[Closed] Anyone flown on Concorde?

Yes, really.

If you measure usefulness by numbers of people killed

Or put another way, ability to repel a planned invasion by a fascist mass-murderer.

As utility goes, it's slightly higher than ferrying a very small number of rich people somewhere quickly, at the general public's expense.

Or put another way, ability to repel a planned invasion by a fascist mass-murderer.

Well, if you put it like that then, it was considerably less useful than a series of nondescript weatherboard huts near Milton Keynes.

And probably less useful than the decisiveness of a certain B-29 bomber's payload.

Well, if you put it like that then, it was considerably less useful than a series of nondescript weatherboard huts near Milton Keynes.

It also required a pilot, an airfield, petrol and mechanics. What's your point?

And probably less useful than the decisiveness of a certain B-29 bomber's payload.

You do realise that the facist mass-murderer had already been defeated by then?

What's your point?

That the soulful, iconic spitfire contributed considerably less, and was therefore less worthwhile, than some men and women sat in sheds. And the Hurricane.

You do realise that the facist mass-murderer had already been defeated by then?

I am, but I trust you are aware that WWII didn't end in May 1945.

That the soulful, iconic spitfire contributed considerably less, and was therefore less worthwhile, than some men and women sat in sheds. And the Hurricane.

Well no. It was all inter-dependent. The fact is, we could not have repelled a German invasion if we had lost the Battle of Britain. Winning that battle relied on many things, including successful fighter aircraft.

The Spitfire was useful. Concorde was not.

I am, but I trust you are aware that WWII didn't end in May 1945.

I don't recall making any claims about the Spitfire's role in defeating Japan, so perhaps you might try responding to what was written.

The Spitfire was useful. Concorde was not.

As I said, useful at killing people.

Only not as useful as the much less flashy, much easier to build, and much easier to repair hurricane.

It wasn't much use at crossing the pond with over 100 passengers in three hours either.

I don't recall making any claims about the Spitfire's role in defeating Japan, so perhaps you might try responding to what was written.

No, but you did make the point about the spitfire being useful. I'm saying its usefulness was outlived rather quickly; c/f statements about Concorde vs A380 buses

As I said, useful at killing people.

Only not as useful as the much less flashy, much easier to build, and much easier to repair hurricane.

It wasn't much use at crossing the pond with over 100 passengers in three hours either.

The Spitfire was good at repelling an invasion by a fascist dictator. Concorde was good at swallowing vast quantities of public money in order to move a very small number of rich people somewhere else.

No, but you did make the point about the spitfire being useful. I'm saying its usefulness was outlived rather quickly; c/f statements about Concorde vs A380 buses

Concorde was never useful.

Concorde was never useful.

Unless you wanted to get across the pond in three hours

The Spitfire was good at repelling an invasion by a fascist dictator.

No, the dull Hurricane was. The Sexy Spit couldn't be built or repaired in the numbers required.

For anyone less interested in practically pointless petty bickering, and more interested in details of Concorde, her design, development, and operation, see this legendary thread on PPRUNE:

[url= http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html ]PPRUNE Concorde Question[/url]

Something like 90 odd pages of amazing and often first hand info!

😉

I'm not sure whether to thank you or not for that link, maxtorque. I may be some time.... 😀

Unless you wanted to get across the pond in three hours

At great expense, using a vast public subsidy, to a very restricted number of people to a very restricted number of destinations at a very restricted number of times.

If that's useful, the word has no meaning.

No, the dull Hurricane was. The Sexy Spit couldn't be built or repaired in the numbers required.

The Hurricane was useful. The Spitfire was useful. Radar was useful. You're not really getting this inter-dependency thing, are you?

If that's useful, the word has no meaning.

It was useful to those people, yes.

You can be as melodramatic as you like, but you can't rewrite the dictionary.

It was useful to those people, yes.

You can be as melodramatic as you like, but you can't rewrite the dictionary.

If you wish to consider it at the scale of the tiny number of rich people who benefitted from this public subsidy, be my guest, but it's irrelevant at any meaningful level.

but it's irrelevant [s]at any meaningful level[/s] in my view so I'm going to perpetuate this tedious argument for a little while longer in the hope you'll see black is white.

