Concorde fans hope to get jet airborne by 2019 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34301689
It's a start - let's hope for more
- Thread starter Brigadier
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I've never really understood why they got rid of it.
If they were getting old, why not just build new ones.???
If they were getting old, why not just build new ones.???
Most countries wouldn't let it fly over their land.
Ahhh, thankyou, I genuinely didn't know.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
EFL, one last quick thing.
Was it the noise, or the potential threat of not being able to shoot it down.????
Was it the noise, or the potential threat of not being able to shoot it down.????
I hope they get it going soon, so we can jet immigrants in more quickly.
Wasn't it that they wouldn't let it fly at supersonic speeds over their land? I think it was quite inefficient by modern standards. Whatever happened to Concordski?
Perhaps I should have said enough countries wouldn't let it fly - to spoil the routes - including, of course, the US.
Yes, it was the supersonic bang that was the problem but flying subsonic there would be no advantage.
It was also at the time of the oil crisis.
Didn't concordski crash (as well)?
Yes, it was the supersonic bang that was the problem but flying subsonic there would be no advantage.
It was also at the time of the oil crisis.
Didn't concordski crash (as well)?
Lack of American support...
because they weren't the ones who developed it!
The same thing happened to the TSR2.
Was just going to say the same. The Yanks wouldn't support it because they were a bit envious. Still, I suppose they did at least have a space program. In the end, Concorde might have been a brilliant bit of British engineering, and the frogs probably designed the flush on the supersonic khazi - but it was a commercial disaster.
But surely if it flew at 750-760 mph there would be no supersonic bang? Would still get you to your destination a lot quicker than present day civilian aircraft which fly at around 550mph.
Yes, I didn't quite understand that excuse either. If, on a transatlantic flight, it went supersonic after having left the US coast there surely would be no complaints of sonic bangs by the residents. Reducing speed to subsonic wouldn't create a bang, as far as I know.But surely if it flew at 750-760 mph there would be no supersonic bang? Would still get you to your destination a lot quicker than present day civilian aircraft which fly at around 550mph.
Perhaps the engine noise was the cause for 'complaint', although other aircraft have as powerful engines as the Olympus.
That's why it only flew across the Atlantic.
They couldn't sell any.
It would be like having a Bugatti Veyron as a taxi in London - very nice but totally uneconomic.
They couldn't sell any.
It would be like having a Bugatti Veyron as a taxi in London - very nice but totally uneconomic.
N
Newboy
I used to work close to Heathrow when the Concorde fleet was flying. Every morning Concorde's take off triggered hundreds of car alarms and genuinely shook buildings close to the airport.
Don't forget that the engines used afterburners to get her airborne.
Still a spectacular sight (and sound) - never got tired of watching her
I used to walk regularly in Windsor Park, and planes flew over all day. It was obvious when Concorde flew over. I imagine modern engines would be quieter, although maybe there is something about supersonic engines that makes them noisy at low speeds.
Sponsored Links
