to Sydney, or Johannesburg to Singapore non-stop in 40 to 50 percent less time than it takes now.
I personally believe such a plane are already on the request lists for the major airlines after 2012.
Re:Where are the Concorde replacements? (Score:3, Funny)
found one. folkstone to calais:
http://www3.eurotunnel.com/
Replacements? (Score:3)
Re:Replacements? (Score:2)
The concord actually fills a very small specialized niche. Relatively short trans-oceanic (powerful sonic booms piss people off) flights at a massively inflated price. Which appearently isn't even inflated enough to cover the bottom line.
It's death was a long time comming. It's not like anyone was buying more of them as they march towards the end of their service lif
Re:Replacements? (Score:2, Informative)
You would expect there to be a revolutionary new plane out in the skies if you compared the development of the air airdustry with say that of electronics, but in reality, very little has changed.
All aircraft look the same for a very good reason. Using equations and theorems which are all over 50 years old, there is in fact very little room for maneouvre in the design. The only real advancements have come in the realm of avionics and materials which have allowed plane
Concorde never recovered (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Concorde never recovered (Score:3, Insightful)
No big surprise, all gas hogs are getting grounded (Score:3, Insightful)
Like luxury liners, their time has run out (Score:5, Interesting)
But with a few accidents, a lack of cache and the fact that it has *always* been a money looser, it's an environmental mess, and BA and AirFrance not wanting to get dragged deeper into debt, the time to retire them has come.
The fabulously wealthy who could easily plunk down the $15k per ticket are now buying or renting Gulfstreams. It's more a thing for tourists and the CEO's.
Still, it's a beautiful plane. Still remember looking out at the AirFrance Concordes at JFK airport with the view of lower Manhattan behind them across the river (now when you see both like that, it's more poignant that exhilerating).
On the lighter side, on the UK show "Absolutely Fabulous" when Edina is ticked off that there is only 1 class of service on Concorde, "I'll pay extra for that curtain!"
Re:Like luxury liners, their time has run out (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporate and private jets do have some advantages over commercial jets for the same trips, but they generally cost much more per flight when you average it out and cash layouts are HUGE. You're mistaken to assume that anyone that can afford to pay for the Concorde can or would fly private/corporate jet. I'll confess that my parents are "wealthy" and are CEOs (though not the sort you're probably envisioning), but they would probably _never_ buy a jet (even in one of these newer arrangements) and their companies could never justify that sort of expenditure. Much the same goes for the other people I know. Gulfstreams are also no where near as fast for that sort of trip. It's really an apples and oranges comparison.
Nonetheless, I won't deny that the Concorde can simply never sell to the mass market. It simply costs too much to operate and most people don't value their time THAT much that often. That still leaves a significant market though, even if it is not you and me. The reason why it's falling apart today is more the result of high overhead/risk and the downturn in the world market--that's not to say though that it can't work--just that it's not lucrative enough today to justify its continued service.
Just wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now yes, there maybe some coolness lost to the Concorde, but come on... The grand stairway alone makes it all up for me... Finally, a plane suitable for tall people (under 6'6" need not apply :P)
Another idea based on "Emotion" down the drain (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nobody has super-sonic service. We'll make a mint!", opined one aeronautic engineer.
The problem is, you need to make a mint 100 times over for the project to pay for itself.
Some other examples: Irridium, American Mobile Satellite, Fed Ex by Satellite, Electric Cars, The Chunnel, The Big Dig (Boston),
Some that will come to bare: Satellite Radio (XM and Serius).
Some honorable mentions: The Space Shuttle.
(It would've been much more cost effective and safer to just keep on sending up rocket modules).
Sorry to be such a pessimist, but this is history.
Re:Another idea based on "Emotion" down the drain (Score:3, Insightful)
Good job, too. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the opportunity to develop all these cool toys. Who would grow up wanting to be an engineer otherwise?
Re:Another idea based on "Emotion" down the drain (Score:3, Informative)
Fortunately, as an engineer, I am able to appreciate the success of these projects. It must a sad life to have it so focused on the financial outcomes of such glorious feats.
Anyway the French are making a healthy income from the Chunnel. Its just us Brits who can't make the thing cost effective.
Re:Another idea based on "Emotion" down the drain (Score:2)
I'm curious... How do the Brits lose money on the Chunnel while the French don't? I'd have figured what goes in at one end comes out at the other, and that everything would eventually have to return to the country of origin at some point... =)
Do you by any chance have links? This sounds interesting.
