Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Ryu on October 24, 2003, 05:27:46 PM
-
Not Amiga related I know but I feel its important enough to warrent a news article.
Concorde (http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/2concordes.jpg) has retired today after nearly 35 years of flight and more that 25 years of passenger service, bringing to an end the era of supersonic passenger transportation. It now seems destined to become a part of history in museums...
It is a sad time, but the inevitable really only came forward a few years. We should celebrate what Concorde was and still is - the only profit making Supersonic Passenger Jet to ever to go into regular revenue service. The Americans or Russians could not even do it - that's how far ahead of its time it was ... and still is!
-
Non amiga news indeed ... but aproved ...
What i don't undertand is why they never continued design of this special plane ...
-
Non amiga news indeed ... but aproved ...
Although it does have some similarities to the Amiga. Ahead of its time, technically advanced built/designed at at time when a twin tub washer was fantastic!
What i don't undertand is why they never continued design of this special plane ...
Mainly because air lines wanted cheap to run bulk carriers. AFAIK Boeing dropped plans for a supersonic plane recently in favour of more fuel efficent craft.
-
An end of an era.
Was it a rich man's toy or a Businessman’s invaluable means of transport?
Well this puts supersonic speeds out of reach for the average (rich) person once again.
Who knows how long it will be before its replacement arrives. :-?
-
The Americans or Russians could not even do it - that's how far ahead of its time it was ... and still is!
Ehm.. what about corncordski, the russian version of this airplane, also supersonic and competing with the concorde when it was first launched? :-?
-
According to a piece I saw recently the Concorde never showed a profit and was given to the flagship airlines of both countries.
Boing is said to have scrapped its SST program when it became clear that most countries would not allow over flights because of the sonic booms.
I grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. For some reason the ground radar signature of the area strongly resembled some prime potential target in the Soviet Union. For about one year in the early 1960's Air Force planes used our metro area as a simulated target range. Several times a day, totally without any warning our house would shake as if a car had run into a corner of it. Then the sonic boom would roll off into the distance like thunder. We should be glad that SST's did not become common.
Perhaps these new designs for trans-sonic (or is it hyper-sonic) craft will fly high enough that sonic booms will not be a major issue.
-
Once we walked on the moon, but that's all history now.
Once passengers could board a plane and fly from New York to London in 4 hours, but's that's all history now.
These days advancement is measured in how many polygons per second we can get for our First Person Shooters. That's pretty neat, I guess, but I can't help feeling like we are loosing our vision.
How long will it be before people start coming to believe that supersonic passenger service, like moon landings, was a hoax?
-
@Brian
the "corncordski" never entered commercial flight and the program was cancelled after the crash. And there you have to ask was it really a russian design and not just a concorde... there are a lot of people who think the russians stole the concorde design...
-
It's a sad day for innovation when the most advanced commercial product is decommissioned before something is available to supersede it.
-
What i don't undertand is why they never continued design of this special plane ...
If you ever heard one take off, you'd know why, what a noisy exclusive aircraft. :-o
-
Hi,
I went to see the last landing and take off from Birmingham, a very sad day, things are going backwards. :-(
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
These days advancement is measured in how many polygons per second we can get for our First Person Shooters. That's pretty neat, I guess, but I can't help feeling like we are loosing our vision.
Yeah, I also get the feeling humanity would be happier emulating the universe on a computer than exploring it.
-
How long will it be before people start coming to believe that supersonic passenger service, like moon landings, was a hoax?
right after we went to the moon there were idiots who thought it was "fake".
there will always be idiots.
that is a fact.
only people with guts and imagination get things done. everybody else is coasting on their coattails.
that is a fact.
all any person has to do is decide which kind they are.
creators or coasters
-
KennyR I know I would :) , really!. I'm not interested in getting killed in a black hole out in space, much rather have the matrix become reality and go into my own mind for entertainment.
-
The last of the Great British engineering Triumphs has past. (and before anyone says anything, yes the french did half the work, but since then they have produced other engineering triumphs, we haven't).
Seems every time we get a good idea we ether get very bad at it (sport) or never follow through on it (Jet Engine - uk actually had a prototype for a supersonic aircraft that was already built 5 years before the US did, never got used. APT, or advanced passinger train, tilted on the corners to help reduce track wear at high speeds and allow higher speeds around said corners - never had the bugs removed and was scrapped, designs were sold to the sweedish, who worked them out, now we're buying tilting trains off of them... That super advanced Catarmeran that was going to take the yaht racing world by storm, but ended up breaking up whilst in one... the list goes on ) and now this...
Its funny and sad, for over 200 years this little island has produced so many of the things that today we take for granted in terms of engineering feets, such as many of todays bridge designs, yet more and more often as time passes we seem to get worse when it actually comes to delivery of the final product.
