Talk:Concorde

Talk:Concorde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concorde
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Wikipedia CD Selection
Concorde is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Concorde at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Retirement reasons

" .. It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first-class passengers subsonically ..."

Not very likely. After Concorde was re-branded in the 1980's the British Airways fleet of seven Concordes generated up to 25% of BA's profits, a figure of around £500,000,000 (half a billion) pounds net profit.[1]

If BA had had their way, the aircraft would never have been retired in 2003. It was the withdrawal of the Concorde service by Air France and the resulting transfer of all the maintenance of certificating costs to BA by Airbus that forced BA reluctantly to withdraw too. Previously BA and AF had shared these costs, but with the withdrawal of Air France, BA could only support these increased costs with a large Concorde fare hike that was unrealistic.

Air France had withdrawn their Concorde service because of a general passenger boycott of Air France due to France's lack of support for the Second Gulf War.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, perhaps because of the traditional linguistic and trading ties between the UK and US, Air France were never as enthusiastic a Concorde user as was British Airways (or so it seemed), and as a result BA utilised its fleet far more then AF did, and the highest-time BA aircraft had around twice the flight hours (~23,000 hrs) of the AF Concorde (~11,000 hrs) that crashed in 2000.

In addition, on 9/11 BA had lost around 50 regular Concorde passengers who worked in the Financial Markets in New York and who were based in the World Trade Center, including a number of people from Cantor Fitzgerald. Quite a number of Brits worked in the WTC during the week and went home to the UK at weekends. By 2003 BA Concorde passenger numbers had started to pick up back to pre-9/11 levels but had not quite reached these earlier levels when the aircraft was withdrawn from service.

BTW, within BA the nickname for the aircraft was "The Rocket".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I smell B.S.

"...It was later revealed that the original STAC report (preliminary design and shape--ed), marked "For UK Eyes Only", had secretly been passed to the French to win political favour. Sud made minor changes to the paper, and presented it as their own work..."

Typical British exaggeration of accomplishments and capabilities (See British Space Program, TSR2, DHC Comet, HOTOL, Beagle [Mars probe]), there are many such examples, but not enough time to document. One only has to look at the contemporary shapes of military and civilian aircraft--designed in Britain--to realize they were not capable of designing the elegant shape of the Concorde. Here are some examples--do you see anything approaching the Concorde? How about with the British English Electric? Or the De Haviland Comet? No?, then how about the Vickers Valiant? The Handley Page Victor? The Avro Vulcan? The Harrier? Do you see it? Neither do I. Dig a little deeper and we see some truly strange proposals under Bristol (British) Type 223--which amazingly enough, are oddly shaped much like a typical British aircraft. The final design does bear a resemblance, and looks like a rip off of the French or Russian design. With the French aircraft design we have the Mirage III. How about the Mirage IV? I see a lineage. Or the French proposal, the Super Caravelle. Smaller than the final variant, but the design? Bingo--right down to the wing. [Reference: http://aerospacebristol.org/the-story-of-concorde/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.58.105 (talk)

Your ref above says "The Bristol design team was given the go ahead to develop a 110-seat long-range supersonic airliner, known as 'Type 223'. At the same time, Aerospatiale of France was developing their similar 'Super Caravelle'. To save costs, the development projects were combined, and the result was the Anglo-French Concorde." Seems to be pretty straightforward to me. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Typical British exaggeration ... Wikipedia is no place for original research or ideas of this kind. See also WP:NPOV where it explains neutral point of view, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 02:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See the Fairey Delta 2 of 1954. If flew a year before any Mirage. It also had a 'drooping nose' like Concorde.
The two SST projects were originally for two different aircraft, the French one was for a short-ranged supersonic airliner to be used within Europe, the British one was for a transatlantic aircraft to be used on longer ranges. The short-ranged one was calculated to be unprofitable for the airlines over such short ranges and unlikely to sell, so the best of the two designs were combined for a transatlantic aircraft and the result was Concorde.
On short flights the aircraft spends too great a proportion of the Mach 2 flight accelerating and decelerating, so that the reduction in overall flight times over a subsonic airliner is much less than it would be on a longer journey as it spends a smaller proportion of the flight travelling at Mach 2. Concorde took around fifteen to twenty minutes, including ten minutes of reheat, to accelerate while climbing from subsonic up to Mach 2, although it could decelerate and descend at the other end of the flight much more rapidly if needed using reverse thrust on the two inner engines. IIRC, the maximum rate-of-descent possible was quite extreme, around 10,000 fpm. This was originally a requirement of the then-new SST Certificating conditions, which required a rapid rate-of-descent should a cabin window burst, and which was later made unnecessary by the incorporation into the Concorde design of an additional pressurization/air conditioning unit that, in conjunction with the existing units, provided sufficient combined capacity to maintain breathable cabin pressure for a more normal descent despite a blown window. The time taken to accelerate to the aircraft's cruise speed was also one of the (numerous) reasons for the cancellation of the competing US B-2707 Mach 2.7 airliner project, as the even-more prolonged acceleration times (compared to those of a Mach 2 aircraft like Concorde) made the aircraft potentially unprofitable for the airlines on any other than the longest trans-Pacific routes, which, at the time, possessed too low passenger traffic to make a Mach 2.7 airliner viable for any airline.
Concorde needed the two countries combined to be what it was, the French to give it style, the British to give it class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk)
"Concorde needed the two countries combined to be what it was, the French to give it style, the British to give it class." Got a reference for that? - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Alas no, that was my own contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Finlayson (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Pan Air Do Brasil

