[Closed] Anyone flown on Concorde?

Would business travellers still have been flying on Concorde had BA and Air France had to pay the actual price of the aircraft in the first place and charge people the actual cost of the flight rather than run it at a loss?

Branson thought the market would bear it. BA and AF refused to sell the fleet to them.

The 747 and aircraft like it has allowed the cost of air travel to fall. This has allowed more people to enjoy it's benefits and on that basis it has had more on an impact that Concorde.

It's still driven by economics, rather than technological or engineering progress. It's taken >24 hours to get from the UK to Oz for the best part of half a century now. That it's not reduced in time over those 50 years is about as much evidence as you'll ever need that progress has not been made.

If you're measuring progress by the cost reductions in flight, then surely this bloke is the pinnacle: 😯

[img] [/img]

Yeah, no doubt it is very useful indeed that people can fly en mass across the Atlantic in comfort at a reasonable price. But it's not thrilling or exciting or cool. It's just stuff.
It's like art. Technically a beautiful picture has very little intrinsic value, probably less than say, a room that's been painted. The painted room is far more useful and practical but it doesn't stir the soul. It doesn't make you feel alive or human. Obviously if you're not getting this then it's pointless me trying to explain it.

My wife has four times, each time was an business class upgrade, she was flying business a lot. Got a fair bit of Concorde memorabilia somewhere.

[i]The main reason (at the time) that Concorde services were restricted to a handful of destinations was that the yanks were pissy that their boeing copy was clearly never going to work[/i]

No, the main reason was the sonic boom tests that the US mil/FAA had done over Oklahoma in the 60's. It wasn't conducted that well, and while most people thought they could live with sonic booms, a sizeable minority complained. Bear in mind that the US (and maybe Concorde) would be overflying mainland US on scheduled services and believed the way forward in passenger flight was SST,it was important to know the public perception of regular sonic booms. And while mostly the public said OK, large enough numbers said uh-uh, no chance, and this being the US, that was the end of SST flight. The French and British pushed on regardless, and then were "surprised" when the US wouldn't allow FTS flights over US mainland 🙄

technologic marvel, without a doubt. It was also a nightmare to work on, it was massively expensive and complex to operate, with a dwindling supply of spares that meant that at some point it would have all had to come to and end.

samuri - Member

But it's not thrilling or exciting or cool.

It is. Well, it was. But by our prowess we've made the exciting commonplace. Paradox of progress, we think it's impressive to fly someone round the world in a metal tube once but unimpressive to fly a million people around the world every day.

If you only valued something because it was scarce, it was never really that good- it's the rarity you're valuing not the thing itself.

If you only valued something because it was scarce, it was never really that good- it's the rarity you're valuing not the thing itself.

Cobblers

The value is the sex of the thing, not the scarecity. Not only does it look, sound and feel awesome but it was pushing the boundaries, setting the limit of human capability. 'look at us, we're ace!' Now we've done that, as you say, it's been downgraded into commonplace (transporting millions huge distances) but we're not doing it at Mach 2 or with a moving nose cone. No-one is banning our planes from their airspace because they smash windows and that's almost a sad thing.

I'll stop now though because I'm aware I'm starting to sound a bit Clarkson. 😉

That it's not reduced in time over those 50 years is about as much evidence as you'll ever need that progress has not been made.

No, it's evidence that it still takes 24 hours. If you think that progress hasn't been made then you have an exceptionally narrow set of parameters.

zokes - Member

Cobblers

If we had a thousand concordes doing run of the mill flights, it'd lose the exclusivity/novelty people are mourning. And for that matter if we had one 747 those same people would relish flying by 747.

See also: A380.

This reminds me of spending summers in South Devon as a child and regularly hearing the sonic boom just after about 8pm I seem to remember as it went through the sound barrier somewhere off southern Ireland.

Also miss seeing and hearing it every day as it crossed over South Oxfordshire on it's way out at about 11:05 in the morning and 19:05 in the evening.

It still takes 24 hours to fly to Australia but in real terms it's far cheaper than it used to be. My mum's brother emigrated to Aus in the 50s, she thought she'd never see him again. Now, even as retired teachers they can afford to go. They've seen sunrise at Uluru, tropical jungles, deserts, oriental cities, wonders of the world. I've cycled on great mountains, crossed continents, swam in distant oceans, lived in different cultures and even met my wife all thanks to affordable air travel. A generation or two ago this would have impossible with my means.

So tell me again I have no soul, go on. I think that giving these opportunities to the common person is far more valuable than letting a few rich businessmen get to New York for their meeting a bit faster.

Technologically, Concorde was great, but ultimately of little benefit. It looked lovely and impressed schoolboys with speed, but large scale air transport is equally impressive as an achievement. When you fly on a jumbo you are benefitting from a vast engineering and logistical effort that allows you to do the incredible, and not risk your life doing it.

You need yo learn to appreciate the world in which you live, even if it doesn't win anything in Top Trumps.

It may take 24 hours to get to Aus, but so what? What diference would it make if it took 12? What's really cool is that the cost is slashed, not the time. I would far rather be able to travel to the US in 8 hours once a year than 3 hours once a lifetime. I want to travel, to see and do stuff. Concorde did not help me do that.

When you fly on a jumbo you are benefitting from a vast engineering and logistical effort that allows you to do the incredible, and not risk your life doing it.

Well, not really, it just slightly modified the existing guide book on how to design an aircraft.

Concorde wrote a different book.

If we had a thousand concordes doing run of the mill flights, it'd lose the exclusivity/novelty people are mourning.

Yep, but instead of tedious 787s bursting into flames, we'd have been developing technology to attempt to fly at mach 2+ whilst sipping frugally at fuel. We'd also get places one heck of a lot quicker, which is (ocean liners excepted) sort of the reason for transport: to make the bit between leaving where you were and getting to where you're going as quick as possible.

Sure jumbos made it quicker than going by boat, but there has been no progress beyond that leap. Getting there in 3 hours rather than 6 was progress. That it now takes 6 hours again is regress.

See also: A380.

Great, a slightly bigger bus.

It may take 24 hours to get to Aus, but so what? What diference would it make if it took 12?

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

Concorde was run at a loss for many years then BA took on a guy to try and sort it out. He spoke to many of the passengers who were business people and whose tickets were booked by their PA/secretary. Almost without exception the passengers though their tickets cost twice as much as they had actually paid so BA doubled the price of the tickets and started making money.
9/11 was the nail in the coffin though as several hundred of Concorde's most frequent flyers were killed.

In New York I saw a Blackbird and Concorde.
The Blackbird was all lumps and bumps underneath. Concorde however was all sleak and lovely.
You just couldn't help watching Concorde even though you saw it every day. I miss it.
Bloody yanks.

Yep, but instead of tedious 787s bursting into flames, we'd have been developing technology to attempt to fly at mach 2+ whilst sipping frugally at fuel

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

It would cost far more, meaning you could afford to fly there less often.

I'm with molgrips on this one; much more to do with status and international one-upmanship than actual transport. It was the equivalent of having a rich peoples lane on the motorway. I suspect that the internet and video-conferencing would have killed it off long before the environmental concerns and the flagrant waste of fuel did.

Cleared the concorde for take-off from Heathrow on the first test flight after the modifications following the crash in Paris.

Cleared G-BOAD for take-off on it's final flight to New York before it was installed on Intrepid.

Was also the last controller at Heathrow to instruct a concorde to fly a missed approach.

Sadly never flew on it 🙁

It would cost far more, meaning you could afford to fly there less often.

Actually, it's leave that I have an issue with, not money, so that time is more valuable than the dollars

Only if you're planning to reinvent the laws of physics.

Look at Concorde, then look at any other passenger jet. It near as dammit did reinvent the laws of physics. The 747 has more in common with a Lancaster Bomber by comparison.

Actually, it's leave that I have an issue with, not money, so that time is more valuable than the dollars

So we're back to a convenience for the privileged few.

Look at Concorde, then look at any other passenger jet. It near as dammit did reinvent the laws of physics. The 747 has more in common with a Lancaster Bomber by comparison.

