Talk:Concorde/Archive 1

How many Concorde planes are there?
Does anyone know how many Concorde planes there are? (the "fleet" of Concordes)?

please see this: http://www.concorde-jet.com/e_air_france.htm and this: http://www.concorde-jet.com/e_british_airways.htm for a reference -- WojPob

Thanks!

Whatever happened to the Soviet program?
Whatever happened with the Soviet civilian supersonic transport program (Tupolev?)

See Tupolev Tu-144

Thnaks!

- Concorde: technical success or commercial flop?== Sucessfull should be removed or moderated. Concorde is technical success but a commercial flop.


 * Improved now? --Brion

Better. But it needs to be extended. On the long run Air France and Bristish may have earn money with Concorde. But production and studies for Concorde where a financial disaster. On the other hand some say than Concorde was necessary to allow european aircraft industry to becane competitive. The benefit of Concorde may well be in Airbus. In France Concorde is widely considered as an expansive flop while in US very few considers the Appollo program as to expansive. I will try to a paragraph about it. Ericd


 * Apollo was never a for-profit enterprise. --Brion

Right, but was really Concorde for-profit ? Every major decision was made by politicians nor busisnessmen. Ericd

Operational height
I have changed 17,000 meters to 60,000 feet because, in most of the world, aviation uses feet for altitudes. 60,000 feet is 18,000 meters. I know that Concorde virtually never cruises in normal operations at 60,000 feet but I am quoting the max operational cruise height. I have also removed the phrase in the first line about non-profitability. I view this as contentious for an encyclopaedia. How is profit measured, has the fact that the aircraft were given to BA and Air France been allowed for, what is the source of the non-profit statement and so on. Best to leave well alone, IMHO. My credentials for saying all this? I worked at British Aerospace at Filton, near Bristol UK, for 36 years, 12 of them on Concorde aerodynamics. Arpingstone 20:12 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Crash reason for grounding?
Are you sure about the bit about low numbers after the crash? The news report I heard specifically disavowed the crash as a reason for the grounding. - Montr&eacute;alais

As Concorde is a french word used by both the UK and France, it is never written as the Concorde, always concorde, to avoid linguistic confusion over le or the. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:20 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

-

The first picture is just a model?
The first picture is just a model. Who are you trying to fool? dave 07:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I prepared this pic for the Concorde article so I resent your silly remark! Think before you write, please.
 * Firstly, I've looked closely at the bigger version of the picture. The exhaust from the nearest engine can just be seen.
 * Secondly, Derek has one and a half thousand superb aircraft pictures on a site called www.airliners.net, he has no need to use models! Just go to that site, select Photographer in the Keywords search box and type in Derek Pedley. All 1479 of his pictures will appear.
 * Thirdly, it certainly does not look like a model to me, no Concorde model that good has ever been issued.
 * Fourthly I worked on Concorde at Filton, Bristol, for 12 years so I do know what the real thing looks like (and it overflies my house every morning on its way to New York).
 * If Derek Pedley (who let me use his photo) sees your comment he'll never let me have a photo again. Please engage your brain before writing!
 * Adrian Pingstone 08:20 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

It's obviously not a model the photo has sme low contrast that is characteristic of a photo taken at long-distance with a telephoto lens. Ericd 08:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe he's just trying to badly spoof Monty Python and the Holy Grail's "It's only a model" line?  -- John Owens


 * Ok, fine it's not a model. I was just kidding around.  But it does look an awful lot like a model.  Maybe there should be a disclaimer, saying "this is not a plastic model" beneath it.  dave 18:48 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate this kind of joke. I had to spend time composing a serious reply and then you don't have the decency to apologise for wasting my time. Moreover, you changed the caption to read ".....this is a plastic model" which I had to revert.
 * Adrian Pingstone 19:43 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well your long serious reply was a bit excessive and unecessary. I don't need proof that it isn't really a model.  It still looks plastic.  I'm sorry for posting "this is a plastic model" and I'm also sorry that you chose to use a picture that looks so much like a plastic model.  dave 04:14 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that there's nothing in the shot to reference it to. Maybe we should find a picture of the Concorde with a quarter next to it or something. :-) --Alan D


