What do you think of the Concorde?
What do you think the future for the Concorde will be?
Great aircraft killed by the 2000 crash caused by a DC-10 and resulting scare campaign.
It was entirely profitable too, in the 90s it brought in over 25% of British Airways revenue by itself. And this was only a first generation SST, successive models could have had even greater profits.
How stupid are you motherfucker? We're not talking about physical capabilities. We're talking about the fact that there are significant legal restrictions on going sonic over land, particularly anywhere near a metropolitan area.
All these posts crying about "muh Concorde" just prove that America is the most important country on Earth. If every other country in the world allows supersonic jets to travel over their lands then why aren't there any SSTs flying routes in the rest of the world? Surely 6 billion people could figure something out without needing US involvement. And yet there are no active routes. It's almost like everyone else realizes SSTs are bullshit too.
Sure, some plane nerds will get the ultra fucking expensive Concorde to fly again. A plane that will cause alot of litigation and civil complaints at any airport that has residents anywhere within a 100 mile radius who don't want to hear that loud obnoxious plane.
Did you also hear about 4chan's planned Mars expedition? You should go.
This tbh. Apparently it's not even a comfortable flight, the Concorde's entire purpose is just a giant dick-waving contest built for rich assholes to lord over the poors below whose windows are blown out from sonic booms.
Are you mad because I ragged on the 4chan Mars expedition(btw, I made that up), which is about as realistic as plane nerds getting the money and political support to get the failed Concorde to fly again?
Actually it's a matter of fuel efficiency.
Turbomachine engineer here. Modern engines are turbofans, meaning the turbo is mostly here to drive the fan which produce thrust. Those are limited to under mach speed.
To go sonic you need a turbojet engine. The problem is that thrusting with hot fast air needs an awfully lot quantity of fuel to generate a lot of hot fast air. That's why next engines will be even slower (check open rotor on Google).
Yes we could totally makes SST flying again. But seriously, what industrial would take the risk of designing a fuel demanding and polluting plane when ecologists are everywhere ? And who amongst you would pay 10+k to go through Atlantic in 3h when you can do it in 7h for 0.5k ?
Dumb teenage, early twenty something nerds, people who actually live near any airport where the stupid Concorde is proposed to take off from can put down alot more civil and political pressure to prevent that loud, over-priced, costly flying egg from ever taking off.
Yeah you are right Britain is not a third world country. So locals that live near the airports will defeat you pathetic, unrealistic plane nerds. If you want fantasies stick to the usual comics, video games and anime. Free advice.
I wish there was a secure website that will allow people to win money from unrealistic nerds(more like money from parents, since 4chankids are too young or too priveleged to work) by placing bets on whether the Concorde will fly and other wagers. There is no way some "plane enthusiast" nerds will get the overly expensive Concorde that failed because it was not profitable, that also now lacks a supply of spares or maintenance facilities, and that no longer has the support of the French of British governments or major aviation firms, to fly again.
I really wonder what is so wretched about the white nerd mind?
My favorite part about Concorde circlejerks on /n/ is that the people shilling for supersonic flights are poor themselves and will never be able to afford a flight on a Concorde. That's pretty pathetic tbh.
Well maybe their parents are at least upper middle class. Too bad they have weirdo, totally unrealistic, shut-in hikkimori or closet hikki kids weighing on the family fortune like a rusted ship's anchor.
>Dumb teenage, early twenty something nerds, people who actually live near any airport where the stupid Concorde is proposed to take off from can put down alot more civil and political pressure to prevent that loud, over-priced, costly flying egg from ever taking off.
I'm 36 years old and live in Bristol, England. Concorde used to regularly fly in and out of Filton, and my house was in the flight path. I would gladly welcome it back just to hear that rumble once again as it climbs over the Bristol Channel on a charter flight.
Please, I beg you, go contract some horrific disfiguring disease and then kill yourself in a bizarre hobo bukkake drowning accident.
>Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, West Germany and Switzerland indicated that they would be unlikely to permit supersonic over-flights.[f] Ireland drafted legislation, and Canada prohibited supersonic over-flight.
>New York City imposing its own ban. Nine months later, a Supreme Court ruling allowed flights into JFK.
>In December 1977 the aircraft flew the London - Singapore round trip route three times in Singapore Airline livery before the Malaysian government rescinded permission from overflying their airspace, likely as a result of their own airline being denied increased access to London. Concord was also denied permission to overfly India as the United Kingdom government was unwilling to grant additional flight slots or Fifth freedom rights.
Fucking Boeingfags actually believe their own bullshit.
>I'm not really sure I know what point you are trying to make
I was answering the question. Only the most stupid countries have actually banned Concorde flying at supersonic over their land, and almost all of them as a result of a pathetic scare campaign.
It worked so well, Amerifats are still too this day afraid of "muh sonic boomz", because science is hard and shit.
>hurr why doesn't a list of countries that have banned Concorde flying over it at supersonic speeds not include Britain?
Possibly because, I dunno, let me think, Britain hasn't banned Concorde from flying supersonic over it?
Jesus fuck the entire thread is like 30 replies, is it really that hard for you to read it and follow a couple of replies so that you understand basic context?
Goalposts weren't moved asshole. You brought up the issue of noise as it pertains to flight. Then you completed ignored the fact that even subsonic aircraft are subject to noise restrictions. If quieter subsonic aircraft have noise restriction, why the actual fuck would much louder supersonic aircraft have noise restrictions?
>I can't understand how a negative set subtracted from the full set gives an answer
Any country that hasn't banned it has, de-facto, allowed it you fucking moron.
Show me all the right enumerated under the Constitution of the United States. Oh wait that's right, anything not forbidden is allowed.
Good God you fucking crybaby Amerilard Boeingfags just can't get over it can you? You just keep mumbling "muh sonic boomz muh sonic boomz" over and over again like it's a solid fact, and then just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
You're openly denying that sonic booms are loud and that nobody would want them to occur near where they live if given the choice. And you completely ignored your own list because you're an illiterate nigger, which isn't surprising.
>Talking about supersonic flight over land
>You start talking about noise at airports
>Goalposts weren't moved
No, sure. Those are totally both the same thing.
>You brought up the issue of noise as it pertains to flight.
No, you're attempting to redefine the discussion about supersonic flight over land into the more generic discussion about "noise as it pertains to flight" because you need to construct a strawman as you've realised you fucked up and can't win your original argument.
And you suck at it, by the way.
You haven't made a single argument in this thread other than that you dislike supersonic regulations. That's it. Nothing else you've said is even relevant. And nothing you are saying changes a fucking thing in practice.
>muh sonic boomz
>muh sonic boomz!
>BUT MUH SONIC BOOMZ!
Physics is hard yo'
Ever heard the sonic boom from a U2 or B-2? Oh no that's right, you haven't because they don't routinely fly over your house at a couple of thousand feet do they? It's almost as though they fly so high that the energy from the "sonic boom" has dissipated long before it's reached the ground.
>Sonic booms and how they behave are a solid fact.
So why do you persist in being wrong?
Aww and I've run out of "moving the goalposts" reaction images. Just imagine one over their on the left and you're still really bad at this.
>You haven't made a single argument in this thread
Oh I'm sorry do you need to me draw you a diagram? I can use crayon and small words if you like?
> Ever heard the sonic boom from a U2 or B-2?
No, because things that don't go faster than the speed of sound don't make sonic booms. You might as well have asked if anyone has ever heard a 737 make a sonic boom.
No, you haven't. All you've done is make vague reference to you not liking the restrictions. That's it. The fact that you can't enumerate beyond that is only further evidence that you never really had a point to make in the first place.
>aircraft that don't break the sound barrier can create sonic booms
Aircraft that move at 0.95 M may in fact have parts of the aircraft that are moving >1 M.
