1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Can the Concorde make a comeback?

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by steveox, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    I wonder could they rebuild the Concorde and fly faster then the newly 787?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    I'll ask my father who is a recently retired BA pilot. I doubt it though.
     
  3. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I am sure a few of them could be put back into working order and it would still be the fastest commercial airliner. There is no doubt about that. But when one looks at the benefits of one type of plane versus another type to the airline that is using it, is how much profit does it generate. The Concorde was always a money losing endeavour. Whereas the B787 is designed to be highly profitable. Concorde burned to much fuel and didnt have the passenger capacity to make it worthwhile. The 787 on the otherhand, has a lighter weight fuselage, with enough passenger/cargo capacity and has much more efficient engines that make it worth while. While the novelty of supersonic flight is romantic in a way, it is not necessary, and what it ultimately boils down to is profitability.
     
  4. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But she was a beautiful bird to behold landing.
     
  5. dahermit

    dahermit New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dead from the start

    You may not be aware, but the Concord never made a profit. It was subsidized from the beginning. The income from the tickets sold never paid for the fuel, crew, and the cost of the aircraft. It was just a convenience for persons who had to get to and from Europe in the shortest time. Most airports in the U.S. would not allow the Concord to travel to and land there because of the louder than usual noise from it. It was a bad idea from the start.
     
  6. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Dahermit, while I agree with most of the points you make. Mentioning concorde was a bad idea from the start isnt quite fair. If one goes back to the time during its development there was serious hope that SST(super-sonic transport) would be the wave of the future. The idea, work and development was noble. Just high costs and regulations killed the longevity of it.
     
  7. dahermit

    dahermit New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    do the math

    They could have done the math; the cost of fuel, the cost of operation, the cost of developing a SST. Then they could have figured out what a ticket would have to cost to make a profit. If they had bothered, they would have known what they were getting into.

    Nevertheless, there just as bad dead end technologies. For instance, the era of Zeppelins. They were to be the wave of the future with many countries attempting to develop those ships of the air, Italy, Russia, England, USA.
    Contrary to popular belief, the burning of the Hindenburg is not what caused the end of Zepplins...it was just the straw that broke The camel's back...there were many and frequent airship disasters before the Hindenburg.

    It was a dead end technology from the start. The huge ground crews could have been eliminated, but they could not handle the wind. Also, the altitude was limited...as the airship rose, the gas bags would expand and excess gas would have to be vented, then sand or water ballast would have to be jettisoned as they came down. With a few up and down cycles they could run out of ballast.
     
  8. GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus

    GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    the real world
    Ive seen it at the airport, but I once saw it in flight while in another plane. friggin' awesome cool
    :cool:


    it will never fly again---commercially
     
  9. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thought those were all tucked away in museums. :D

    Another brilliant example of government doing "what the market can't do", or actually, doing what nobody wants. :D
     
  10. GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus

    GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    the real world
    actually, it started out as a good thing. do you mock the space program too

    the environmentalists of the day helped kill it. i remember hearing about this as i was a kid who grew up next to a major airport...
    being a conservative reactionary you would've been for it before you were against it.
    :eek:
     
  11. GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus

    GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    the real world
Loading...

Share This Page