Re:Another idea based on "Emotion" down the drain (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no links with the channel tunnel project except that some of my tax money was used during its construction. The UK is currently having tremendous problems with its rail network. Whilst financially the two organisations are not linked, the poor performance of the previous privately owned rail network company Railtrack, has had knock on effects to the rail connections to and from the tunnel. The upshot is you can only travel direct from London and it takes as long to get from London to the tunnel as it does to go through the tunnel and get to Paris. The French on the otherhand have a far superior rail network and have much better integration. Fundamentally it appears to cost us more to manage our end.
I bet Brunel is turning in his grave.
There it goes :( (Score:2, Funny)
I flew up to Edinburgh the other week, and just as I was boarding my place, Concorde was taking off. The ground literally shook.
Cool? I don't think so! (Score:3, Insightful)
Concorde was anything but cool. It was a military jet thinly masquerading as a commercial airliner. If you have ever been anywhere close to the flightpath (Statement of Interest: I hear it blasting past every day)then you'll know that the noise pollution laws had to be specially bent to allow it to fly. Virtually every country banned in the world banned Concorde from their airspace for this reason.
Concorde was an economic disaster, the development costs were landed squarely on the UK and French taxpayer, and operationally the damn thing never made a profit.
It is no surprise that it was one of a kind. Noone else would be so silly as to develop one
Re:Cool? I don't think so! (Score:3, Informative)
Not a troll, but you have no soul. It is arguably the best looking aircraft.
When there were already real supersonic bombers? I don't think so.
Well that's odd because it says the opposite in this report just after the Paris accident: /crash/news db/816end.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/highlights
"Although
Re:Cool? I don't think so! (Score:3, Informative)
As an aero engineer, I personally think the Concorde was cool, although I didn't have to live in its flight path: it has variable thickness wings, tail fuel tanks to change the center of gravity in flight (as the center of lift changes between subsonic and supersonic flight) and that famous drooping nose which solves yet another problem.
The Boeing SST which was developed a
Concorde == Coffee break alarm clock (Score:5, Funny)
What's Next? (Score:5, Interesting)
The aerospace industry has been dominated by various governments for half a century. We have gone from numerous companies developing practical air travel down to Boeing and Airbus dominating a stagnant market. And, I am told, Boeing doesn't seem to be that healthy.
What's the next thing to stop? Space travel? Possibly. NASA hasn't succeeded in developing a successor to the shuttle. Two attempts (NASP and X-33) have been failures. Young people are starting to avoid the industry -- it has a bad reputation. Dishonesty, abuse and failure seem to be its hallmarks today.
The computer industry has done better. There's still room for innovation and development. Although, one wonders how long that will last with Microsoft dominance.
Change is possible, though. Challenges to Microsoft (think Linux today) aren't going to go away. And these challengers are racking up real successes.
Change is also possible in the more established aerospace industry as well. Three decades ago the U.S. military was in rough shape. People -- both inside and outside the military -- recognized that. Various reforms were implemented -- not the least ending the draft (conscription to Slashdot's readers outside the U.S.). Today the U.S. military, while far from perfect, is a much healthier institution.
Fuel? (Score:2, Interesting)
- Isn't flying in general, especially by a concorde extremly fuel-consuming?!
- As I remember my early physics courses, friction is roughly proportional to the square of speed, isn't it? And then calculate the energy/kilometer traveled...
- Isn't that another reason why flying should only be used for transcontinental travels?
Unreplaced (Score:5, Insightful)
The mothballing of Concorde represents an relatively unusual situation. In terms of flight time Concorde represents the most advanced way to travel. No aircraft built since, not even military, can sustain a mach 2 flight speed for over 3 hours. Yet this aircraft is to be decommissioned. Can anyone think of a parallel situation in the computing field?. Where an outdated technology is made redundant, yet whose performance has not be exceeded.
Re:Unreplaced (Score:3, Informative)
Several people have suggested that there are many aircraft (miltary and civilian) that rival the Concordes ability to fly at a sustained mach 2 for several hours. However, according to this site www.sr-71.org [sr-71.org] it is only Concorde and the SR-71 which can do this. I know there are aircraft faster, more efficient etc thats not the point. This is still beyond the performance of all civillian aircraft and virtual all military aircraft. Further, a sustained high speed must be a most desirable characteristic o
Commercial ScramJet (Score:4, Interesting)
My experiences on the Concorde (Score:5, Interesting)
The main thing I noticed in flight was that the curvature of the earth was much more visible due to the much higher cruise altitude. Also, it was a very smooth flight. No turbulence whatsoever.
Concorde is all first class essentially, and the fittings reflected this. Gray leather seats, 2 x 2 arrangement. The bulkhead was lower than in a conventional aircraft.