It's okay, cry more. All of your tears are delicious.
Which is still incapable of create a sonic boom. You have to penetrate the bow shock to create a boom. Neither a B-2, nor a U-2 can do that. They never have done so and they never will.
Show one piece of evidence of a subsonic aircraft creating a sonic boom. Go ahead. Show where the boom has been recorded or observed on a subsonic aircraft. We could all use a good laugh.
>I'm 36 years old and live in Bristol ... I would gladly welcome it back just to hear that rumble once ..
So you are 36 and you fit in with pimply moron chankids? So you are such a nerd you want to hear one of the loudest commercial planes ever in recent service over your head just to geek out?
See what I keep writing about 4chan and /n/? I write it because it is true. You have some of the shittiest life priorities, even escapist gamers and fanatic sports fans glued to the couch are above you.
I am mocking nerds on 4chan, Reddit and in real life. Stop being a nerd in your next life and try it.
Outside of the shithole that is /n/ few people are dumb enough to believe plane nerds will get the Concorde or should we say Flying Albatross flying when the billions of dollars of British and French taxpayer money couldn't make it work, plus the expertise of their respective aerospace industries.
I understand that you're upset about the B-2 not being able to create sonic booms. If you can't handle it, I'll suggest taking a hole bottle of vicodin and just going to sleep forever.
I think nerds are the people who are almost masturbating in this thread that their dream of the Concorde might fly again thanks to idiot reporters who published the claims of other plane nerds whom they interviewed, despite how unrealistic the plane nerds are. The scumbag journalists just want to attract views and move papers, they sacrifice quality and are frequently trolled by such nerds.
Next time don't pretend you can follow proper logic little chanarchist, shitkid.
I think nerds are the sad tripfags who shit up threads and use words like "chanarchist" and "shitkid" with a barely concealed rage pulsating from their forehead as they type on the keyboard.
I mean some of us are here for fun and distraction, but you're so angry you just can't help yourself and patrol /n/ and made a secure trip for yourself. That's a special level of impotent rage.
Nerds are the people who are so shunned in real life that they love being anonymous online so much that turn every shitty low-quality thread on immature chanboards to railing against people who want a persistent identity.
People naturally try to fit in. I am not talking about being cool, cool kids suck just like nerds but on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Stop mimicking morons, because almost everyone you meet in life is a raging moron. At work my coworkers won't shut up about mainstream sports and they actually talk about their favorite teams in terms like "we" or "you" as if they achieved anything by sitting on their asses.
When you are on a stupid chanboard, just try not to fit in, because if you do, something is wrong with you. That is all I am saying.
I am not saying to be a contrarian, but don't just imitiate whatever milieu you self select like most assholes do in life and they act like punk rock, sports or nerdchans are the meaning of life.
There is no meaning of life. But to be happy in life you generally have to be challenged, have autonomy, people who care about you, strong communal bonds, etc. Modern capitalism and modernity in general(IE, USSR pretended to be different but really wasn't) prevents most people from having the above and instead directs people to buy useless shit and chase after the perfect house, the perfect car, the perfect wife.
To an escapist crowd like this I would say to watch the sci fi black satire "The Visioneers" and reflect on what it says about the hollowness of the Western way of life.
Most people who have what American society or Western society teaches them to strive for are miserable. The suburban house with the lawn and kids who have be transported everywhere takes probably 80+ hours of labor to maintain a week.
FAA says no civil supersanic flight over the USA. Since 1973.
>over the USA
>numerous passenger airliners begin placing orders for Concordes
>for the first time in history
>and never to occur again
>the US government becomes concerned for the ENVIRONMENT
>and prohibits supersonic aircraft out of concerns it could damage something or other
What you're describing is the design of Mirabel Airport which failed spectacularly and is now closed to passengers.
Don't be stupid, that type of airport design doesn't work.
4chan neckbeard detected. What if people actually want to go outside and see the sun or moon? When I used to live in Nassau County, NY I frequently heard the rumble of jets from all the nearby airports.