Err no. In order to go very fast, it consumes lots of fuel, and transports very few people. The 747 is a far more useful aircraft, which is why it's still in service.

Flew on it a few times, wasn't really a very pleasant place to be compared to modern business class on A380, 787 etc. It was far too expensive to operate, would be crippling at 2013 economics and the saving of 3hrs over a conventional flight didn't offset the number of times it was delayed due to technical issues.

Err no. In order to go very fast, it consumes lots of fuel, and transports very few people. The 747 is a far more useful aircraft, which is why it's still in service.

OK. Skype consumes a lot less fuel than a 747. It's also instantaneous. Scrap the 747?

Do you [i]really[/i] need to fly anywhere any more?

It was far too expensive to operate,

That being the case, why did Branson want to buy and operate the fleet?

Also, when you look at its fuel efficiency compared to a modern aircraft its staggering. I think Concorde had an equivalent passenger fuel economy of about 15mpg versus a 747 which was about 110mpg. Modern aircraft like the A350, 787 and CSeries are about 30% more efficient than that, so you are looking at 20 times difference in fuel efficiency per passenger.

OK. Skype consumes a lot less fuel than a 747. It's also instantaneous. Scrap the 747?

Do you really need to fly anywhere any more?

Define need.

That being the case, why did Branson want to buy and operate the fleet?

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each and sell over-priced tickets to the privileged few.

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each and sell over-priced tickets to the privileged few.

He actually ended up offering £5m each to try and buy them. It was a personal thing to him and would have cost him a fortune in the long run. Just like buying so many of the those A340's have cost him big.

Because he thought he could get them for £1 each

Yeah. 🙄

BA wouldn't sell them as they'd lose face, prestige, and the service to their main rival. Canning the service and ensuring no competitor could offer it meant that at least they could try to retain their Concorde customers through First and Business on conventional services.

Define need.

Well, in the context of the direction this has gone, i.e. that concorde used too much fuel, what would you deem a worthy use of Jet A-1? Business can be conducted by Skype and email, you can see family and friends on skype, share photos and videos instantly. You don't actually need to travel anywhere much.

zokes - Member

Great, a slightly bigger bus.

As opposed to a faster bus 😕

As opposed to a faster bus

When the purpose of travelling is to get to where you're going as soon as possible after leaving where you were, a bigger bus that moves no faster than hardly represents progress. A bus that can get you there quicker is progress.

Else, why bother with a 747 at all - ships are much bigger

Do you drive at 100mph to ensure you get there quicker but having burnt a lot of fuel, or do you drive at 70mph as a trade-off between fuel efficiency and speed?

The return journey would take a whole day less, meaning I could spend an extra day with my family.

zokes - Member

When the purpose of travelling is to get to where you're going as soon as possible after leaving where you were, a bigger bus that moves no faster than hardly represents progress.

And if that was the sole measure of transport progress, you would have an excellent point. But then, if speed was all that mattered for transport, we'd still have concordes, so your argument is neatly self frustrating.

Yeah.

BA wouldn't sell them as they'd lose face, prestige, and the service to their main rival. Canning the service and ensuring no competitor could offer it meant that at least they could try to retain their Concorde customers through First and Business on conventional services.

Branson offered to buy them for £1 each. Look it up.

Your comments about brand prestige just prove the notion that Concorde is a rich person's trinket.

Well, in the context of the direction this has gone, i.e. that concorde used too much fuel, what would you deem a worthy use of Jet A-1? Business can be conducted by Skype and email, you can see family and friends on skype, share photos and videos instantly. You don't actually need to travel anywhere much.

I don't recall saying people shouldn't fly - you're inventing an argument here.

If people are to fly, doing it economically makes more sense than doing it uneconomically. Something airline operators are well aware of, which is why they don't use Concorde.

Else, why bother with a 747 at all - ships are much bigger

To New York:

Concorde: 3.5 hours
747: 7 hours
Ship: 144 hours

🙄

I don't recall saying people shouldn't fly - you're inventing an argument here.