I was on British Airways. There were 6 cabin crew for only 100 max passengers. The service in the air was impeccable (you get treated like royalty), and they even welcomed visitors to the cockpit. (Not sure if they'd do that today though, since everyone's paranoid about terrorism.)
No movie inflight, but there were sterophonic headsets for music. Also, each passenger received a gift, (on this flight it was a 1994 date planner.) The seats are not at all wide; however. the armrests fold flat if there's no one next to you.
But as I said, en flight, you can see the curvature of the Earth. I was amazed.
Like skydiving, flying on the Concorde is something you don't have to do a second time...but once was fantastic.
I know it's expensive and inefficient, but we're going to lose a real treasure when the Concorde stops flying.
Re:My experiences on the Concorde (Score:3, Interesting)
Takeoff was incredible - I was seated at the back and the noise was phenomenal, as was the feeling of being pushed back into your seat. Co
Re:My experiences on the Concorde (Score:3, Funny)
On the reverse, it said "I spent £3,000 on a plane ticket and all I got was this lousy calendar".
Sweet Concorde! (Score:5, Funny)
Concorde: Im not quite dead sir
The concord : A fair and balanced point of view. (Score:5, Funny)
France = bad
UK = good
The concord is a french and british invention, so it's hard to decide if it's good or bad.
Help !
ATrollWhoNeedsHelp.
Another dream gone ... (Score:5, Interesting)
But it is another dream lost.
Why is it, that one flying dream after another is put into museums without a proper "flying dream" replacement. The next dream gone, will probably be the space shuttle.
Next they will make private aviation a crime. And then all sensations of the actual "flying" feeling will be made unavailable. Oh yeah, I know: people dont look up to the sky anymore nowadays. They are afraid of it. Except, when the things in the sky are wearing Air Force markings of the country you are currently living in.
Flying? They want to be transported, not flown.
Concorde gone? Most dont care.
Just continue your miserable lifes without dreams.
Have you ever really gone flying?
Return On Investment (ROI) (Score:3, Insightful)
Next you factor in the time it takes to travel. It would seem that more and more the time to prepare and wait for the flight plus waiting on the plane, and the plane waiting on various taxyways you begin to approach or surpass the actual flight time with the exception of intercontinental flights (or coast to coast in the US). Now we see that some are recommending that you arrive at the airport 3 hours before a flight. Hmmm, I think I will drive. Take the bus? Well I suppose I could except those are notorious for being uncomfortable... but cheap rules that out so horray for bus travel. Some say, take the train. Haha, what a joke Amtrak is. They just can't seem to figure out that if you must pay the same or more than a flight but yet be more restricted on location and take MUCH longer then I am doubting many will view that as worthwhile. Trains have been in operation how long now?
Re:Return On Investment (ROI) (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but that's a very American response. In Europe, it is cheaper to fly than to take trains, if you plan your journey sufficiently in advance.
Flying is cheaper in a different sense in Asia as well. You see, on a per kilometre basis, it's cheaper to fly than to take, say, an auto-rickshaw in any Indian city. Has been like that for quite sometime now, really; if anything, SARS/911/Iraq has only added to the effect.
Re:Return On Investment (ROI) (Score:3, Interesting)
Planning a little vacation for next month from Sacramento to Los Angeles, I came up with the following prices on the web for round trip:
greyhound:$95
Amtrak:$110
Southwest:$95
The obivous answer seems to be to fly. But I'm still shooting for the train. Why? Because if you take into account the drive to the airport (and having to find somebody pick you up at LAX--Amtrak takes you downtown where you can then jump on the subway), the time differences aren't that much d
May never get to see it up close.. (Score:2)
I've even been to and through Charles de Gaulle 10 times since September last year, but never got to see it. Knowing how amazing CDG's terminal 2F is, I've always wondered what the Concorde's concourse looks like! I guess nothing could be so severe that I need to get to a server in Paris within about 5 hou
sad (Score:2)
This is why I became a computer scientist, i.e. to make money quick and then...
The end is nigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does this sound like the collapse of civilisation?
The reality is underwhelming (Score:5, Interesting)
At first I couldn't believe my luck, and was phoning everyone I knew from the Concorde lounge ("Hey, guess where I am...?") but once on the plane, it was a thoroughly unpleasant experience. It was almost empty, but it was still unbearably cramped. If it had been full, it would have felt claustrophobic in the extreme. By the time we were an hour into the trip, my wife and I were both agreeing that even if we were rolling in stupid cash, we'd never, ever fly it again. Give me first or business class any time. Hell, coach would have been more comfortable.