>What if people actually want to go outside and see the sun or moon?<
- Believing there's something about the existence of aircraft that prevents you from venturing outside. Buying a house next to something that existed before you were even born, and then complaining about it, makes you a douchebag....same holds true if we're talking about a church, strip-joint, bar, railroad, school or firing range. It has a purpose, and you knew it was there before you chose to live next to it.
Fucking angry nerds... Probably most of you have never lived closed enough to the flight paths of a big international airport to hear constant plane traffic overhead.
Fuck your stupid Concorde, it failed with much bigger industry and government support. Useless plane nerds will never get that Albatross flying again. Just stfu.
>Probably most of you have never lived closed enough to the flight paths of a big international airport to hear constant plane traffic overhead
Yeah because I never lived in a house next to an airport.
I realize this twit is just some ebin trell but seriously why the hell do NIMBYs get away with sound regulations when airports were typically built before housing developments grew around them?
Please stay out of plane threads stupid fred. It's bad enough that we tolerate your toys that cost almost as much as a car so you can play pretend transportation when the farthest you ever go from home is less than 10 miles.
>Probably most of you have never lived closed enough to the flight paths of a big international airport to hear constant plane traffic overhead.
I live under the approach path to Bristol International and I lived under the approach path of Filton. I miss the sound of Concorde taking off from Filton, and when Eyjafjallajökull erupted it was actually weird not hearing planes overhead.
Unlike you I'm not an autist who has to clasp their hands over their ears and scream when they hear a loud noise.
B E L L E N D
Fuck off, you dull cunt. If you don't get a fucking shiver of excitement when you think about this, then you are obviously dead to the pleasures of the world and derive whatever joy you can from arguing with the same people you constantly belittle. Besides, if XM558 did it then so can Concorde.
ur waifu a shit!
Oh look, bullshit fed to you by glorious Boeing and American media in general. The unfortunate truth is that Concorde did turn a profit with BA. Concorde revenue was reported as £1.75 Billion, making back its operating cost by nearly double.
There were absolutely more profitable aircraft operating during Concorde's lifespan but to say Concorde was entirely unprofitable is just pointless dribble.
>The unfortunate truth is that Concorde did turn a profit with BA. Concorde revenue was reported as £1.75 Billion, making back its operating cost by nearly double.
Je suis français, maudit connard. The Concorde service on Air France never made back a single cent. BA made a profit because they sold the service as a flying limo service.
The plane was a drain on our air carrier's finances. Good riddance.
I think the main point is that in an era of private jets even the wealthy would rather not put up with the discomfort and noise of flying in a Concorde.
I get the impression you've never actually flown in one tbh. I've talked to people who have and they've said it was a neat experience but not one they miss.
No. What I'm saying is that the Concorde only made money because it was a luxury service.
The Concorde was supposed to be a people carrier but ended up only being profitable when marketed to rich business people.
Face it, you would have never flown on a BA Concorde when they were in service simply due to the ticket price. You would have been on the slow plane just like the rest of us plebs.
You're an idiot.
It still was a people carrier, just not for the plebs.
And the original intention doesn't matter if a company was able to adapt a new strategy to be profitable
Whether or not you or I could fly on it is also moot
I don't know what you're upset about.
>Face it, you would have never flown on a BA Concorde when they were in service simply due to the ticket price.
Not him but if it were flying now I would totally be all over that. $4000 to New York and then non-Concorde on the return? Yeah I can do that.
The trick is I hate flying with such a passion that the price is worth it (and yes, I can afford it) just to get it over with as quickly as possible.
>And the original intention doesn't matter if a company was able to adapt a new strategy to be profitable
Well it obviously wasn't good enough now was it? If it truly was worth it then BA would have maintained Concorde service. It failed both as a people carrier and a luxury liner.
>I don't know what you're upset about.
>HURR DUMB AMERIFATS RUINED MUH CONCORDE
>no it didn't you prat
>y r u upset anon?
