Concorde: The Comeback
Discussion
Yertis said:
And it's difficult to get enthused about a new accountancy mechanism, as opposed to a jet fighter.
Errr I meant that in order to fund the "cool new things" you need funding (via. the bean counters), not that people should be enthused about spreadsheets! "No bucks, no Buck Rogers", that kind of thing.
Mave said:
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.
And spot on onyx39
Petrolhead_Rich said:
Mave said:
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.
And spot on onyx39
Mave said:
How is it still safer? Whether by number of journeys or distance flown, every time you took a flight on a Concorde, you were hugely more likely to die than if you took the flight in a 747
but you are less likely to fly in Concorde/space shuttle so therefore less likely to die in a crash in one!Fat Albert said:
daz3210 said:
Didn't Branson/Virgin try to buy one at some point, for the simple purpose of keeping it flying?
Yes, we saw him having the publicity photos being taken in the one at Duxford....dirty boy said:
I have no real knowledge, but I have seen how much difficulty the Vulcan has getting enough money to stay up (rules/regs/maint etc) pretty incredible to be honest, i'm sure Concorde would be more costly.
Much - as well as impossible due to the inability to obtain a licence to operate without industry support - which is not forthcoming.Give up on the Vulcan, forget Concorde - preserving a VC-10 should be where we're at.
Maybe I'll start a "VC-10 to the air "charity type thing. Preserving a machine designed to serve the Commonwealth is more worthy than one designed to nuke Russia, IMO.
/hippy mode
Edited to add -
Seriously, nothing is more elegant than this, it makes Concorde look tacky.
Maybe I'll start a "VC-10 to the air "charity type thing. Preserving a machine designed to serve the Commonwealth is more worthy than one designed to nuke Russia, IMO.
/hippy mode
Edited to add -
Seriously, nothing is more elegant than this, it makes Concorde look tacky.
Edited by Yertis on Friday 20th April 17:32
I did hear via a BA employee (when i worked there for a short while) that BA were up for running it after AF bailed out,and the reason they did was Airbus offered a BIG sweetner to AF if they ordered some more scarebuses, but the rider was ditch Concorde, Now Airbus is based in France so you put two and two together, Although it cannot be positively proved.
Fast too, very high subsonic cruise. Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff