Concorde

[Apache]

Good prog on discovery now. The aircraft itself found to be not at fault for the Air France accident.

Personally, I think its a crying shame it was grounded. One of our greatest aviation acheivements, and stole the thunder from Uncle Sam (they were very sour about that)

So, did the USA have a hand in putting the final nails in the coffin? Was it an excuse for the airlines to scrap a lossmaker?

Either way, a beautiful aircraft, far ahead of its time, and a last reminder of what British engineering could once do.

<edit> Actually, there's an awful lot of sensationalist non-factual bullsh1t in this program too from people who obviously dont understand aviation but do have an axe to grind.

[Albannach]

The aircraft wasn't to blame for that particular incident per-se (it was debris on the runway that time), but if BAC had taken heed of the previous ruptured fuel tank isues and bladdered them, Concorde would still be flying today.

Not sure if it'll say on the prog you're watching will say (I only have council telly, so can't watch it), but Concordes ruptured tanks on take-off several times before the one that crashed, the only difference this time was that the fuel ignited.

Still a crying shame it was grounded. And I still can't believe how small it was!

[jeff.fn02jwa]

The aircraft wasn't to blame for that particular incident per-se (it was debris on the runway that time), but if BAC had taken heed of the previous ruptured fuel tank isues and bladdered them, Concorde would still be flying today.

Not sure if it'll say on the prog you're watching will say (I only have council telly, so can't watch it), but Concordes ruptured tanks on take-off several times before the one that crashed, the only difference this time was that the fuel ignited.

Still a crying shame it was grounded. And I still can't believe how small it was!

what put the the dan thing on the ground was the cost of reinforcing the full tanks if i remember right and the rest of the worlds airports would not let it fly in there air space till the air frame was sorted and that was to much cash for air France & BA TO FOOT THE BILL ASS HOLES IF YOU ASK ME

[Apache]

The repair bill was remarkably low considering the value of the aircraft fleet actually.

There was a lot of talk of the debris on the runway being used as an excuse to cover up an Air France maintenance error. (They neglected to replace a spacer which would stop the main gear wheels toeing out and scrubbing) They found evidence of this one one of the main landing gear, and they recon the scrubbing could have led to enough heat to cause the tyres to delaminate and come apart. There was a good deal of evidence to say the tyre had come apart before it hit the debris. (The swing to the left on the runway, evidenced by tyre marks)

Whatever happened, aircraft crash, and it was Concordes only fatality. A real shame. It led the way, and as so many times before showed Britain as a real player in engineering / aviation like, oh, for instance TSR2, Miles M.52, HAWKER SIDDELEY(no, not McDonnel Douglas - the yanks DIDN'T invent it) Harrier, Bristol 188 (a supersonic bomber made from stainless steel!) and so many more.

The yanks even nicked the design of the Miles M.52 and called it the X-1 for their supersonic attempts. Fact is the M.52 was a turbine powered aircraft, and it was predicted it wouldn't need rocket assistance (as did the X1) to reach mach. However, our govt would not support Miles, and gave Miles data to Bell. The rest, as they say, is history.

We have always had inept govts, I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore

<edit> Yes, I'm a long time aircraft anorak

[Albannach]

All the previous fuel tank ruptures had been caused by tyre failure on take-off. I can't remember the exact numbrers, but tyre failures were in the mid twenties (single tyre failures, which aren't too critical) and tank ruptures were 7, the 8th one resulted in the crash.

[Apache]

Given that it had been flying since 1976, at least once a day, that figure is pretty low.

Take a look at the stats for crew commanded engine shutdowns on commercial flights if you want a fairly scary stat (even though, its not that scary really)

Been on one BA 747 flight when they shut down the starboard inner. No biggie. And been on one 777 flight when they couldn't actually start one! Thankfully, we were on the ground at Gatwick at the time.

[Albannach]

I agree, the figure is impresively low. But I still can't shake the fact that if they'd acted on the root cause of the tank ruptures, or mitigated against them, the plane wouldn't have come down.

[Apache]

If it hadn't come down, do you think it would still be operating, perhaps in the Virgin atlantic paint scheme? Would have loved a go...