Its not that we have run out of great engineers either (though in this country it is a dying proffesion) but more and more the people who put these inventions into production flunk and so the idea is lost, only to be sold back to us at a later date for 10 times the original cost...
What is it that we are doing so wrong in this country that causes this to keep happening?
I'll miss concorde, she was always a highlight at airshows that I've been to. The most graceful aircraft ever to take to the sky in my humble opinion. The insides of it though were very tight (I have been aboard the british prototype in an air museum, I'd always wanted to travel in her... guess that will forever be a dream now).
-
Just to clarify a few points:-
1. The Russian TU-144 was largely developed thanks to informants placed inside the French Concorde development team. The French found out about this and fed the Russians duff information.
When the first Tu144 flew in1969 , 2 months ahead of Concorde the Russians quickly found out the design was flawed setting back their programme by several years.
The PAris Air show crash pretty much killed off the TU144, I beleive it did enter service breifly as a freighter before being scrapped. In the late 1990`s NASA acquired one for future testing purposes, they flew it for a few months before mothballing it again.
2.President Kennedy announced in the early Sixties that the US would create a Supersonic passenger plane, it was eventually discontinued after $400m had been spent and nothing more than a wooden mock up built.
3.Concorde did make a substansial profit for BA who used their planes much more than AIr France. Of course BA were given the planes in the first place.
4.Concorde has flown more Supersonic hours than all the world`s airforces put together.
5. Many technologies used on modern airliners were first used on Concorde such as fly by wire and Carbon fibre brakes.
6. After Concorde`s development Airbus was formed as a joint European challenge to Boing, today Airbus and Boing have roughly equal market share, while Rolls Royce who developed Concorde`s engines sell more civillian airliner engines than their American rivals.
A good website to check out Concorde stuff is:-
http://www.concordesst.com/
-
:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:
-
It's a sad day for innovation when the most advanced commercial product is decommissioned before something is available to supersede it.
Well, it DID have almost 35 years to prove itself, which is a pretty remarkable marketing period. There was never enough business to warrent a successor.
Remember, reckless innovation without quality testing is what gave us Windows. Innovation isn't everything, sometimes you need intuition, too.
Oli_hd: I went to see the last landing and take off from Birmingham, a very sad day, things are going backwards.
Backwards? It's just supply and demand at work. That's all. It was only a hundred years ago when flight itself was a dream.
Isn't GM working on Pulse Engines, which are just as fast, but more efficient than Ramjet engines? Innovation never stops, it just depends what's viable for the market. I, for one, would never spend upwards of $5,000 for a seat on a plane just so I could get there an hour earlier. Yes, innovation would make seats cheaper, but speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?
I can only see SST as an advantage for trans-continental flights, anyway. Over land they would have to reduce speeds.
-
the "corncordski" never entered commercial flight and the program was cancelled after the crash. And there you have to ask was it really a russian design and not just a concorde... there are a lot of people who think the russians stole the concorde design...
Of course they stole the design. AFAIK, they (the Tupolevs) doesn't even deny this today. However, they could not reassemble it identically, hence the differencies. That aircraft actually had some advantages over the concorde, like superiour manouverability (it also had some disadvantages, like a weaker structure).
And the "corncordski" (TU-144 ) actually entered commercial flight after the crash in France AFAIK, but only for a relatively short period of time, and only inside the Soviet Union.
There are some (pretty much confirmed) rumours regarding the "concordski" crash (there are many theories, but this is the one I believe in the most), that says that a French military Mirage III jet aircraft took off before the Concorde show begun, and then stayed away during it. It's mission was to take close up pictures of the "concordski" in flight. Then, when it was time for the "concordski" to enter the scene, it snuk up upon it to take the pictures. The "concordski" pilots were not notified about this, and made some evasive manouvers to avoid a collision, which cased one or several engines to stall. On Jet Aircrafts you can restart engines by dropping the nose and let the wind blow through the turbines to get them going, and then "add some fuel and sparks" ;-). The pilot did this, but the show was performed at low altitude, and when he realized he was too close to the ground he had to pull up fast, too fast for the aircrafts specs, and the structure broke down.
But a funny thing is that at least one concordski is in operation **today** AFAIK. It is used in an **American** research project. Kind of ironic, huh? :-)
"- And the winner is ...?" ;-)
-
BTW:
"Now, the Tupolev bureau keep working on its successor, TU-244. They expect that the new supersonic could be airborne in 10 years — if any airline will buy it."
-
FFS it's only a plane! :-P
-
Poster: deakmann Date: 2003/10/24 20:51:03
6. After Concorde`s development Airbus was formed as a joint European challenge to Boing,
See there was an Amiga aspect to this story after all :-D
-
I watched two of the Concordes fly over London this afternoon as they mad their aproch to Heathrow there were about 8 of us on top of our office block,
Incidently Concorde is still the only plain that can sustain mack 2 with out reheat!
Wm.
-
@ Bagins
I have allways been weak for aircrafts, and the Concorde is a beutiful piece of engineering IMO. It's old as hell, but it is very unique. And this concept will not be seen again anytime soon.
The concorde, as well as the space race, was products of the cold war, not market demands. Today there is no cold war. Only market demands.
-
I stood today on London's Vauxhall Bridge with many others watching those last concorde fly by. I had the feeling that people were watching the passing of the last idols for the religion that was "progress". I think people have the feeling watching it that things could really get better and man can make things of great beauty and novelty. Now we just subscribe to the commerical principles that brought about its end (and didn't bring about its creation in the first place).
Whatever the future may bring, although it wont be so different to what you've seen before, it will be cheap and so non-descript you wont even notice the design (or lack of it). Innovation is by definition conspicuous.
-
Well, it DID have almost 35 years to prove itself, which is a pretty remarkable marketing period. There was never enough business to warrent a successor.
Remember, reckless innovation without quality testing is what gave us Windows. Innovation isn't everything, sometimes you need intuition, too.
Uh? Concorde had one accident, that was it. Would you like to compare that to the Boeing (sp?) 7x7 record?
-
Uh? Concorde had one accident, that was it.
Who said anything about accidents? By reckless innovation without testing, I meant making products people don't want, and they won't pay for, meaning it's a financial dead end.
-
Even those who aren't really interested in aircraft must admit concorde is a work of art.
Even my mum likes seeing the thing!
It's very sad to see the end of concorde. It has a fantastic safety record compared to most other planes. It also has many years left in it yet.
Richard Branson offered to buy up all BA's concordes but British Airways said no denying many people the opportunity to see concorde in flight.
:-(
-
By reckless innovation without testing
actually Concorde was more thoroughly tested then any other aircraft of its time, ten years after it entered service and the standards that were used to test concorde were STILL not all implimented in other commercial airliners. Concorde was and is the safest aircraft ever designed and built for the airline industry.
I meant making products people don't want, and they won't pay for, meaning it's a financial dead end.
The funny thing is is that prior to 9/11 concorde was the ONLY thing BA had that was making any money. Few people realise this but beyond two of the bare bones airlines Ryanair and an American no thrills airline, NOT ONE AIRLINE HAS MADE A PROFIT IN 20 YEARS. Startling eh? And also true.
-
Even the Space Shuttle (the worlds most technologically advanced Aircraft) has a worse safty record than Concorde!!! if you consider the number of people killed per hours of flight time.
Only 113 People killed in it's entire history, and even then only in one accident! ... I think more people have been killed making a cup of tea, in Britian alone!!
-
The Concorde was a great plane. We met on a Paris to NY flight in 1995! :-o
Best flight I ever took! :-D
Just Bill
-
It is indeed a sad day. What used to be a vision for the future has been left in the past. Silly really. If the Americans had continued their own development, there`d be competition, or if the Russian`s effort had caught on (though you`d need to put a gun to my head to get me in anything Russian), there`d have been a market for such aircraft. It was inevidable that it`d fail in the end (in the current aircraft market), though this is too soon if you ask me. It could have lasted much longer if it weren`t for that one crash and 911. After that crash it did actually recover, but the 911 thing made airlines go into budget mode. Concorde, just wouldn`t fit into this. It was too old and too complicated to be run as a low cost airliner. If a new one was developed, but required much less running costs, it`d be a winner for sure! Not easy though. The development alone would easily run close if not way over £10bn, and take about 20 years. Not the kind of project for one country. Even America think twice, about such a thing. That sort of development time/cost is always put into creating military aircraft like the B2 Spirit. After all that there is the issue of many countries banning them. I`m sure with more sensible design and noise reduction this could be easily changed. The future is bright, but a way off. :-( Hypersonic using SCRam jets could be the future, but that is A LONG way off!
Concorde was/is very safe. Safer than getting out of bed...most likely. Yes it only had one crash and yes it was in service for 35 years. However each airframe had much less flight time than other subsonic aircraft of a similar age. Still very safe, and even safer now. The safety doesn`t have anything to do with it going out of service anyway. Just marketing. Marketing can do alsorts of bad things, even if it goes right.. *cough* Microsoft *cough*
:cry:
-
It is strange but in some aspects commercial passenger aviation
is lacking in passenger service & comfort levels that existed over
50 years ago! Nowadays, passengers are cramed inside like sardines!
On the Graf Zepplin, passengers had sleeping cabins - the use of dining
rooms & lounges - prominard decks, etc.
On the Boeing Clippers, passengers had sleeping berths similar to pullman
rail coaches and ROOM to walk around! No deep-vein thrombosis cases
on those flights!
I recall a comic strip in the early sixties called: "Frontiers of Science".
Very few of their aviation predictions actually made it to reality!