 * Yes, you're correct. You know how the when the moon is near the horizon people think it is bigger than when it is directly overhead?  Well, it isn't, it's just because when it is near the trees, mountains, houses, whatever, it appears larger relatively.  But overhead, there is nothing to compare it to, so it looks small.  So the concorde just needs something next to it.  The paint also needs to be scuffed up a bit, make it look like real metal.  dave 05:46 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Adrian, please just ignore the above. Any place has a tiny minority of rude and ignorant people who don't appreciate quality work when they see it. They are not worth wasting a moment of your time on. Everyone around here appreciates the excellent work you have put in, and we all hope that you will contine to improve Wikipedia's visual appeal - something that has been sadly lacking until recently. Don't reply to this thread: you have real work to do. Tannin 10:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Tannin, you are a real gentleman. Thanks for your highly-valued support. Thread closed! -- Adrian Pingstone 12:09 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thread re-opened. Tannin and Adrian, I honestly thought it was plastic.  Period!  I was not trying to be rude initally, it was just some constructive criticism that I didn't think a plastic model should be used as a picture.  I think I got annoyed over Adrian's comments above where he listed 4 reasons why it is not plastic, which was very condescending.  All he had to do was politely tell me that it wasn't plastic, and quote the source, and it would have ended right there.  Instead he took it personally, and I decided to have a bit of fun after that.  I guess everyone doesn't share my sense of humour.  Just don't take me so seriously.  Anyways, Adrian, I truly am sorry.  Thread closed once more.  dave 15:25 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * No problem, Dave. Apology accepted, no hard feelings. (Well, I shouldn't speak for Adrian in this, but I'm sure he would feel the same.) I withdraw my comment above. The thread isn't that long, but I think this is a good time to archive it anyway. Then we can start afresh Tannin 15:31 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, starting fresh is good. dave 15:49 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Preservation for future flights ?
The article says One French Concorde has been preserved for future flights for special occasions.

Could anyone confirm this by posting a source / a link ? As far as I knew, all Concordes have lost their airworthiness status, and none were to be returned to flying condition.

Tech features common today???
The "Technological features" section starts out with the remark that "Many features common in early 21st century airliners were first used in the Concorde."

It then goes on to ennumerate double-delta wings, turbojet engines with afterburners and variable inlet ramps, supercruise, Thrust-by-wire engines and the Droop-nose section for good landing visibility.

Of these, as far as I am aware, ONLY the Thrust-by-wire engines are featured in modern day airliners. They DON'T have ANY of the others.

I therefore think a more accurate phrasing is called for. --Cancun771 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement is broadly correct, however the enumerations aren't. Concorde pioneered many features considered essential to modern airliners - fly by wire, autoland and carbon brakes to name just a few. Also, if we open up the statement to aircraft, and not just airliners, the enumerations become more valid. You're right though: it'll need tweaked to clarify which are features of Concorde alone, and which have become common in subsequent aircraft. --Scott Wilson 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, i think im correct in saying, things such as the 3 hydraulic systems (in the way they are used on concorde), is very similar to that of the airbus fleet. Reedy Boy 14:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am writing a paper...
I am writing a paper on the economical and political atmosphere surrounding the Concorde over the next few weeks, shall i post it to the article when I'm done? --Qleem 03:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perceived environmental issues
I am going to remove the word "perceived" from the phrase "perceived environmental issues such as sonic boom noise and ozone depletion in the stratosphere". These issues are well-documented effects.