You have got to be fucking kidding me...
So you would have preferred riding on a bare bones plane for premium price (the inside of the Concorde was very Spartan) over paying a premium for luxury accommodations on a traditional plane? I mean I get the speed argument but the flight would probably be a lot more pleasant if you spent the money for first class service on a normal transcon flight.
>So you would have preferred riding on a bare bones plane for premium price (the inside of the Concorde was very Spartan) over paying a premium for luxury accommodations on a traditional plane?
So I can be coast to coast in 3.5 hours? Hell yes. I literally can not impress upon how loathsome I find flying.
>one concorde crashes
>HURRR SO DANGEROUS NEVER AGAIN
>meanwhile hundreds of convention airliners have crashed killing thousands
>S-SAFEST FORM OF TRAVEL
Concorde was the victim of a scare campaign by terrified airlines and manufacturers who knew a faster form of commercial travel had arrived
This guy's got it. Also, it won't be under the same stress as it was when in airline service.
A one of a kind unique charter experience will appeal to the ultra rich, they will pay to have the plane to themselves, and the airframe will only be doing a fraction of the cycles it was before. The pilot's, stewards, and mechanics time will likely all be donated, and noise restrictions will not be a concern because it won't be a regularly scheduled flight.
>"It would take off almost vertically, like a Space Shuttle, and cruise at more than 100,000ft, carrying 20 passengers for distances of up to 5,500 miles."
Wtf? It has nothing to do with the concord! That's just a supersonic private jet!
>noise of flying in a Concorde
But inside the cabin wasn't loud. It was outside that the thing was loud.
It was small, sure, but not loud.
Concorde was never supposed to be a 'people carrier', it came long before LCCs and frequent middle class holiday flights. It was designed for the posh people who were flying on 707s at the time.
Far more aesthetically pleasing than the space shuttle though less capable
"Concorde" or "Le Concorde" was an agreement to make the best, fastest airliner.
It will probably remain that way forever.
They were awful to be in but the best of the rest was this.
Depends. If you wanted a supersonic passenger aircraft, it was the only option. Given that the British & French wanted a supersonic passenger aircraft, it fulfilled its requirements perfectly.
Whether wanting a supersonic passenger aircraft was pointless or not is another argument.
>no costumer base
Concorde was profitable. From http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
>On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
Best supersonic with only one competitor ever flying.
Pretty sure it's staying on the Guinness Book.
March 2 1969.
Rip. Raymond Baxter.
The nose drooped during takeoff/landing because it was so long it was difficult to see the runway. While cruising it straightened back out to streamline the plane for supersonic flight.
are there actually people, in this day and age, who don't know about the concorde dropping nose?
is knowing this kind of unbelievably basic fact now qualification for calling yourself an "autistically obsessed aviation enthusiast"?
what a sad age we live in. I'm now a train foamer because I know the third rail is for electricity.
>are there actually people, in this day and age, who don't know about the concorde dropping nose?
Knowing anything about a passenger plane that hasn't flown in over a decade isn't exactly what most would consider "basic knowledge".
>what a sad age we live in
Piss off you autistic faggot. If any other hobbyist or specialized worker looked down upon you for not knowing something that is considered basic knowledge within their interest or field you'd be considered an absolute moron by a significant chunk of the population.
reading comprehension much? the point was I'm not even "into planes" and I know this. why should you have to be "into planes" to know about the concorde nose, or what flaps are for, or what "fly by wire" means?
it's like not knowing what a geosynchronous orbit is, or not knowing that vaccines work by injecting killed viruses into the body
certainly not advanced level knowledge, and a space rocket expert or medical doctor would be well justified in looking down upon any adult living in a first world country who doesn't understand these things. it's a failure of the education system.
Stop fucking parroting this meme. It was only unprofitable for Air France because they were dumb faggots that tried to sell economy seats and wondered why nobody wanted them. It made a clear profit with British Airways who were the largest operator anyway.