Mrs deadly and I were doing a bit of shopping for bits for wee deadly some months ago in a well known department store (never knowingly undersold) and were having a coffee afterwards. An older couple sat in the seats alongside us and as often happens when you've got a baby (well, it seems to happen more often these days), we got chatting to them. I ended up chatting to the chap who was retired now so I asked him what he used to do. After a bit of digging (ie. me being a nosey ****er), it transpired he had worked most of his life on Concorde. He'd been one of the development engineers on the engines from concept to delivery 😯 and had worked supporting it until its withdrawal from service. To be honest, I've always been a bit meh about concorde (no strong feelings either way) but it was a fascinating half-hour or so chatting to someone who'd been in his position. It was most likely wasted on me though to be fair. 😆 Just goes to show that it's often a good idea to just chat with older folk - they sometimes have very interesting stories to tell.

He probably thought it useless too, DD 😉

He probably thought it useless too, DD

🙂

Ah no...there was a certain quiet pride in his stories. All he wanted to talk about was timber ****in floors (he'd just had some put in) so I had a job trying to keep him on topic.

timber **** floors

Infinitely more useful - you can stand on them and efrifink

but it's irrelevant at any meaningful level in my view so I'm going to perpetuate this tedious argument for a little while longer in the hope you'll see black is white.

You already see that black is white, and certainly require no help on that score.
I had hoped to persuade you otherwise, but you seem quite happy to be wrong, so I'll leave it there.

[img] [/img]

I can see how you might not think cheap mass transport is not exciting. Imagine a businessman on his way to Fort Worth, that is dull. But imagine the family going on an adventure, or a couple on a romantic trip, they are having wonderful experiences. Allowing ordinary people to experience the world in ways that they have NEVER been able to do before is pretty fantastic. I have benefitted hugely from this, as have many of us on this forum. Concorde did nothing for me apart from be cool, and allow some suits to get home a day earlier. It did nothing to change the world, Boeing, Airbus et al have done far more.

End of thread.

So, you drive a Pious to save the planet, man, and yet espouse a massive growth in mass air transport? Hmm.

I was waiting for someone to say that. I said it had huge benefits, problem is it also has huge disadvantages...

I drive a Pious to avoid unnecessary waste of a valuable resource.. It's a tradeoff between cost and benefit.

I thought you said it was the end of the thread up there? Yet it took someone else to point out your rather hypocritical stance before you did yourself.

More flying isn't the answer. Better flying is. I'd rather have seen flying remain super expensive, and the advances made on faster, more efficient SSTs.

Oh, and valuable resources? A Prius? Ha! Funny man! An old Landy, cobbled together from spares and gaffer tape would have a far lower carbon footprint than your eco-ego wagon.

Slightly premature my dear molgrips! Where do you think "Airbus" sprang from? Yup, that's right, it's a consortium of companies formed including BAE systems and Aerospatiale, the companies that developed and built, yup, you guessed it, Concorde. And lets take all the Boeing airframes in the world, powered by Rolls Royce Aero engines, a company that forged it's reputation and skills on high power military turbojets, that were commercialised on, yup, that darn Concorde program again!

And, lets take the Airbus "revolutionary" Digital Electronic Flight control system and cockpit Automation. Guess what? It was developed by the same team that developed Concorde's cutting edge DEFCS.

I'm not sure the total cost to the british tax payer of the Concorde program will ever be known, we know it's more that £500M but not how much more than that it was. But, where was that money spent? Not up at 50k feet where the plane flew that's for sure. No, it was spend down here on the ground, keeping UK families in employment and UK aerospace companies and their supply chains in business.

In 1980, the UK spent £13.5B on defence in one year alone. The Falklands war alone cost over £2B in 1982.

Up against that spending i'd say Concorde was "worth it"! (what ever that means) and it is unlikely that the UK would have the involvement we currently have in worldwide aerospace engineering without the legacy of the Concorde program.

Lots of Concorde stories here:
[url= http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html ]Concorde[/url]

Yet it took someone else to point out your rather hypocritical stance before you did yourself.

Hmm, well, I'm not trying to be hypocritical, since the debate was about flying technology I kept it on topic. It is a difficult problem for me, certainly - travel is profoundly important to me personally, but it is damaging to the environment.

The Prius by the way is about mitigating the travel I choose to do, but let's not get into that tired old slanging match on this thread.

I'd rather have seen flying remain super expensive

So us proles who want to travel have to make do with Blackpool, whilst the rich explore the world, then? Like in the 19th century?

Slightly premature my dear molgrips!

A knowledgable post maxtorque but I'm not quite sure of its relevance.

An old Landy, cobbled together from spares and gaffer tape would have a far lower carbon footprint than your eco-ego wagon.

Only if you don't drive it much: the extra fuel consumption of the Landy vastly outweighs the impact of manufacturing the Prius.

Only if you don't drive it much: the extra fuel consumption of the Landy vastly outweighs the impact of manufacturing the Prius.

