That's your opinion. They were so worried about building the FIRST commercial SS plane that they cut corners to save time. the result was an overpriced, underperfoming product that required longer runways and altered flight paths at existing airports.
And how many flights were justifed? It wasn't that long ago that it took months on a ship to ross the Atlantic or Pacific.
And people in hell would enjoy icewater. They might even be the same people.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:
Sour grapes, caused by 'not invented here' on the part of the Septics.
It used to go supersonic of the south coast of Ireland. Sometimes, if the air conditions were right, I'd hear a far-off bang and it was some time before I realised what it was.
Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the sky, sometimes at full power.
-- aem sends...
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could dream of on it's best day
Continental do 757s on some transAtlantic routes.
They would have had a lot of damage claims. I have an aunt that lived near Wright-Patterson AFB, and the early flights broke windows and cracked concrete block walls. I was there a couple times when the SS Air Force jets went over. Her house and her neighbors always had something happen. Broken dishes, windows, things knocked off shelves and out of cabinets.
And could land at older, landlocked airports. What good does it do to shave a couple hours off a flight, then spend it in heavy traffic to reach their destination?
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs (Former Triumph owner)
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
You need to take a remedial reading course.
Bullshit. It didn't have the necessary reserves to be a legitimate aircraft for the routes it flew. It was an economic disaster. Poor design; YES.
Oh, you were a stew.
Nonsense.
What about the electrical systems?
Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.
tm
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
With the french on board they were not limited to Lucas electrics- they also had Paris-Rhone and Ducellier to choose from. Any experience with either of them makes Lucas look "not bad" by comparison.
An American that doesn't fly? Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.
He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.
I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?
Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).
Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls Royce.
Concord was successful, it met its design goals.
However it failed commercially as the goal was moved. We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too expensive. Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its passengers. Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.
They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.