Concorde looks cool, and that is enough for me. Actually it looks better than that. But lets get past all this dewy-eyed technological stuff: why is it engineers get so sentimental? I thought that was for arty liberal types like me. Anyway, Concorde, despite still looking great, is outdated: your average Airbus or Boeing whathaveyou is far more technologically advanced. It doesn't take an engineering genius (these days) to stick huge engines on the back of a pencil-thin fuselage and guess it will go very fast: there's just as much elegance in carrying a lot of people quite fast.
The only reason it survived in the first place is because we subsidised it to the tune of billions. And Concorde concentrated the efforts of the British aerospace industry in a direction that was a commercial dead end, just as the old British 'walnut dash and leather' image helped finish the car industry: it is a glorious, fantastic-looking British engineering failure. I'll be sorry not to see it in the sky again, but it's time to move on to better things (such as more legroom).
|
|
Did some engineering training on it in a previous work life. Its noisy, cramped, dirty, thirsty and uneconomic. It has always been a near disaster waiting to happen, regularly breaking things, bits falling off, unreliable. And having lived under its flight path for most of its life I for one will shed a genuine and real tear. It is simply the most stunningly beautiful creation of man, standing still or moving, And if you are lucky enough to be near it as it takes off, it really does raise the hair on the back of your neck. I shall look up at 8:30 in the evening and miss her. I hope to god they keep one flying.
|
|
|
'Concorde looks cool, and that is enough for me. Actually it looks better than that. But lets get past all this dewy-eyed technological stuff: why is it engineers get so sentimental? I thought that was for arty liberal types like me.'
Because all great engineering is truly art.
Commercial failure, almost certainly; engineering failure, certainly not. Regardless of all the argument about cost, ecological impact, etc., I think the world would have been the poorer if it hadn't been built and will be the poorer now it is no longer to fly.
Sometimes mankind has to do things like go to the Moon or climb Everest, just because we can.
Concorde came to the first few Southend Airshows, people still talk about it flying along the seafront. The majority of the public only talk about five 'acts' that have graced the airshow over the years; the Red Arrows, the Vulcan, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, the Harrier and Concorde.
Cockle
|
|
AH the Vulcan. Same engines as conny but without any silencers..........................now THATS loud.
|
AH the Vulcan. Same engines as conny but without any silencers..........................now THATS loud.
Certainly is.
We have one that lives at Southend Airport, not in flying nick, but fit enough to do the odd medium speed run down the runway once a year. It does rattle the trees a bit...
Cockle
|
Slightly off thread I know but, I used to live adjacent to R.A.F. Leconfields flight path as a child. We used to get everything in, Lightnings , Phantoms, Victors , Ansons etc etc, but I always remember once when a Vulcan presumably put the after-burners on when taking off, and it is no exageration to say that the windows in the house RATTLED. Awesome.
Reggie
|
|
|
|
Pedantic, I know, but the Vulcan had four Avons and Concorde four Olympuses. I only remember because they stuck one Olympus onto a Vulcan for test/show purposes, and so they could switch from four to one...
Also depressing to recall the Miles M52, whose secrets were given away to the Yanks and then cancelled, enabling them to reach Mach 1 first (programme on C4 tonight). No-one seems to know why HMG cancelled it, but the designer and test pilot are still alive and were clearly a bit miffed.
Sorry, can't think of a motoring link offhand.
-------------------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
Its ok me old mate except
quote
"Despite the appearance of having only 2 air intakes, a total of four powerplants are used on the Vulcan. In the B 2 variant, these are Bristol Siddeley Olympus Series 301 engines which are rated at 20,000 pounds of thrust each. Alternatively, the Vulcan can also be powered by four of the less powerful, 17,000 pound thrust, Series 201 turbojets"
|
You had me worried, there, RF!
We're both right, it seems: "4 RR Avon, later Conway, then Olympus"
All right Mark, I'm going...
-------------------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
|
|
|
|
Because all great engineering is truly art.
Right on, Cockle.
You can keep you henry Moores and Anthony Gormleys for form without function is a waste of space and raw materials.
If you can get something to do its job well and look good, that has the makings of a masterpiece.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
I am lucky(!) enough to live adjacent to the flightpath at Manchester Airport and will be sat with dv camera on the garage roof on Wednesday.
Two memories of Concorde stick out.
Sat at traffic lights on Finney Lane, directly under the flightpath, I hear a noise that makes me feel that a plane is about to land on my car. When I pluck up the courage to look out the window I see Concorde on a fast, low trajectory, afterburners shedding a blue flame. Wow!
Once up a ladder cleaning the windows, the distant rumble of a plane approaching reaches my ears. I know it is Concorde before I turn to look. As I do, the pilot suddenly throttles the engines and a tremendous roar sets off all the car and house alarms in Heald Green, as the pilot aborts the landing. The sight of Concorde rising and banking sharply to the left is an image that will never leave me. It was simply an awesome sight.
It will be a shame to see it go, whenever it came in to Manchester, you instantly knew it was coming before you saw it because of the engine note. It was noisy but there have been others that have created as much racket without an ounce of the charm and magnetism that Concorde displayed.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your entire post Cockle. But Concorde isn't going away and isn't going to be less of an engineering achievement, it's just not going to be a commercial airliner any more, if it ever was. It's from another time. And that is the essential difference between engineering and other arts: good engineering is always also commercial and has a practical job to do, however good it looks. It is therefore always tied to its time while the other arts are not. Not that that makes engineering less, just different. In fact on the contrary the modernity of Concorde and the finite lifespan that implies is, I think, part of what makes it so amazing: why do something like that when it won't last forever?
|
Concorde was a milestone in aviation history and will never be forgotten. In the sixties it was an engineering marvel and I don't care how much it cost me in taxes. I was proud to come from a country which could make such a plane and that feeling never went away in forty years.
It is iconic and simply beautiful. 'A thing of beauty is a joy for ever.'
Lots of memories of the great bird but two in particular.
One, the replay at Wembley and Ricky Villa about to score an amazing individual goal for Spurs. Concorde flies overhead and drops its nose ready for landing. Eyes fixed on this awesome sight and completely missed the goal.
Early summer morning helming a Moody down the french coast. Everyone down below and enjoying the tranquility when 'boom.' I nearly fell overboard. Concorde going supersonic. No wonder they didn't want it doing that over land.
|
When I was a lad my junior school was near the flight take off path just behind Filton airport in Bristol. On the first take off day of 002 (April 9 1969) we all went to the top of the hill behind the school and watched. It was a sight I will never forget.
My uncle worked on the development of Concorde and flew to Casablanca hundreds of times during testing. I remember him telling me it took him longer to drive the couple of miles to RAF Fairford than it took to fly to the tip of Ireland. You have to bear in mind that I thought Ireland was on the other side of the World at the time.
My uncle gave me dozens of models and photographs of the plane when I was young but unfortunately they have all got lost over the years.
|
Everyone has a Concorde memory it seems. Of course it is the airplane as art -- who's going to get all excited at a 747-400, unless it's Air Force One.
My Concorde memeories date to the 1970's. My office in Bahrain had a view of Muharraq Airport's main runway. BA and SQ used to code-share, so the Concorde's livery on the port side when the airplane was eastbound was British Airways', and on the starboard westbound to London it was Singapore Airlines'.
No Hollywood special effects guru could reproduce the sight and sound of that bird with its shimmering image distorted by 43 C air temperatures, lifting off and peeling away down the Gulf. As so many have said, the windows rattled and no matter what you were doing, nor how many times you'd seen it, you still stopped whatever it was you were doing for a look.
The Shah of Iran was at that time developing Kishm Island in the Gulf as an exotic holiday playground for the rich and famous, and it was to have been served by Concorde in IranAir livery, but unfortunately the mad mullahs put paid to that in 1979.
|
|
|
|
|
.....but it's time to move on to better things (such as more legroom).
Wrong unforch, almost all airlines are reducing seat pitch and width in order to pack more bodies in in ever more miserable conditions. Business class spacewise is now what economy was 20 years ago, and recent trips I've made on 777 widebodies have been in such cramped conditions in a completely full coach sections that it is clear airlines are stretching passenger safety to the limits and have long gone past caring about comfort, only the bottom line. I used to average 100-120 medium and long-haul sectors annually on business, I'm glad now I only have to 8 or 10.
|
I have some sympathy with this thread, but it isn't motoring.
So if you don't continue it, then I won't moan about it.
|
Well before you close the thread, can I just say that I was lucky enough to go on a 1hr 40 min pleasure trip out over the Bay of Biscay, on March 1st this year to celebrate my 30th birthday. I have to say that when the reheat was applied to push through Mach 1 the acceleration was very noticeable. The service was fine, but as someone who flew in loads of military aircraft with the Air Cadets, I did't find it that exciting. I will be at Manchester Airport tomorrow though.
Thought the Orient Express was much better!
In any case, if you want to post further then get over to www.concordesst.com.
|
One last memory, my Uncle worked on the Olympus engines at Filton in the 60s and 70s, got me a ticket to a staff open day when I was 5 or 6 not long after the first test flights of 002 at Filton. We got the usual exhibits of partially assembled engines (Spey, Avon, Olympus, Pegasus) then a spectacular air display followed by an unannounced flyby of 002 doing a land and take off sequence with parachute deployment. I will never forget the sight. One of my major regrets is not being able to afford to go on at least one trip on board. (While I get to fly around the world with my job, astronomers usually get to fly cattle class at the cheapest possible fares!)
regards
Ian L
|
|
|
|
>Wrong unforch, almost all airlines are reducing seat pitch and width
You fly Emirates or BA, I think. I wrote a piece on this a while back and IIRC they are the only two that have ten seats across in a 777. I've found American best in coach and choose them for USA flights as a result. Still no better than my old Metro, though and there weren't any occasions when I sat in that for eight hours straight. BA World business class among others buys you a full-size bed--but you knew that, I guess.
|
|
|
|
How little you know about engineering. The technological problems involved in making Concorde a functional success if not a commercial one were awesome. You might stick four big engines on the back of a pencil thin fuselage and end up with the same degree of success that the Russians did!!(Go on let me guess,I suppose you're an accountant).
Branson has in fact lined up a lot of technical support and could quite probably operate successfully for say five years. the real reason BA won't sell is because of the 'halo' effect that Concorde brought them.
|
|
|
|
|