Reference, please.

Or is this another selective viewpoint, as opposed to a fact?

A knowledgable post maxtorque but I'm not quite sure of its relevance.

Quite a bit more than Prius (Priuses? Prii?) have on a thread titled "Anyone flown on Concorde?"

Quite a bit more than Prius (Priuses? Prii?) have on a thread titled "Anyone flown on Concorde?"

Direct your complaints at CFH, he brought it up, and I said it was for another thread.

My comment to maxtorque wasn't supposed to be a slight - he points out that certain things were developed during the creation of Concorde, but we can't possibly conclude that they would not have been developed had Concorde existed. Likewise Airbus being created from BAE and others - I don't know why this is relevant. It's just an engineering company moving on to other (more profitable, sensible and imo COOLER things).

but we can't possibly conclude that they would not have been developed had Concorde existed.

To some extent, I agree. However, Concorde was the catalyst for their development, and thus made their application to later models much easier.

and imo COOLER things

In the same way that a bus is cooler than a supercar, I suppose 🙄

Hang on, you drive a prius, so I can guess your response to that last comment 😉

Only if you don't drive it much: the extra fuel consumption of the Landy vastly outweighs the impact of manufacturing the Prius.

Quite comprehensively proven wrong. For brand new cars, that you can buy today, the most environmentally friendly car, based on a cradle to grave cost to the environment is the Jeep Wrangler. The cost to manufacture and dispose of modern cars far outstrips the environmental impact of the fuel used.

Reference, please.

Or is this another selective viewpoint, as opposed to a fact?

We've done this before on STW. I suggest you review previous threads, as I wouldn't want to offend your overly delicate sensibilities by talking about cars in this one.

If you care to look, you will find that any reputable LCA shows that the bulk of a car's lifetime emissions occur during the use phase. That's based on a nominal average mileage, hence my point about not driving much.

It's a pity that once again you've chosen to wave your handbag around.

Quite comprehensively proven wrong.

Nope, ransos posted it, so it can't be wrong....

Can it? 😯

[s]If you care to look[/s] I have no references and am just making it up on the fly to sound self-important

My point was that nothing exists in isolation. In any industry, and especially in Aerospace, which is necessarily conservative and safety conscious, ideas, technologies, and processes simply do not "spring from nowhere" into existence.

The systems that make a latest generation airliner feasible have been forged over the last 20, 40, and even 60 years within the industry. Concorde, as a cutting edge project helped to lay the foundations for these advances. As i mentioned before, its aerothermodynamics, engines and especially the inlets, flight control systems, cabin environmental controls, high load rating high speed tyres, hugely powerful braking systems, Inertial guidance and stability augmentation, to name but a few, all have a legacy within more current commercial airframes, and especially those from Airbus. Even Boeings 747 responded, designed with an atypical high wing sweep and a high cruising speed to attempt to counter some of Concordes remarkable cruise capability.

No, Concorde was not a commercial success when viewed simply with an eye on profits, but look at the bigger picture and a you can trace a lot of it's DNA in the current fleets. Things like 100% on-wing engine monitoring (now in real time during flights, using radio telemetry, sent back to Derby for analysis of engine performance and pre identification of any developing issues) started with Concorde (in that case, due to the complexity of the operating modes and environment).

So it leaves me with two questions:

1) Would current aerospace technologies be as advanced and as efficient as they are now without Concorde? I suggest the answer is No.

2) Is it better to have tried and failed, or to have not tried at all?
(i'll leave that one up to each individual to answer for themselves!)

So far as the lifecycle CO2 emissions go, this site might be useful?

Of course, it might simply be wrong!!

My car... http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/37788/SKODA-Fabia-1.4-TSI-vRS-180PS-DSG-Petrol-Semi-automatic-7-speed

Rachel

So far as the lifecycle CO2 emissions go, this site might be useful?

Not really - It needs to comprehensively cover the energy embedded in both its construction and eventual recycling. This is especially the case if we're considering scrapping an already built and functional car for a brand new one (that otherwise wouldn't have been built).

That's what it claims to do

That's what it claims to do

Unfortunately it says "coming soon" for the Fabia you posted.

It's also a pretty contentious area of science/economics as lots of values used seem to be best guesses by a committee if data doesn't exist for a particular component / scenario. It's also very easy to manipulate.

Quite comprehensively proven wrong. For brand new cars, that you can buy today, the most environmentally friendly car, based on a cradle to grave cost to the environment is the Jeep Wrangler.

Were you really taken in by that?

