Concorde: The Comeback
Discussion
There was a program on History (I think) that stated a large proportion of the regular flyers were killed in 9/11 as well.
I don't know the truth, but it looked like a perfect storm had been allowed to brew to justify the decision.
BTW, is there a current design authority for the few Sopwith Camels that are still flying, or are they using safety procedures appropriate to the risk?
I don't know the truth, but it looked like a perfect storm had been allowed to brew to justify the decision.
BTW, is there a current design authority for the few Sopwith Camels that are still flying, or are they using safety procedures appropriate to the risk?
As far as I know, there is only one genuine Sopwith Camel flying in the world (at Old Rheinbeck, New York State).
There are different regulatory rules for different kinds of aircraft and there are different regulatory rules in different parts of the world.
There are also different rules regarding operating historic aircraft under civil registrations compared to those flying under the auspices of a military regulatory body.
The technology of a (genuine) Sopwith Camel is pretty simple and basic - although aircraft such as this do have their problems peculiar to such old designs.
Concorde was an extremely complex aircraft - more akin to a Space Shuttle on some ways compared to a "normal" airliner. It's technolgy was pretty unique to it and there was very little crossover between it and subsonic airliners. Without the technical and legal support of its manufacturer there was never going to be any chance of keeping one flying.
There are different regulatory rules for different kinds of aircraft and there are different regulatory rules in different parts of the world.
There are also different rules regarding operating historic aircraft under civil registrations compared to those flying under the auspices of a military regulatory body.
The technology of a (genuine) Sopwith Camel is pretty simple and basic - although aircraft such as this do have their problems peculiar to such old designs.
Concorde was an extremely complex aircraft - more akin to a Space Shuttle on some ways compared to a "normal" airliner. It's technolgy was pretty unique to it and there was very little crossover between it and subsonic airliners. Without the technical and legal support of its manufacturer there was never going to be any chance of keeping one flying.
pingu393 said:
BTW, is there a current design authority for the few Sopwith Camels that are still flying, or are they using safety procedures appropriate to the risk?
I suspect if there is one, it'll be BAE SYSTEMS (as Sopwith became part of H G Hawker engineering upon liquidation, which subsequently became part of the Hawker aircraft company etc). http://production.investis.com/heritage/nonflash/l...Eric Mc said:
As far as I know, there is only one genuine Sopwith Camel flying in the world (at Old Rheinbeck, New York State).
That Camel is a reproduction: http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/index.php?option=com_k...Why do people go on so much about how great our technology WAS? Bluebird K7, Concorde, Vulcan to name but 3 that crop up on here. All great machines, but ancient history.
By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
Petrolhead_Rich said:
BA/AF didn't have cash to keep it going, with the global downturn demand was low, more so after the crash as people saw it as unsafe (compared to other jumbo's it's alot bloody safer!!)
How do you conclude that it's a lot safer? (ignoring the fact that it's not a Jumbo, as pointed out by others)Mave said:
Petrolhead_Rich said:
BA/AF didn't have cash to keep it going, with the global downturn demand was low, more so after the crash as people saw it as unsafe (compared to other jumbo's it's alot bloody safer!!)
How do you conclude that it's a lot safer? (ignoring the fact that it's not a Jumbo, as pointed out by others)
onyx39 said:
Mave said:
Petrolhead_Rich said:
BA/AF didn't have cash to keep it going, with the global downturn demand was low, more so after the crash as people saw it as unsafe (compared to other jumbo's it's alot bloody safer!!)
How do you conclude that it's a lot safer? (ignoring the fact that it's not a Jumbo, as pointed out by others)The total flying hours of the Concorde fleet was less that 250 thousand, compared to over 800 million for the 747. The Boeing 747 fleet has an average of one accident per 17 million hours - which makes the 747 ~60 times safer per flown mile, or ~30 times safer per mile flown.
dr_gn said:
Why do people go on so much about how great our technology WAS? Bluebird K7, Concorde, Vulcan to name but 3 that crop up on here. All great machines, but ancient history.
By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
Because, apart from the Typhoon, there isn't anything being built in the UK as cool and impressive as those machines. I wish there were, but I can't think of one.By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
Yertis said:
dr_gn said:
Why do people go on so much about how great our technology WAS? Bluebird K7, Concorde, Vulcan to name but 3 that crop up on here. All great machines, but ancient history.
By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
Because, apart from the Typhoon, there isn't anything being built in the UK as cool and impressive as those machines. I wish there were, but I can't think of one.By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
To some extent, modern combat aircarft are so complicated and sophisticated that it is almost beyond the resources of a single nation to develop these aircraft. If you are lucky, you will get one project to last 3 decades.
Only large superpowers have the ability to sustain such projects these days, and even they have problems seeing them through to a successfukl conclusion.
Only large superpowers have the ability to sustain such projects these days, and even they have problems seeing them through to a successfukl conclusion.
Yertis said:
dr_gn said:
Why do people go on so much about how great our technology WAS? Bluebird K7, Concorde, Vulcan to name but 3 that crop up on here. All great machines, but ancient history.
By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
Because, apart from the Typhoon, there isn't anything being built in the UK as cool and impressive as those machines. I wish there were, but I can't think of one.By all means acknowledge the history (and more importantly learn from it), but we should be enthusing people about developing even better things, not constantly looking to our past.
I did consider Bloodhound but it's not really a practical tool. And it's difficult to get enthused about a new accountancy mechanism, as opposed to a jet fighter. I think we're still pretty impressive when it comes to naval engineering, we still just about lead the world in tanks.
One thing that does strike me as odd is that we've focussed so much on the high tech end of things to the neglect of low-tech solutions. Pirates, for example, could be dealt with using WW2 era technology. Cutting edge ships and so on are great and all, but can't be in two places at once.
One thing that does strike me as odd is that we've focussed so much on the high tech end of things to the neglect of low-tech solutions. Pirates, for example, could be dealt with using WW2 era technology. Cutting edge ships and so on are great and all, but can't be in two places at once.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff