40 years ago....Concordes First Flight.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

For those not in Germany, pop down the A3 to Brooklands and you can have a look inside Concorde. ......

There have been two available for visits for years - one at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton and one the Imperial War Museum in Duxford. These were early development airframes that were retired, but there are ex-fleet ones at Manchester Airport and a Museum in Scotland too.

[TykeMerc]

It's very true that the USA applied a lot of political pressure over Concorde, jetliner development and of course the TSR2 (there's one of those in Duxford too).
The pressure was exerted because the British aerospce industry made the Yanks look amateur at best which is still the case in some respects and because of the terrific financial value of military aerospace. Don't forget the massive financial muscle the Yanks exerted over Britain in the post WW2 decades.
TSR2 would have given even todays multi-role fighters a run for their money let alone those on the USA drawing boards and production lines in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. The TSR2 bomb bay design was closely examined for the development of two recent and significant airframes.

[Mich the Tester]

Bollocks. We'd have been the dominant force in world travel if the Americans hadn't shafted us. It was a fantastic advance and with continuing development, we'd all have been travelling faster and more comfortably. This didn't suit the Septics and they got even more upset when they couldn't make their own version so they shafted the approvals just long enough to bugger up the business case. It was a fabulous aeroplane.

I agree. It's very unfair to blame Tony Benn for Concorde's problems. I’m all for having a go at Labour politicians, but the business case at the start of the project seemed solid and there were plenty of customers for the plane; unfortunately the double whammy of US politics and the oil crisis put paid to the commercial success the plane deserved.

The really sad thing is that Concorde wasn’t developed further. Effectively it was version 1 that flew for so long, without the constant development that other planes have had. Other planes, like the 747 have undergone step by step improvement during their long lifetime; a modern 747 has about a 6% higher top speed, carries about 20% more payload and can travel about 50% further before refuelling than the first 747. Noise levels have been reduced, engines are more efficient and you can now theoretically fly non stop to Australia. The Airbus A380 has even more impressive figures although it’s a new aircraft (built, obviously, on the knowledge that Airbus built up with their earlier models).

Concorde’s greatest tragedy is that it didn’t have a successor. Imagine if Concorde had gone through 40 years of steady improvement; you’d perhaps shave another half hour off the trip to New York, you could carry another 30 passengers, the noise issues could have been solved and quite possibly non-stop flights to Asia would have been a regular and affordable option.

Its replacement could realistically have been a hypersonic aircraft, making it feasible to fly to Cape Town after a good breakfast at the Savoy, watch the Lions and then get back to London in time for a trip to the theatre. OK, that’s a bit of a flight of fantasy, but it would work and would be very popular among businesspeople.

[gingerjedi]

Old thread I know but LOOK!!!

Is there a better boys toy?

[sasguru]

Bollocks. We'd have been the dominant force in world travel if the Americans hadn't shafted us. It was a fantastic advance and with continuing development, we'd all have been travelling faster and more comfortably. This didn't suit the Septics and they got even more upset when they couldn't make their own version so they shafted the approvals just long enough to bugger up the business case. It was a fabulous aeroplane.

Bollocks. The reason the Yanks won the commercial aviation war is that, back in the 50s, the first passenger jet, the English Comet, was fundamentally flawed and kept breaking up in mid air. Boeing brought out a more economical and SAFE jet (737 was it?) and that was it. Game over for the Brits.
Which makes the Airbus comeback quite an achievement.

[Menelaus]

You flew on Concorde from Paris to London - and they managed to hit Mach 2...

Long way round?

[Menelaus]

Bollocks. The reason the Yanks won the commercial aviation war is that, back in the 50s, the first passenger jet, the English Comet, was fundamentally flawed and kept breaking up in mid air. Boeing brought out a more economical and SAFE jet (737 was it?) and that was it. Game over for the Brits.
Which makes the Airbus comeback quite an achievement.

This being the same Comet airframe that's still used for the Nimrod today?

The last Nimrod crash was due to a wiring failure and fuel explosion during AAR over Afghanistan.

[FSM with Cheddar]

Bollocks. The reason the Yanks won the commercial aviation war is that, back in the 50s, the first passenger jet, the English Comet, was fundamentally flawed and kept breaking up in mid air. Boeing brought out a more economical and SAFE jet (737 was it?) and that was it. Game over for the Brits.
Which makes the Airbus comeback quite an achievement.

The Comet ended tradition commercial aviation, but has nothing to do with the commercial failings of Concord.

The US banned Concord from a large number of airports, which effectively reduced the commercial viability of the aircraft. That combined with the increase in fuel costs sealed its fate.

When Concord flew into Filton for it's last flight, it still had equipment on it that was considered secret. This had to be removed before it was opened to the public for viewing. - This shows how technically advanced the design was.

[Menelaus]

I remember a joke about Concorde that it had originally been planned to be a military aircraft but flew so fast (faster than a speeding bullet) that if it fired its guns it would shoot itself down!