Regarding ozone depletion, studies of atmospheric chemistry have shown that oxides of nitrogen, a component in aircraft emissions, enhance the catalytic destruction of ozone, both in the gas phase and in combination with polar stratospheric clouds (See Ozone depletion). If these gases are emitted in the upper troposphere (as with subsonic aircraft), they are generally dissolved in cloud water and fall as (acid) rain rather than entering the stratosphere. If they are emitted directly into the stratosphere (as was often the case with Concorde due to its greater cruise height), there is no precipitation from these altitudes to wash out the pollutants, which instead come much more readily into contact with ozone. In the event that a large fleet of supersonic aircraft had been built, the effects on ozone could have been substantial.

There may be different POV regarding the relative importance of environmental issues versus other considerations. However, the fact that supersonic aircraft do have the stated environmental side-effects is well established, and it is unfair to represent the matter as merely "perceived".

--Trainspotter 13:59 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Was ozone depletion a factor in the order cancellations? I thought this only came to public knowledge much later, in the 80s. And if the public didn't know, I don't see it influencing the politicians and airline bosses. Andy G 02:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, in that I rather doubt it was a major motivating factor. But given what we now know, the outcome was just as well. --Trainspotter 10:59, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Only SST commercial service

 * The Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport (SST) was the only supersonic passenger airliner that has ever seen commercial service. 

This disagrees with the Tupolev Tu-144 page, which states that that airplane had about 6 months of commercial service before flights were halted. Which is true? Tempshill 17:50, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The TU-144 did indeed carry passengers, at least according to the official Soviet history, but then how do you define "commercial" flight in a communist country? Lee M 01:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The passengers have to pay for the flight.
 * Ericd 03:13, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the Tu-144's commercial service was not supersonic, so perhaps that could be the differentiator. "The Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde was the only passenger airliner with scheduled supersonic services." Markonen 09:53, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reverts
Morven's "21:35, 6 Nov 2003" apepars to have revereted many previous edits... Tu-144 was indeed used on a 'commercial' airline (Moscow-Almaty), but only for 6 months once a week, and there was a total of only 3500 passengers flown. It is indeed difficult to define 'commercial' in a communist country. People paid for their tickets, but the price was only 1.5 times more than on an oridinary subsonic jet, it was heavily government-subsidized. But, all Aeroflot was subsidized, and if we define 'commercial' as 'paying for itself', there was no commercial airline service in USSR at as. So i am agree that Tu-144 'commercial' flights were more a factor of propaganda than a true airline service.
 * Accidentally -- I either edited an old revision by mistake or hit a bug that did the same. The only change I intended was to the Christie's auction date.  I have re-added any textual changes I inadvertently made that have not since been re-added by someone else, I think.  Please check and be sure. --Morven 01:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Belatedly, thank you. Andy Mabbett 17:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Political impacts
The new text under "political impacts" seems very PoV to me. Andy Mabbett 17:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Last flight image
Copying this to here so we can all work on it and improve it a bit more:



There. That's much better. Tannin 05:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Brilliant satire! Thanks for your highly humorous support of my pic (Concorde) and caption, I got such a laugh on a grey drizzly UK day (only 3 days to the start of Winter). Please be aware that Winter is the season following Autumn, is followed by Spring and is the only word precisely describing the season "Winter" that starts with a W and ends with an R.
 * Whether our friend will let the nonsense "undercarriage" bit of the caption remain reverted I shall await with interest.
 * Adrian Pingstone 09:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Tony,with undercarriage lowered is back again! I have better things to do than point out how childish this addition is so I'll let the matter rest. Thanks for your input but now I'm off to carry on illustrating astronomy articles.
 * Adrian Pingstone 11:01, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Tony, I can't resist one more comment .....
 * this Pigsonthewing is a nuisance. I wrote a pretty decent caption which now sounds childish. This person has to inform the reader that landing aircraft have their undercarriages down. Wow!! what a vital piece of knowledge. I'm sorry you've bumped into this nonsense immediately after your holiday. I now intend to opt out of this, let it ride and maybe one day he'll understand how daft his addition is.
 * Adrian Pingstone 21:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. But what can you do? Some things you just have to shrug your shoulders and move on. Note the complete lack of response to my contribution here on the talk page. I'm half tempted to substitute the caption above and at right, but I see that it fails to mention the landing lights. Clearly not detailed enough for those "not familar with aircraft". Tannin 21:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The caption's way too long anyway. Why not buzz-cut it down to size? Dysprosia 12:42, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The flight date is important, but it's been noted in the paragraph directly above. Should it be removed to eliminate redundancy? Dysprosia 14:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Valid point, but I don't think it will be obvious to the reader that the date in the para and the photo below it are the same event(IMHO). In any case someone may one day shift that picture to somewhere else in the article so that its no longer near that para. No, I'm sure the date should stay (please!)
 * Adrian Pingstone 15:09, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * lol. That cap is priceless. Would love to leave it in, but this isn't Sillipedia. Trekphiler 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Economics of Concorde
Could somebody add a discussion about the economics of the Concorde? How much did it cost to fly it, compared to other non-supersonic commercial planes? How much did the tickets cost, and were the ticket sales enough to cover the costs of flying? What type of person flew on the Concorde?

Costs of Concorde
In his book "Backroom Boys" Francis Spufford says Britain spent 900 million pounds on the Concorde and recieved a total of 7.2 million pounds for profits on ticket sales and 9.3 million pounds from BA when they took it over, for a total of 16.5 million pounds. Concord lost the British government 883.5 million pounds. Technology developed in building Concorde could be seen as slightly offsetting some of this loss. France and Airbus were the main benefactors of this technology.

At first tickets were sold at about normal first class travel plus 25%, but later BA increased the price to what the market could bear. I believe they asked rich people how much they thought a Concorde ticket would cost and then increased the price to this level.


 * BA made some money off it. The British and French governments lost big time. Still, with subtly different circumstances they would have made the money back. Building Concorde was a risk, it just didn't pay off. Still, if you really want to look at a sad situation, the American programs spent more, and achieved far less.WolfKeeper 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No

 * 1) mav (it is needless jargon and captions should be simple and to the point)
 * 2) Adrian Pingstone  Needless information since all aircraft land with their undercarriages down. Also makes the caption look amateur.
 * 3) Morven Unnecessary to mention it, makes the caption too long.
 * 4) Tannin What Mav, Adrian and Morven already said. The consensus is clear, and this reversion mania has gone on far too long already. Please, PotW, this is absurd, Stop now before this causes further grief and corrective action.
 * 5)  MorioriThis doesn't only make the caption look amateur, it makes Wikipedia look amateur. What a shame.
 * 6)  Antonio Body Seller Martin Like, show me another argument similar to this one. Basic and simple: no.
 * 7) Daniel Quinlan The caption should even be shorter than that.  There is no point and little style in putting lengthy information in an image caption that is already in the text in greater detail (where it belongs).  I have shorted the caption to a reasonable length (it could even be shorter) and also made a few other minor edits.
 * 8) --FvdP. The difference is not that big, but I too prefer the simpler version. The mention of undercarriages is redundant both with the image and with the context of a landing.
 * 9) Trekphiler 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Don't be stupid. Unless the plane is coming in for a crash, gear down is standard, & you have to be a moron not to know it. This is another of the ridiculous "warning label" notices that are plaguing modern society.

Yes


PigsontheWing has continued to flout both common sense and consensus here, and it seems, utterly without shame or explanation. I believe that the time has come to consider what disciplinary action is most appropriate in this case. Tannin 07:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is rather trivial, but given that his captionizing is both tacky and goes against the consensus achieved above, I'm going to start reverting changes that reintroduce the undesired caption (or similar).  I hope it does not prove necessary for me to request that someone protect the page.  Daniel Quinlan 20:37, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've protected it. I'll unprotect after you've all slept on it. Secretlondon 20:56, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * I really like the current caption ....
 * "The last flight lands at Filton, November 26, 2003"
 * I hope we can settle on that one.
 * Adrian Pingstone 09:34, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tannin 11:15, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The last Concorde flight lands at Filton, November 26, 2003? Or is that a little redundant? Just reads nicer for me. Dysprosia 11:17, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Dysprosia, the date is really important because my pic is not just any Concorde flight, it's the last in history. So the date tells the reader when supersonic passenger flight ended. I know it's in the text somewhere but I believe the pic caption should also be properly informative. It's a very brief caption so you can't claim it's too wordy!
 * Adrian Pingstone 13:08, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * He was talking about the word 'Concorde' in the caption though, not the date. :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. Concorde in or out, I don't mind!
 * Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I got no beef with you Daniel :) You can leave it out. Dysprosia 06:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just noticed that this contradicts the Air France Flight 4590 article. In the Paris Crash section this article says 5 people on the ground were killed, on the flight 4590 page it says 4. Fabiform 14:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Correct number is 4. I have made the modification. Redux 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

£1 each?
That same day Sir Richard Branson offered to buy British Airways' Concordes for £1 each for service with his Virgin Atlantic Airways, but was refused.

Is this a typo, or a joke? If he actually made this offer, perhaps it'd be good to explain whether/why he expected them to take it seriously. -- Wapcaplet 21:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * £1 was the original price that BA paid for the Concordes. This was noted in the "Origins" section although you had to wade through some dense text to get to it. I added another note in the article. - Sekicho 22:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not true according to http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html#6 - Shinglor 24th April 2006


 * Him and BA haven't exactly seem eye to eye- he has every right to hate their guts in fact. They had a dirty tricks department to illegally steal his customers (a fact he proved in court.)WolfKeeper 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oshkosh Airshow
Something should be said about the concorde going to the Oshkosh Airshow. I am working on collecting information on when the plane has visted the show.MpegMan 03:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congress ban
The U.S. Congress had just banned Concorde landings in the US, mainly due to citizen protest over sonic booms, preventing launch on the coveted transatlantic routes.

Citizen protest or the special interests of the US airline industry? When does Congress usually legislate for popular outcries? Timrollpickering 12:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

World Trade Center reference
I suspect the Concorde's all first-class clientel was especially hard hit; many of their "regulars" were either in the towers, or their bosses were. in the Withdrawal from Service section is probably unsubstantiated. Any comments? Barneyboo 01:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems like pure speculation. Removed - please reinsert if it can be substantiated. -- Egil 08:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It was re-added by an anon, so I've removed it again:
 * Critically, many of the victims of the 9/11 attacks were business executives based within the World Trade Center buildings who were either regular Concorde customers themselves, or authorised others to travel on the aircraft.
 * It still sounds like speculation. However, it is true that there was a general slump in air travel after 9/11 which can't have helped Concorde, so I've left that reference in. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 09:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not at all implausible, I recall seeing on TV a comment by the staff after the service was restarted after the crash that many friends were absent. Still, there's a difference between plausible and true. What percentage of their passengers died on 9/11 I cannot say.WolfKeeper

The PBS Nova program "Supersonic Dream" features an interview with someone connected to the Concorde who states that about 40 of the regular passengers were affected by the World Trade Center attacks. Whether that means they were killed or what, I don't know. JRoman 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cruising speed?
The following was entered recently:
 * mach 2.2 'sweet spot' for optimum fuel consumption (supersonic drag minimum, whilst jet engines more efficient at high speed)

The cruising speed is specified as Mach 2.0, so something is wrong. I've removed the above statement - please reinsert if it can be substantiated (with an upper case M). -- Egil 08:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got the sweet spot from a talk by a concorde pilot. Please don't remove stuff arbitrarily- you took away more than you needed to. The American SST went for a higher speed, and then the efficiency went down and range suffered. The Cd factor curve typically is minimised at about mach 0.85 (subsonic airliner speed) and then goes way up transonically it maxes out at about mach 1, and then drops off from there on. But it never goes below the drag at mach 0.85. However the engines gain efficiency with increased ram effect, and the Isp goes up which compensates; so it's reasonably efficient at that 2.04. Additionally, if they had gone any faster the skin would have become too hot for aluminum- it starts losing it strength, and then they would have had to use titanium or something expensive, or steel which is heavier, which requires more fuel etc. etc. Concorde's performance really did sit in a sweet spot; Concorde has been refered to as 'a point design'- it works great at one particular speed only.WolfKeeper

E is for Excellence

 * The aircraft was initially referred to in Britain as "Concord". In 1967 the British Government announced that it would change the spelling to "Concorde" to match the French. This created an uproar but it died down after a government minister stated that the suffixed "e" was for excellence.

Am I the only one who finds this absurd? (If it isn't, that minister could have a good career in advertising...) - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that... Didn't the British and French agree that the British Concord would be spelt without the E and the French would be spelt with the E thus concorde... --RBlowes 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Canadians find this absurdity quite normal :) PC

Technological aspic
One of the happiest and certainly most interesting days of my life was when I visited the Smithsonian Annex at Dulles near Washington DC and saw some amazing aircraft. The Concorde stole my heart with that glorious paper dart shape. However, I think that the article shouldn't be too laudatory - it really was a bit of a dinosaur towards the end, and nothing exemplifies this more than the lack of a glass cockpit. --Jumbo 00:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Economics
I found this on the web (we can't use it as is, because of copyright):

Irked by Concorde's $97 million loss in 1981, Lord King of Wartnaby, a Conservative firebrand in the House of Lords, assumed the helm of British Airways and appointed future British Airways flight director Jock Lowe and another pilot (Brian Walpole) to turn the ailing company around.

"We did some research to find out who our passengers were," Lowe recalled, "and it turned out they were presidents, chairmen, and directors, and they travelled on Concorde because that was their entitlement in their company. So an idea formed that maybe telling them it's not that expensive - which is what BA had been doing - is not the route. I then had some research done which said, 'Ask them if they know how much the fare is.' Well, 80 percent of the passengers didn't know what the fare was, because it was booked by their travel company or their P.A. When we asked them to guess, most of them guessed that the fare was higher than it actually was. So we just said, 'Well, we'll charge them what they think they're paying.' And we gradually put the fares up."

So I'm pretty sure that BA made a profit on Concorde...

Cruise operating speed and other specs
I've changed some specs to be more accurate:


 * - 60000ft max operating height is now correctly displayed in meters
 * - Normal cruise speed was 2.02, not 2.04. Max operating speed was 2.04
 * - Added some links to their respective units of measurement

People Wikizine
Former CO of the Free French Air Force, Henri Ziegler, championed Concorde at Sud-Aviation. Trekphiler 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If whoever changed the 'engines developed for' to the TSR2, please cite a source for this if you want to add it again. DJ Clayworth 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Concorde's engines were based on the engine developed for the TSR.2, in-that, they were a supersonic, reheat version, of the non-afterburning Bristol Olympus used on the Avro Vulcan. The TSR.2 required engines capable of operation at supersonic speeds and the reheat Olympus was developed for this requirement. Concorde then benefited from the effort put into the engine when the TSR.2 was subsequently cancelled. Ian Dunster 12:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the section where some contributor (hilarously attributed as "me" in the article) says they were among the losing bidders for the final flight tickets. First person pronouns are highly inappropriate for encyclopedias. I moved the mention of the eBay (not e-bay) auction to the list of passengers, where it fits in better logically and with the flow of the article. JRoman 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Passengers on last flight
I believe Maya Angelou was on board the last flight, based on a TV special about the last flight, but this should probably be confirmed elsewhere before adding it. If so, though, it would be a valuable addition to the list.

A bold claim!
From the "Passenger experience" section: "Most remarkably Concorde was the only passenger airliner able to overtake the terminator."

This sounds very unlikely to me. Has anybody checked this? --Jumbo 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: terminator speed = 1000 mph. Speed of sound = ~650 mph. List of supersonic western passenger aircraft: Concorde.

