Talk:Concorde

message: Should add that Concorde flew faster than the earth spins and would catch-up with the sunset, so passengers could see the sun rise in the West [
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/concorde-contemplatio Fig (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunrise in the West 

message: Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections  Jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your sources? BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

text: How?  There are only 2 prototypes built and they are on display now.-Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion was in the design stage, it was mentioned in a recent documentary on British TV. Needs a proper source for addition here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

text: * OK, but that's a derivative design, not a simple conversion as implied. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

text: *:Adapting might be a better word than converting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  XB70 converted for commercial use (?) 

message: Although this claim added in 2009 seems to be as stated in Jane's (https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140324/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml), and appears elsewhere on the Internet, it is not consistent with the hours planes flew in the article (a total to retirement in 2003 of under 244,000 hours). 
Nor does it make sense with an airframe design life of 45,000 flying hours (even if all 20 planes built did this number of hours it would not get to the total - and 5 did less than 1,000 flying hours). 
(I wonder if Jane's actually intended to refer to engine hours rather than plane hours.) 
Also is there an estimate anywhere of total supersonic hours flown in the western world, as that bit could be true? Robertm25 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  920,000 flying hours, over 600,000 supersonic, by March 1999? 

message: I tried today to add this template, but ended up just messing up the See also area and I gave up, but I would love to have this in the article. I'm thinking Boeing 2707, Tu-144, and the Lockheed L-2000 to be added.  Forevernewyes (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice there is just the Tupelov, the others never left the drawing board. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive seen many real planes have the "See also" section have drawing board planes, also both had mockups made of them, so i see that as pretty reasonable to add. Just a thought A-37Dragonfly (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be mentioned that the B-2707 had been developed for several years, and had a mockup built like the L-2000. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that in any way relevant to this article? Congress pulled the plug before a prototype was even assembled, much less flew. We don’t need to lard up every article with trivia. 1995hoo (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era?