I assume you're referring to a non peer reviewed article by a marketing company that purported to show what you claim. The report made all sorts of rather strange assumptions, there's a nice debunking here:

In contrast, studies that don't rig the data a) consistently put a car's use phase as a majority of its total lifetime emissions and b)rate hybrids as better than conventional vehicles. See:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/documents/hybrid-ice_final.pdf

I'm not going to get involved in the arguing but to say that Concorde wasn't useful and to judge it in terms of more recent, or different aircraft totally misses the point.

It pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible, which in turn changed the way people (engineers, passengers and the general public) felt about flying.

It also changes the views of Britain (and France) around the world, showing what we as nations are capable of.

That is unquantifiable, but without doubt useful.

[s]Nope, ransos posted it, so it can't be wrong....

Can it?[/s]I'm too lazy to spend 5 minutes on a search engine so I'll sit here and wave my handbag instead.

FTFY.

Ok but to put it another way those technologies were desired by the aviation industry as a whole, and the developers of Concorde contributed to those. Had they been working on something else, they would probably have come up with just as good ideas.

1)

You COUJLD also argue that had they not been wasting their time working on a doomed vanity project they might've come up with more practical and relevant technologies a few years earlier, and we'd have had dreamliners and A380s a decade ago....

2)

That depends on what it is that you are trying to do. Concorde was essentially barking up the wrong tree. The world didn't really want supersonic travel, they wanted cheaper travel. The makers of Concorde got that wrong.

You could draw parallels with the car industry. VW, Ford & co have created excellent cars that the masses can afford and use in their daily lives, whilst Ferrari etc make cool stuff cars that are basically toys. Ok it's fun to drive a sportscar, but it doesn't really help society much. You probably take your dull family car for granted, but think of what you have been able to do with it. A couple of generations ago people stayed their whole lives in the same town, apart from a two week trip to the local seaside in the summer...

It pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible, which in turn changed the way people (engineers, passengers and the general public) felt about flying.

Really?

FTFY.

You made the point, why didn't you just post the references the first time round?

Three of which, by the way, aren't peer reviewed, and the one that is actually focusses on something else.

You made the point, why didn't you just post the references the first time round?

Because we've done it before at great length and you were already whinging about the thread being derailed.

Three of which, by the way, aren't peer reviewed, and the one that is actually focusses on something else.

I look forward to your assessment of why they're wrong. Please cite references.

From the "debunking" report I liked to:

"The CNW results suggest that the majority of energy is consumed during the production of the vehicle. These results are at odds with every other study we’ve seen on the energy life-cycle costs of automobiles."

"A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs."

I look forward to your assessment of why they're wrong

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you jumped on LHS for quoting a non-peer-reviewed study, then defended that action by posting three non-peer-reviewed studies, and one about plug in electric hybrid vehicles (which a Prius isn't).

A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs.

An old landy (presumably diesel), which is what started this side topic, is considerably more efficient than pretty much any american SUV, and certainly a Hummer.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you jumped on LHS for quoting a non-peer-reviewed study, then defended that action by posting three non-peer-reviewed studies, and one about plug in electric hybrid vehicles (which a Prius isn't).

And I posted the debunking article which cites numerous peer reviewed studies. You could try reading them, seeing as you asked for references. Were I less charitable, I would conclude that all you're doing is hoping to score a few points, rather than actually learn something.

The PHEV study includes information about hybrids and ICE cars, which you would know if you'd done more than read the title.

An old landy (presumably diesel), which is what started this side topic, is considerably more efficient than pretty much any american SUV, and certainly a Hummer.

Evidence please.

Not peer reviewed, I'm afraid. I doubt there's much research funding in proving the obvious, but - here you go:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/land%20rover/series%20iii/diesel

http://www.fuelly.com/car/hummer/h3

Jeep Wrangler combined mpg: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31729

Grand Cherokee: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31742

New Land Rover: http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx?vid=31182

You'll have to explain how this fits with your assertion that "pretty much any American SUV" is less efficient than an old Land Rover, given they're more efficient than a new Land Rover.

All much worse than a Prius of course.

Back on subject 😉 Yes three times and my parents did a few times as well. Was an amazing machine. Loved to see it fly over on the way to New York. used to do contracting at heathrow for BA and had a chap show us round different aircraft and tell us about them. But concorde was a special machine, even if it was completely dwarfed by the 747 in the hanger next to it.

maxtorque - Member

1) Would current aerospace technologies be as advanced and as efficient as they are now without Concorde? I suggest the answer is No.

2) Is it better to have tried and failed, or to have not tried at all?
(i'll leave that one up to each individual to answer for themselves!)