If the TIME reference provided in the article supports the claims made in the 'Sales Efforts' section, it is impossible to see because of the TIME paywall. The other sources do not support the notion that Pan Air Do Brasil was the first company to option Concorde. In fact, other sources (not provided in the article) e.g. here and here mention an option in 1963 and no earlier. If a citation for the 1961 figure—which is before the Anglo-French Agreement was even formalized—cannot be found, then the claim should be removed from the table. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The 1961 order for Sud Caravelles included an option for three "Super Caravelles" which later was assumed to be for Concordes and certainly the president of Panair do Brasil in 1963 took pride in that they were the first airline to order Concordes. Certainly flight in 1963 showed that Panair did have options or reservations for three aircraft but I dont think it was confirmed or became anything more than a reservation. So they did place a reservation or option in 1961 for Concorde although it didnt exist! Panair went belly up in 1965 so nothing came of it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: I do see mention of a letter of intent put forth by Panair in 1961 for three Super Caravelles, per Esso Aviation News Digest pg. 47, which you can see using search terms like "Panair will take". The wording here is important, however, because that same source mentions options for Caravelle VIRs. LOIs differ from options; Panair Do Brasil did not have an option proper in 1961, though based on the sources I linked earlier, it does seem they put in proper options at the later 1963 date. As such, it does not appear that Panair can claim to be first to properly option Concorde, even if they had an LOI issued for what amounts to half of Concorde's predecessor. This isn't pedantry, especially when one considers that Panair—shortly to go under—never could have made good on its LOI nor later option, whereas the other organizations listed in the article specifically chose not to exercise their options. Mentioning Panair optioning Concorde in the narrative section of 'Sales Efforts' is fine, especially with the foregoing book source. Putting Panair at the top of list the is not, because that list specifically refers to options. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Finktron (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Clearly worth a mention as Panair did believe they had a "reservation" but it doesnt appear to have turned into a formal option so I would agree it should be in the narrative but not the table. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

STAC

This article breaks out the acronym STAC as Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee, which is definitely attested to in Conway's High-Speed Dreams. I am a bit confused, though, because the Wikipedia article for Bristol Type 223 refers to STAC as the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee. Are both names valid? Was there a name change at some point? There appear to me to be more references to an Aircraft Committee than an Advisory Committee in the literature, e.g. at the U.K. National Archives, in official NASA reports on supersonic aircraft, in much more contemporary news articles on Concorde, etc. Is there any kind of definitive answer to this question? Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that when the committee was first formed it was not known if any aircraft would subsequently be ordered and so the committee was operating in an initial advisory capacity at first in order to assist in the formulation of any requirement for such an aircraft. Later when the requirement for such an aircraft was better defined the committee name may have changed to include the specific 'aircraft' when such an aircraft had definitely become a possibility and of interest. But that's just my guess.
Initially, with the technology of the time, it would not have been known if a supersonic passenger aircraft was possible, so the aircraft would not have been a concrete possibility. Later it had become one, and so the name of the committee may have been changed to reflect this. But as I wrote, that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
When they released a report in 1959 the London Times called it the supersonic transport aircraft committee. The committee had been formed by the Ministry of Supply in November 1956 and recommended two aircraft, a Mach 2 150-passenger transatlantic aircraft and a Mach 1.2 100-passenger aircraft for stage lengths up to 1500 miles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

BA purchase price contradiction

Article initially states British Airways paid £1 per aircraft, total of £7. Later on it states Lord King, the head of BA, paid £16.5 million plus the first year's profits. Later on again, the article quotes Richard Branson's offer to pay 'the original £1 per aircraft'. So, was it £1 per aircraft, or is the Lord King section correct? 213.202.174.162 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)



Related Blogs

Loading ...