You didn't. However, one of the main arguments against Concorde is its fuel consumption vs conventional aircraft. If that's important to you, have you considered that not flying uses considerably less fuel than flying?

To New York:

Concorde: 3.5 hours
747: 7 hours
Ship: 144 hours

But the QM2 can carry 2600 passengers, surely that's more efficient? It's certainly more comfortable than a 747 even in first. And as CFH has already said, it's not really just 3.5 hours difference between the Concorde and a 747 if you have to stay an extra night either side of your meeting, it's a whole extra day in total.

Your comments about brand prestige just prove the notion that Concorde is a rich person's trinket.

I never said otherwise, and it clearly was. That the rich were willing to pay for it would normally indicate it is superior by some metric to cheaper options. A bit like cars, or mountain bikes, for that matter. Perhaps the ASDA special is a greater sign of progress than some blinged-up Santa Cruz, because more people can ride ASDA specials? Better get all the bike companies to close down their R&D departments working out the next composite masterpiece as ASDA have done them on the progress and technology front.

You didn't. However, one of the main arguments against Concorde is its fuel consumption vs conventional aircraft. If that's important to you, have you considered that not flying uses considerably less fuel than flying?

Is it? I think it's an argument that Concorde isn't quite as great as you seem to believe.

I don't fly much btw.

But the QM2 can carry 2600 passengers, surely that's more efficient? It's certainly more comfortable than a 747 even in first. And as CFH has already said, it's not really just 3.5 hours difference between the Concorde and a 747 if you have to stay an extra night either side of your meeting, it's a whole extra day in total.

I wonder how many people ever took advantage of returning from New York in the same day?

I never said otherwise, and it clearly was. That the rich were willing to pay for it would normally indicate it is superior by some metric to cheaper options.

You kept telling us that flying faster was progress, now you're changing your tune. The fact that Concorde was never more than a subsidised niche tells us it was inferior to other options by most measures.

Better get all the bike companies to close down their R&D departments working out the next composite masterpiece as ASDA have done them on the progress and technology front.

We can see many examples of trickle-down benefitting cheaper bikes because of R&D on expensive bikes. Can you say the same about Concorde? No.

[url= http://heritageconcorde.com/facts/fred-finn-most-travelled-concorde-passenger ]This guy did!![/url]

Queen Elizabeth

Cunard states that the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 travels 49.5 feet per imperial gallon of diesel oil (3.32 m/l or 41.2 ft/US gal), and that it has a passenger capacity of 1777.[41] Thus carrying 1777 passengers we can calculate an efficiency of 16.7 passenger miles per imperial gallon (16.9 l/100 p·km or 13.9 p·mpg–US).

Pretty much identical to Concorde!

Can you say the same about Concorde? No.

You'd be surprised. Fly-by-wire being the first that springs to mind, and the technology used to slow the air flow into the jet engines for more efficient operation was used in several military applications. The engines were also the first I think to be controlled by the forerunner of the modern ECU.

I don't fly much btw.

Good for you. But if in your eyes fuel consumption is one of the biggest downsides of Concorde, then surely you have to agree that not flying all all uses a damn sight less?

You kept telling us that flying faster was progress, now you're changing your tune.

Am I? Flying fast is clearly better than flying slow, unless you happen to like sitting in an aircraft for longer than necessary. That we proved flying times could be cut in at least 2, but now can't be any more is by no measure progress. We used to be good at something, now we're merely average - that's regression, not progression. The same generally applies to trains and ships too.

That we've now stopped around the 580 knot mark for air travel is like aspiring to get a grade C at school, when you could, if you put the work in, walk out with straight As. The reason the grade C is not a grade A is because C isn't the best grade you can get. Nether is sub-sonic flight on a Boeing bus.

One day, there'll probably be another Concorde. It will probably go faster, further, and more efficiently than the previous one by some margin. There is no way anyone could classify that as not being technological progress.

The fact that Concorde was never more than a subsidised niche tells us it was inferior to other options by most measures.

Funny, they made money from it. They obviously thought Branson would make money from it too, or else they'd have happily watched him fall on his arse with it.