Incidentally, there was some numpty journo on the prog last night who was trying to land some blame on the crew. He reckoned if they'd done things differently (ie, not shutdown engine 2), they could have landed safely.

Given that they were at least five minutes from a runway (Concorde isn't an F-16) they probably would have lost vital systems well before then.

Its very sad, but at the end of the day, the crew followed the procedures which would give them the best chance, but ran out of time and ideas.

[Sancho]

Not sure I would classify the failure rate as impressively low. If it flew once a day for 25 years, that's a 1 in 9,125 chance of it blowing up. Imagine the outrage if one in every 9,000 737 flights blew up.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it was still around and was very disappointed by its demise, but it was quite a risky business getting on that thing - not that it would have put me off.

[Sancho]

Just to put that into context, a 737 takes off every five seconds on average. That's 17,000 flights a day so if they were as safe as Concorde, two a day would explode.

But....737s aren't supersonic, cutting edge technology, wonders of modern science etc etc. As I said, if I could, I would have gone on Concorde myself.

[bu5hwack3r]

I am totally, 100 % scared sh1tless of flying, and having read through these posts, would rather have drunk my own ur1ne than got on Concorde.

I do appreciate it as a marvellous piece of engineering though, and wish I wasn't such a fairy and could enjoy flying, but can't see that anytime soon

[Apache]

When I first flew (a DeHavilland Devon - small 1930s design!) I didn't have a care about flying. However, the same aircraft bringing me back from Benbecula during a severe storm with an ex Luftwaffe Starfighter pilot at the controls put me off for a while!

Since then, I've flown in allsorts from a microlight, via military jets like Hawk, transports like C-130 and various helicopters to around 50 or so transatlantic flights. I love the mechanics and romance of flight, however, I hate long haul cos you get off the other end with 10lbs of dried snot blocking your nose, usually in a different timezone, and stinkingly in need of a shower.

Death is waiting for all of us. I'd rather have done these things. My missus asked me if I'd go on the Space Shuttle, given the recent dodgy safety record. For a chance to see the earth from space, I'd go right now if I could!

[coolsv650]

If it hadn't come down, do you think it would still be operating, perhaps in the Virgin atlantic paint scheme? Would have loved a go...

Incidentally, there was some numpty journo on the prog last night who was trying to land some blame on the crew. He reckoned if they'd done things differently (ie, not shutdown engine 2), they could have landed safely.

Given that they were at least five minutes from a runway (Concorde isn't an F-16) they probably would have lost vital systems well before then.

Its very sad, but at the end of the day, the crew followed the procedures which would give them the best chance, but ran out of time and ideas.

Wasn't engine 2 strangled by all the excess fuel gushing in from the tank rupture? Surely it would have flamed out anyway.

Its a shame concord was grounded, but who's betting the environmental nazi's would have had it banned now anyway!

[bu5hwack3r]

I agree with you totally, and am gutted I am missing out on all the things that flying can give you. I used to fly a lot, spent some time in the Army, and then abroad a lot when younger, and didn't give it a thought, although in fairness alcohol had a lot to do with that (not in the Army obviously, that was just bravado)
For me its the feeling of not being in control, and in the (unlikely, I know) event that something seriously untoward happens, you are pretty much screwed. Its not like you can get off. Never did see the point of putting the woefully inadequate seatbelt on, but they seem to put a lot of importance on these, with the lights and demos and such like, never quite worked that out. But, at least when I'm hurtling towards earth at 400mph in a metal can full of high octane fuel, I'll have the whistle and torch to keep me safe, I draw some comfort from that.
Oh and the lifejacket, so when archaeologists dig me up in 300 years time, they'll learn what safety aides were in use at the time.

Now if they gave parachutes to all passengers......

[Apache]

Yeah, the lifejacket has a lot of parallels with chocolate teapots. Very unlikely that a modern airliner could make a safe touchdown on water. Anyway, imagine being 2000 miles away from land in a freezing cold sea with only a light, a whistle, and a bunch of gay blokes trying to sell you duty free?

Think I prefer the skewering into the ocean vertically at 600mph with my hair on fire!