Consider it checked. (Actually if you're being really anal about it you can fly circles around the poles, but I'm not aware of any scheduled flight that arrives earlier than it left, local time.)WolfKeeper 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sydney to LAX United 841-2, depending on the DST setting Qleem 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the original line didn't have 'western' in it! I waited a few hours to see if I'd catch anybody, especially given the opening line of the article, but when nobody took the bait I changed it myself. --Jumbo 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ticket price!
someone needs to add how much a ticket price was. the change over the years, and relevant to each country, with inflation included would be excellent.

Date format
Best practice is to wikify dates into the format 20 January 2001 or January 20 2001 because this displays dates to the reader in their preferred format. The examples above would both display as 20 January 2001 to a reader with British preferences set. And January 20, 2001 to a reader with U.S. preferences (the default). See how these look to you:
 * 20 January 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
 * 20 January, 2001 displays as 20 January, 2001
 * 20 January 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
 * 20 January, 2001 displays as 20 January, 2001
 * 20 January 2001 displays as 20 January 2001
 * January 20, 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
 * January 20 2001 displays as January 20 2001
 * January 20, 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
 * January 20, 2001 displays as January 20, 2001
 * January 20 2001 displays as January 20 2001

We don't need to wikilink subsequent appearences of the same year when they are just a year, or even a month and year. But full dates should be wikified, if for no other reason than to display that comma for U.S. readers. --Jumbo 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

13 miles to the gallon?
Can anyone substantiate this? Guinnog 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's borderline original research, but from the article Concorde burns 13.2 kg/km. The flight has 100 people on it, so that's 0.132 kg/km per passenger.

Density of aviation fuel is about 1410 liters to the tonne. (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml). Do a mass of dividing and you should get about the same answer (I rounded it to 2 significant figures). I used US gallons (I used the google unit conversion).

It sounds about right. High, but roughly inline with other aircraft I've done similar calculations on.WolfKeeper 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually that link talks about av-gas, which is somewhat different. I found a density for jet-a of http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/109.htm 783 kg/m^3 (1277 liters/tonne). This gave 14.0 mpg.WolfKeeper 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure the density varies with temperature and stuff.

The economy is surprisingly good, bearing in mind the drag at mach 2 is a lot higher; but the aircraft flies higher to compensate. One other factor is that the thrust the engines give per liter of fuel goes down at higher speeds, but the distance travelled per second goes up (obviously); so it turns out that the MPG of the engines is better at mach 2 than subsonic. But this is offset by the high airdrag to a degree. Going much faster than mach 2 would have given really rotten efficiency because the engines become much less efficient and MPG goes down. Anyway, that's more or less what one of the concorde pilots said at last years BROHP conference. The American designs tried to go faster but didn't go anywhere; and from what he said that was a *bad* idea from a fuel efficiency point of view anyway.WolfKeeper 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I used to think that the enormous fuel intake was the cause for the extremely high ticket prices. If that's not it, what was causing the cost? Or was most of it profit? Anorak2 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably their monopoly on the SST market was a factor in pricing. Maintenance costs were also said to be constantly increasing, due to the use of bespoke parts. Abut 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think definitely monopoly in the case of BA. You could get one-way flights for about £700 London to New York, but flying the other way was much more expensive (people flew Concorde to avoid the overnight red-eye.) There's no reason for that price difference other than it being a monopoly. I believe that the French Concordes were cheaper to fly though.WolfKeeper 17:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The advantage of same-day arrival in London, for sure, created a demand that pushed up prices. That's basic economic theory. But also, as stated in the article, many passengers didn't even know what they had paid, and didn't notice as BA gladually jacked up the price. Abut 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive vs large
Good shout, SuperJumbo! Guinnog 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Colour me pedantic! --Jumbo 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Centrifugal
'Concorde flew fast enough that the weight of everyone onboard was temporarily reduced by 1% when flying east. This was due to a centrifugal effect when its airspeed added to the rotation speed of the Earth. Flying west this didn't happen to any significant degree, because it was fighting the rotation of the Earth, and the weight ended up almost normal.'

This sounds unlikely to me. Can anybody confirm it? Guinnog 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Arrugh! This makes my head spin. I think we need a source on it. --Jumbo 22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And here's a source. This explains it so that I can understand, and it makes sense. --Jumbo 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim is dubious as the necessary conditions would be rarely if ever encountered, namely flying closely east at or near the equator. The weight change would not be nearly as pronounced for a transatlantic flight from say New York to Europe following a great circle route, as it is neither near the equator nor closely pointed east except at high latitudes. I suggest removing the paragraph. -- PC


 * Do you have a reference for your claim?WolfKeeper 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any left flyable?
Is any of the surviving Concordes still able to fly, or could easily be fitted to do so? Anorak2 16:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Typo in French Crash Concorde registration Para Heading "Paris Crash"?
This is listed in the article as G-BTSC - a British Registration - surely as a French Concorde this should rather be F-BTSC? andyb

BA Concordes have wings cut off and welded back on?
I just reverted an edit stating this, which cannot ossibly correct. I saw a BA Concorde at Heathrow a few weeks back which has obviously not been transported anywhere by road. Many have been flown to their final resting places - the one at RAF Duxford, for example. --Jumbo 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect this was merely a misunderstanding - you're quite correct that most of BA's Concordes were flown into retirement and are largely unmodified. However, G-BOAA at East Fortune did indeed have her wings cut off (as well as the tail) and was transported over land and sea from Heathrow. She hadn't been refitted with the kevlar fuel tank linings, so she wasn't flying anyway, plus the runway at East Fortune would need a significant amount of work to receive a Concorde. The only other BA aircraft I know of that was significantly disassembled was G-BOAD: the engines were removed to save weight when she was being transported up the Hudson river by barge. --Scott Wilson 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked Concorde aircraft histories and you are correct. 202 and 206 are the only British ones to be transported by road. The one in NY seems to have been transported with wings on and engines off. --Jumbo 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Braniff trivia
Comments are invited on the following proposed reduction in the changes by 71.96.16.237: Abut 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Although they may not have flown as many hours in Concorde as the Air France or British Airways flight crews, the Braniff International Pilots were the the only pilots in the world to fly both the Air France and British Airways Concordes. Because of this, the Braniff Flight Crews flew a total of 10 of the 16 Concordes (both British & French) in existance. Sufficient to say just: ''Braniff International Pilots have flown both AF and BA Concordes.
 * 2) Chief Test Pilot, Jean Franchi, said that the greatest Concorde pilot he ever trained was Braniff International's Captain "Fearless" Fain. Is this true? (source? context? motivation?) Relevant? Delete?
 * 3) Very much a compliment considering Mr. Franchi was French and Captain Fain is American. Delete. Nationality of trainer/pilot is particularly irrelevant. (and M. Franchi spent a lot of time in US anyway).

Definitely support 2 and hence 3 - they're rather subjective and not really notable. For 1, I'd probably expand it very slightly to include the fact that they flew ten of the sixteen aircraft if this can be verified, although I was under the impression that they only used two. --Scott Wilson 22:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is updated according to the concensus above. 10 Concordes were flown by Braniff, according to the Concorde SST website  (9 are listed here ). This is mentioned (updated) under Scheduled flights. Abut 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's fine. I'd just never seen the details of any more than two of the aircraft. --Scott Wilson 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First BA flight after termination of service
The comment about the first BA commercial flight being on Sept 11 2001, in flight while the towers were hit, is completely unsubstantiated. See http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/aftestflights.html, which makes it seem like the flight was AF, not BA, and was not unique among the many test flights taking place during the period. I took the statement out, if someone can find a source then they of course are free to put it back in. Galaxydog2000 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found a source.Galaxydog2000 08:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)