You'd be surprised. Fly-by-wire being the first that springs to mind, and the technology used to slow the air flow into the jet engines for more efficient operation was used in several military applications. The engines were also the first I think to be controlled by the forerunner of the modern ECU.

Good for you. But if in your eyes fuel consumption is one of the biggest downsides of Concorde, then surely you have to agree that not flying all all uses a damn sight less?

Am I? Flying fast is clearly better than flying slow

That we proved flying times could be cut in at least 2, but now can't be any more is by no measure progress.

We used to be good at something, now we're merely average

Funny, they made money from it. They obviously thought Branson would make money from it too, or else they'd have happily watched him fall on his arse with it.

Err, no. BA made an operating profit for only part of its service life, because the aircraft were sold to them at a fraction of their value and the rarity of the aircraft meant they could charge high prices. Air France lost money, and the whole thing was dependent on vast public subsidy.

No doubt Branson could've made an operating profit from £1 aircraft.

[i]molgrips - Member
It still takes 24 hours to fly to Australia but in real terms it's far cheaper than it used to be. My mum's brother emigrated to Aus in the 50s, she thought she'd never see him again. Now, even as retired teachers they can afford to go. They've seen sunrise at Uluru, tropical jungles, deserts, oriental cities, wonders of the world. I've cycled on great mountains, crossed continents, swam in distant oceans, lived in different cultures and even met my wife all thanks to affordable air travel.[/i]

Ahh, but have they seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion? 🙂

Genuine OfficeLoLlage here! How to explain? 🙂

😀

Also miss seeing and hearing it every day as it crossed over South Oxfordshire on it's way out at about 11:05 in the morning

Ohhh yeah.
I used to work on the construction of the A331 on the Hants/Surrey boarder. I remember every day, everyone outside stopping and looking up as the distant rumble became that b-e-a-utifil shape in the sky, shading our eyes from the sun.
Whatever you think of it, my god that was a wonderful bit of kit..... No doubt about it.

I haven't read the whole four pages, but how can anyone British argue Concorde was anything other than a huge success? The only supersonic airliner ever in regular service, still making revenue right to the end (for BA at any rate). The retirement of the fleet was French led and very political, which is why another operator can't buy and run the aircraft, would be shameful to France.

It was a great technical achievment but it never made its money back and only a few were ever made.

Concorde vs 747

It's pretty clear that the 747 was more successful (if less impressive)

I think the offer to buy Concordes for £1 was perhaps a little disingenuous.
As I understand it, the aircraft were no longer going to be supported by the manufacturer regardless of the wishes of the operators. Parts and technical support would have been unavailable and the aircraft inoperable.

I don't think zokes understands physics or economics very well.

I think the offer to buy Concordes for £1 was perhaps a little disingenuous.

You also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place

I don't think zokes understands physics or economics very well.

Better than you understand overtaking, molly, which is ultimately a more useful subject in real life.

No doubt Branson could've made an operating profit from £1 aircraft.

He was happy to splash considerably more - I think his last offer was 5m. Not bad appreciation for something that hand only cost BA 5 quid in the first place.

As TuckerUK says, the only reason Virgin didn't get the fleet was sour grapes on the part of BA and AF.

and the rarity of the aircraft meant they could charge high prices.

There aren't many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there's no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was...

Not a bad read at the time

http://www.economist.com/node/2142593

Argh! You're all missing the point! Concorde was was COOL.

[i]You also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place[/i]

It was about £20m I think, and some profit deal as well.

[i]As TuckerUK says, the only reason Virgin didn't get the fleet was sour grapes on the part of BA and AF.[/i]

Airbus had stopped supporting the aircraft, it was all a bit of a non starter really, which Branson probably knew, but still, it made BA look like party poopers....

zokes - Member

There aren't many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there's no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was...

Mmm. Really think it's comparable? Concorde flew through the excesses of the 80s and 90s, the A380 came into service right at the start of the banking crisis... Would they still be charging the same prices in 2013? Seems incredibly unlikely, they couldn't in 2003 even before the crash.

