Talk:Concorde/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tech features common today???

message: 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)
thread_title: I am writing a paper...

message: 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)
thread_title: Perceived environmental issues

message: Morven's "21:35, 6 Nov 2003" apepars to have revereted many previous edits...
*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)
thread_title: Reverts

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Costs of Concorde

message: # mav (it is needless jargon and captions should be simple and to the point)
# Adrian Pingstone  Needless information since all aircraft land with their undercarriages down. Also makes the caption look amateur.
# Morven Unnecessary to mention it, makes the caption too long.
# 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.
#  MorioriThis doesn't only make the caption look amateur, it makes Wikipedia look amateur. What a shame.
#  Antonio Body Seller Martin Like, show me another argument similar to this one. Basic and simple: no.
# 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.
# --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.
# Trekphiler 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Oshkosh Airshow]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Congress ban

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cruising speed? 

message: :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)
thread_title:  E is for Excellence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Technological aspic

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

message: This article has far too many external links, bearing in mind the WP:EL guide, Wikipedia is not a web directory and When should I link externally can people state the ones they want to keep, and why? Thanks/wangi 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sydney to LAX United 841-2, depending on the DST setting Qleem 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A bold claim!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: Can anyone substantiate this? Guinnog 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 13 miles to the gallon?

message: Good shout, SuperJumbo! Guinnog 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colour me pedantic! --Jumbo 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive vs large

message: '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)
replies: text: Arrugh! This makes my head spin. I think we need a source on it. --Jumbo 22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And here's a source. This explains it so that I can understand, and it makes sense. --Jumbo 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Any left flyable?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BA Concordes have wings cut off and welded back on? 

message: Comments are invited on the following proposed reduction in the 
changes by 71.96.16.237:
# 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.
# 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?
# 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).
Abut 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Braniff trivia

message: 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)
thread_title: First BA flight after termination of service

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