And apart watching an LED display tick up to Mach 2, there is no particular experience of "speed"; you just feel like you're in a cramped, uncomfortable airplane, flying a little higher than normal.
The food and tchotchkes were nice, though.
Claustrophobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, it isn't a superior technology. It's noisy, uneconomic and not very safe.
And, actually, we are seeing something similar in other fields. For a long time we had no speed limits, then a mixture of road deaths, increasing traffic, and the 70s fuel crisis brought them in just about everywhere. Now we expect cars to be comfortable, safe, economical (even SUVs are actually more economical than midsize cars of 30 years ago) and to provide us with in-vehicle entertainment that we can hear above engine noise. Most of the journeys I do are now slower than they were 10 years ago, but actually less stressful. That's progress.
Also, improved network technology has made many journeys less urgent. Twenty years ago it took me 3 days just to set up an international telephone call in Mexico. Ten years ago in Brazil I had to dial an international number an average of 200 times to get through. When Concord was designed, a 2 hour phone call from London to NY probably cost as much as a round air trip. Fax machines were a joke. And a portable telephone occupied the entire car trunk.
Now, you could videoconference several people all day for less than the cost of a round trip between the UK and the US.
So I'd say, Concord has actually been wiped out by progress. It's just that, as usual, progress came from a different direction from what people expected.
30 years young (Score:4, Informative)
Let me repeat... Still a Pinnacle. A top acheivement. There are no incredible leaps in technology since its inception with which to top it. Only some incremetal improovements that might be made.
More efficient engines could be produced but the cost of development versus the improovemnt would not be very economical.
Flight control systems could be updated to modern electronics. might Eliminate a few hundred, perhaps even a few thousand pounds. But its about like the difference between a 30 year old power steering system and a new one. Not much end user difference. Perhaps easier to maintain... more likely the biggest change there would be in reducing easing the pilots workload with modern display systems and computerized system monitoring.
The materials breakthroughs which made the design possible in the first place have only incrementally advanced. Mostly in the area of fabrication, not in terms of strength and thermal tollerences or most importantly in terms of cost which is the biggest issue.
All in all you could could perhaps make a more efficient Concorde. But in terms of pure performance you couldn't really make a better Concorde.
As I said, its design is still a Pinnacle of civil aviation design. Its also noteable in the military realm where supersonic designs have proliferated. Very few Military designs could keep up with a Concorde. The B-1 and Badger being the only two obvious designs currently in service that could keep up with it over the same range. There is also the XB-70 Valkarie mach 3 capable Bomber design that was never adopted which contributed a great deal of knowldege to Concordes Design, and of course the Retired A-12, and SR-71 Blackbird designs which still know no peer in the annals of aviation design.
We have reffined the knowledge pioneered in the late 50's and 60's which make planes like the Concorde, SR-71/A-12, XB-70 and B-1 possible but we have not made any new breathroughs that allow us to go beyond them as yet. We also have never acheived any kind of economy of scale with regards to their production either. I don't belive combining the total production numebrs of all the above listed long range multiple Mach capable designs would reach half the number of Boeing 747's produced.
As much economic sense retiring the Concorde makes... I still hate to see it go. Its one example of a big budget white elephant program I wouldn't mind having my tax dollars go towards. Of course living in the states I have never had my tax dollars go towards this particular white elephant. However, it is at least its something beautiful and tangible which theoretically anyone can get to have "hands on experience" with unlike so many other programs. Its hard to put a price tag on symbols and the Concorde has been a symbolic acheivment since its inception. Its retirment without a replacement is symbolic as well, one which represents something I don't much care to ponder.
Re:Sad but... (Score:2, Insightful)
And the modern trains have also 500 & more people on it.
I mean, there are no security checks etc. for you if you want to go by train. For me, it seems to be an easy target for the terrorists.
Re:Sad but... (Score:2)
Whitehouse believes airline assistance excessive (Score:2)
Re:Sad but...right.... (Score:2)
Re:Not that cool (Score:2)
> I would take issue with that. Certainly a cool aircraft - but the coolest ever? Its only special quality was being safe enough for passengers.
Yep. The coolest commercial plane ever to fly.
Re:Not that cool - well yes.... (Score:2)
I seem to recall (so I may be wrong) that the amazing thing with Concorde was that it could sustain mach 2.2 whereas other aircraft often could only do that sort of speed for a very much shorter burst.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Which just goes to show that you shouldn't trust small sample sizes (i.e. many fewer flights and passengers than other aircraft) when declaring the Concord a 'death trap'. Just like any thoughtful person wouldn't avoid a small town that happens to have an astronomical murder rate due to one killing...