Would they still be charging the same prices in 2013? Seems incredibly unlikely, they couldn't in 2003 even before the crash.

Funny, because after the crash when they regained airworthiness, prices rose considerably. Famously because BA rang all their executive customers and asked them how much they thought the service was worth, and they all guessed about double what their PAs had actually been paying for them all those years.

Airbus had stopped supporting the aircraft, it was all a bit of a non starter really,

Under considerable pressure from Air France. I highly doubt Airbus would turn down one of their biggest customers (Virgin), and indeed, they were in talks with Branson until BA categorically said they wouldn't sell.

When I used to fly to health row a lot on business, I remember seeing it take off whilst I was in the BA terraces lounge, the one with the floor to ceiling glass overlooking the runway. Everyone in there got up and stared out of the glass as it was something to see. The fact that most of the people in the lounge were hardened business travellers, and they stood and stared like school kids shows how special it was.

zokes - Member

Funny, because after the crash when they regained airworthiness
prices rose considerably.

Wrong crash! "2003 before the crash"- ie economy crash. Concorde stopped flying even before the bottom fell out of the economy, A380 never flew before that, so you can't compare the two. But Concorde was already falling in popularity before then.

I think you're mistaken re the price increases, that was pre-2000 (maybe someone else can put a year on it, but that move is credited with moving BA concorde operations into profit, whereas BA say it never made a profit after 2000) They were reducing flights, running price promotions and upgrading passsengers from subsonic flights for much of the last period of operation because of low passenger numbers.

Ah- idle google suggests that this:

zokes - Member

Famously because BA rang all their executive customers and asked them how much they thought the service was worth, and they all guessed about double what their PAs had actually been paying for them all those years.

occurred in the mid 80s after BA bought out the planes, rather than in the 2000s as you suggested.

I flew on Concorde in about 1994. It was a reward for selling lots of Novell software!

The flight took off from Heathrow, headed out over the Atlantic, cracked Mach 2 then slowed down and hung a left over the Bay of Biscay and returned.

The cabin had a mechanical "mach-o-meter" that was very 1960s.

Take off was awesome - like being strapped to a rocket but the rest of the flight was relatively normal. Con spidering the noise the thing made it was pretty quiet inside.

It was a pretty memorable trip but the girl I sat next to was unimpressed - she slept through most of the trip!

Con spidering

😆

Better than you understand overtaking, molly, which is ultimately a more useful subject in real life.

Well, I'd better give up now then when I'm up against formidable debating skills like that!

Anyway, of course it's true that A380 flights are cheap. That's the whole point of the 380.

Speed is les important than you seem to think. If you shave three hours off my travel time to Chicago it's still going to take me most of a day to get from door to door. Doesn't make much difference really.

Cracking thread. Thank you.

You also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place

No they didn't. They did however get them for a fraction of their true worth, representing a significant public subsidy. This proves my point that they were uneconomic.

He was happy to splash considerably more - I think his last offer was 5m. Not bad appreciation for something that hand only cost BA 5 quid in the first place.

There aren't many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there's no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was...

Number of Airbus A380s built to date: 106
Number of Concordes ever built: 20.

"Another example would be like the Concorde being retired and the fact there is no supersonic passenger transport. I think that is sad. You want the future to be better than the past, or at least I do."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23666173

You won't convince the soulless...

I did it, BA001 LHR-JFK, in about 2001.

IMO, it felt like a plane!

The windows were small, the cabin is more train sized than plane sized. The acceleration and (even more so) the deceleration were absolutely ferocious. The sky was very dark when you look up out of the windows. It flexed a ridiculous amount when taxiing - looking along the aisle towards the flight deck the front was bouncing all over the place. The visibility out of the windscreen was crap too.

That's about it, didn't feel faster or anything.

Was absolutely awesome though.

The future is better than the past, in air travel.

Not sure I agree, in pure engineering terms Concorde was awesome! Anything now is just incremental improvements.

Great thread.

I lived in central London and we used to look forward to seeing it come over at 5 every day. Never ever got fed up and was always amazed.

BA are now just another airline. They had an aspirational aircraft that they may have not made any money from but now they have nothing that sets them apart.

Anything now is just incremental improvements

You could not be more wrong.

The Aerospace industry has made massive advances, far in advance to anything seen in Concorde.

GTF engines - 25% less fuel burn
Composite fueselage and wings
Health Monitoring Systems
Significantly improved reliability, significantly reduced maintainance costs.
Electrics brakes, Eletric TRAS, Electric steering, Electric Primary and Secondary Flight controls
Lighter and stronger cabins leading to better air cabin pressure and quality.

That is all the visible stuff, if you looked in detail in the advances in material technology then it goes much further.

Technological improvements are far more than just throwing a load of fuel and power at something and shouting look how fast i can go (in a Jeremy Clarkson style).

The future is better than the past, in air travel.

Why, are they making a bigger, faster, more fuel efficient Concorde?

Faster does not equal better.

Based on this rational an aircraft could be

Less fuel efficient
Noisier
Carry less people
Be more unreliable
Cost more to operate
Cost more to travel on
Have worse air quality

but if it is faster, it is superior.

Walked on and off Concorde at the Farnborough Air Show. Was amazed at how small it was inside, like a single-decker bus with wings.

Also watched it take off it was just incredible

Concorde. A small, uncomfortable aircraft affordable by only a few that flew very fast. Hmm.

Personally, I'm much more impressed by the A380. Something that big looks like it just shouldn't be able to get off the ground. Like a skyscraper laid sideways.

I've been up in a 747 but I'd REALLY like to travel in one these impressive monsters.

The New Fast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23677205

Yes, ^^^^^ that is more like it.

Woppster, see Musk's quote at the top of the page.....

I'm more impressed with the floatation of something that big, than the speed of something not much bigger than a pencil.

Sorry. 😉

Concorde, was i think primarily "of its time", and over the years came to symbolise the best in engineering and technical achievement.

I'm sure the youth of today, brought up with every conceivable electronic gadget and practically hooked to the web 24/7 wouldn't see the attraction, but to me, growing up in South Oxfordshire, the 11 o'clock mid morning rumble served as a sort of informal reality check. It's hard to believe these days, but back then we were probably quite isolated as children, with just a small group of local friends and the TV (somewhat rationed by parents worried we would get "googly" eyes!) to remind us of the rest of the world passing by outside.

So, we would often run outside, and watch, hands shading our eyes to try to spot the plane first, seeing it slice into view and carve overhead in a shallow north turning arc. We'd wonder who was on board? are the famous? would we recognize them? what were they going to do in the US that was so important they could afford to be transported by this amazing machine? (when we flew we just chugged around on tiny slow propeller planes!). The noise was incredible, visceral even. How could such a tiny thing, by that point often climbing up through and way above the cloud layer, make such a noise? Even when it was gone from sight the noise remained, echoing off and around us from all directions.

As a symbol it was unmatched, as an object it took on a personality all of its own, and for me, transcended its mere collection of mechanical and electrical parts. I suspect that this childhood wonder was at least partially responsible for my interest and subsequent career in Engineering.

When F-BTSC crashed at Gonesse in the summer of 2000, i was by then 26, but to this day remember feeling incredibly moved by the loss of the actual plane, and not just the 113 people killed. Wondering how a plane feels is, of course, completely illogical, but that is the feeling i had, such had been the draw of Concorde to us youngsters.

Like the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.

Sat here in 2013, its pure technical achievements have been surpassed, and commercial air transport has necessarily become a game of economics rather than just the application of technology. But back in the late 1970's and early 1980's Concorde WAS the future, a sum of far more than just its parts, an embodiment of the dedication put into the project by the men and women who developed it.

I never flew on it, but somehow i don't regret that. We never called it "a Concorde", to us it was simply "Concorde", and our world would have been a poorer place without it.

Like the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.

Unlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.

Unlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.

If you measure usefulness by numbers of people killed

If you measure usefulness by numbers of [s]people[/s] enemy pilots/bomber crews killed

Fixed. That.

Fixed. That.

Not really. The spitfire was successful because it was good at killing people.