A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Concorde - join the campaign



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 10th 06, 01:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
John A. Weeks III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Concorde - join the campaign

In article [email protected],
Clive wrote:

Concorde had been the safest working passenger airliner in the world
according to passenger deaths per distance travelled, although the Boeing
737 fleet acquires more passenger miles and service hours in one week than
the Concorde fleet acquired in the course of its entire service career.
The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career.

Good enough?


No. The safety record that the Concorde had was a quirk of statistics.
The Concorde had low flight hours and zero fatal accidents. That made
the safety number look good. Once it had its first fatal accident,
the Concorde dropped to the bottom of the list, and became the least
safe working passenger airliner in the world. With one fatal accident
and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like
models of safety.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================
Ads
  #22  
Old July 10th 06, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Keith W[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Concorde - join the campaign


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:27:11 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
wrote:


With one fatal accident
and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like
models of safety.

And the cause of the crash was due to an object being thrown up from
the runway and piercing a fuel tank in the wing ,now has most aircraft
have tanks located in their wings are not all the jets that are about
to take off at this very moment not susceptible to this problem .


The cause of the crash was NOT the puncture of the wing tank
but was the ignition of the leaking fuel by the afterburning jet engine
behind it.

Since most aircraft do NOT have such afterburning engines aft of
them this would not be problem. There have been major fuel leaks on
other aircraft without such fires.

Of course your favourite aircraft, the BAC One-11 DID have low
bypass rear mounted engines and so was rather more susceptible
to such problems.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #23  
Old July 10th 06, 02:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Keith W[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Concorde - join the campaign


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright
wrote:


Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
keeping it running were rising year after year.

Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
drawing board .


Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #25  
Old July 10th 06, 03:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Flying Rat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Concorde - join the campaign

In article om, FatKat
says...

wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 14:18:55 -0700, "FatKat" wrote:

I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in
the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why
should things be any different for the 747?


Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
firmly on the ground from now on .


Are there still -200's & 100's in service? It's probably because I'm
in the NYC but the only 747's I see these days are the -400's, with
maybe a few of the older planes flying irregularly for cargo outfits.
I suppose it's different in other places - I know when I go to Miami,
there's always a smattering of cargo and charter outfits flying older
planes. For a dedicated plane watcher, MIA is a cool place to check up
on old types - it's like an airline dumoing ground. (I know I saw an
Eastern jet hanging around there for a few years after they went out of
business.)


there are a few -200 series 747s still flying passengers. There are also
a good few -300 series which look like the newer versions but are more
similar to the early models under the skin.

There are a couple of -100 passenger aircraft still about, although with
airlines in places like the Gulf. Many of the -200 versions still in
service are of the Combi layout with a side cargo door which makes them
more desirable to operators.

Northwest was the last main US operator with any kind of regular B742
passenger flying, although they may have parked their aircraft up by
now.
  #26  
Old July 10th 06, 04:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Keith W[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Concorde - join the campaign


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:34 +0100, "Keith W"
wrote:


Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

Concorde was obsolete before it was built due to its very high
operating cost and small passenger capacity plus the passenger market
that it was aimed at plus of course the excessive noise it made I saw
and heard it once over here on one of its test flights before going
into service .


Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should
acquire a dictionary.


Why do you think only a few ever went into service at
great expense to the British and French tax payers just has the
channel tunnel is/was in fact but at least ordinary people can afford
to travel via the tunnel, I have been through it four times in either
direction in the last year in fact .



In fact the Channel Tunnel cost the British taxpayer nothing.
The private investors who put up the money lost a bloody fortune
however.

By your definition this makes it obsolete !

Taxpayer money has however been spent on the high speed rail
link between London and the tunnel portal.


29.00 London to any station in Belgium is a good deal I think and much
cheaper than going by any airline and less messing around at the other
end even though the journey will take me 11 hours from here to where I
go in Belgium and the same returning the next day .


The minimum return fare from London to Belgium is 59 and that is only
available
with a 21 day advanced purchase. I frequently use Eurostar between London
and Paris but usually end up paying around 150 for a semi-flexible
ticket


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #27  
Old July 10th 06, 09:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Mike Lindsay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Concorde - join the campaign

In article , Keith W [email protected]
willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk writes

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright
wrote:


Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
keeping it running were rising year after year.

Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
drawing board .


Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !


Keith


But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart.
--
Mike Lindsay
  #28  
Old July 10th 06, 10:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Sylvain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 400
Default Concorde - join the campaign

Keith W wrote:


Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.


no quite: we should never make anything which is already obsolete
on the drawing board (e.g., A380, Concorde, etc.) just for
the sake of prestige -- but then, it's tax payer money, why
bother asking such questions?

--Sylvain
  #29  
Old July 10th 06, 10:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
Sylvain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 400
Default Concorde - join the campaign

Keith W wrote:

Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should
acquire a dictionary.


don't be pedantic; it was obsolte as a blue print -- and
so is the A380 -- because it was trying to solve a problem
that was no longer relevant or never existed, other than
in the imagination of the decision makers: fly faster across the
Atlantic (considering the severly limited range of the Concorde,
and the fact that nobody wanted the dang thing to overfly them
at supersonic speed, it couldn't really be used for anything
else), who cares? when most of the time spent travelling is
spent waiting in line at the large hub airport (and traveling
to and from said large hub airport), or in the case
of the A380 competing with the boeing 747 thirty years to
late, and when it has been clear for quite a while now that
the big-hub-to-big-hub model of air transport no longer
make sense.

that said, if the private sector wants to sink money into
projects like that, I am all for it; hey, let's try to
raise some money to build the largest pyramid too while we
are at it.

--Sylvain
  #30  
Old July 10th 06, 10:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc,uk.rec.aviation,uk.transport.air,rec.aviation.products
FatKat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Concorde - join the campaign


Mike Lindsay wrote:
In article , Keith W [email protected]
willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk writes

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright
wrote:


Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before
the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had
gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so
many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of
keeping it running were rising year after year.
Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the
drawing board .


Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete.

Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh !


Keith


But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart.


I'll reserve my judgement when I get the fuel and maintenance bills for
each, and try to keep an open mind until somebody's horse & buggy goes
down in flames over some French village.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Concorde - join the campaign Clive General Aviation 30 July 23rd 06 12:15 AM
Concorde - join the campaign LWG Naval Aviation 0 June 9th 06 09:06 PM
Concorde - join the campaign Derek Copeland Soaring 0 June 6th 06 05:59 PM
Concorde - join the campaign Jim Carter Owning 0 June 6th 06 03:28 AM
Concorde - join the campaign Jim Naval Aviation 2 June 3rd 06 10:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.