I like this post, the middle ground... You can agree that concorde was cool, and was a useful thing to do at the time, without arguing that it's a shame that it's not flying any more. The benefits from when it was cutting edge weren't lost when we retired it once it was a bit of a pointy white elephant.

We learned a lot from the early space race, doesn't mean we still need to be shooting Saturn 5s at the moon.

You'll have to explain how this fits with your assertion that "pretty much any American SUV" is less efficient than an old Land Rover, given they're more efficient than a new Land Rover.

For a start, an old land rover doesn't have a sports-tuned diesel V6, which is what's in the Disco you linked to. Neither does it weigh nearly three tons.

Secondly, the website I linked from was based on real world use, and not manufacturers' figures.

Wow, a slanging match about hybrid cars and I'm not involved!

Anyway, yes there's no doubt Concorde was a wonderful machine. I saw and heard it a few times, and it was great. But it was not the future of air travel - we are currently experiencing the future of air travel, and it's just as amazing even though it's not as fast.

The real problem with Concorde was simply physics. You can't just get a bit faster with each generation like cars do - there's a huge physical barrier, which is the speed of sound. Current planes are already as close to it as they can practically get, even a bit more speed would require enormous compromises to be made. That's why most big planes have more or less the same cruising speed.

If anyone thinks A380s are not awesome, they have not seen one. Or they have no soul 😉

For a start, an old land rover doesn't have a sports-tuned diesel V6, which is what's in the Disco you linked to. Neither does it weigh nearly three tons.

No, it has a forty year old engine, that was never efficient in the first place.

Secondly, the website I linked from was based on real world use, and not manufacturers' figures.

A sample size so tiny that it's of no use whatsoever.

Anyway, you seem to be having trouble so I'll make this simple:

1. The impacts of manufacture and disposal are outweighed by the impacts of use, in every single peer reviewed study on the subject.
2. A new Prius is more efficient than a new SUV, on a lifecycle basis.
3. A new Prius is more efficient than an old Land Rover, unless you're doing a low annual mileage.

Clearly, you will now attempt to be even more wrong than you already are, but you will not be successful.

A sample size so tiny that it's of no use whatsoever.

You worked out what that word means yet? You were having issues with it yesterday.

You worked out what that word means yet? You were having issues with it yesterday.

You must be confused. I suppose that given you can't work out what "15-20 years ago" means we shouldn't be surprised.

The impacts of manufacture are outweighed by the impacts of use [u]and disposal[/u], in every single [u]peer reviewed study[/u] on the subject.

But you're proposing the disposal of a vehicle that already exists. And we've already been through the fact that most of what you posted wasn't peer-reviewed

2. A new Prius is more efficient than a new SUV, on a lifecycle basis.

The original discussion wasn't about a new SUV (remember CFH's 'old landy' that started this tedium)

3. A new Prius is more efficient than an old Land Rover, [u]unless you're doing a low annual mileage[/u].

Which, if you're so at pains to reduce emissions, is the first thing you should be doing.

You must be confused.

Not at all. You were the one arguing that something which clearly had utility to many people (albeit clearly not to you) was totally and unequivocally useless.

But you're proposing the disposal of a vehicle that already exists. And we've already been through the fact that most of what you posted wasn't peer-reviewed

I've corrected the typo. We've already been through the fact that the first article I posted has umpteen links to peer reviewed evidence. It's a pity you've chosen to ignore them.

The original discussion wasn't about a new SUV (remember CFH's 'old landy' that started this tedium)

Which, if you're so at pains to reduce emissions, is the first thing you should be doing.

Not at all. You were the one arguing that something which clearly had utility to many people (albeit clearly not to you) was totally and unequivocally useless.

No. Quite clearly it had utility to a miniscule number of people. That makes it useless to the people who paid for it.

We were discussing the assertion that a new Jeep Wrangler is more efficient than a new Prius. Did you forget that bit?

Obviously you did, we were actually talking about the assertion that a Jeep Wrangler has less of an environmental impact when you take into account all factors from cradle to grave than a Prius.

I use a remarkably efficient commuting vehicle called a "bicycle".

Great aren't they 😀

Obviously you did, we were actually talking about the assertion that a Jeep Wrangler has less of an environmental impact when you take into account all factors from cradle to grave than a Prius.

As my posts make very clear, we were discussing efficiency on a lifecycle basis. The assertion that the Wrangler is more efficient is false, as the evidence I supplied shows.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

The evidence you supplied is un-peer reviewed and also does not take into account other recent additions such as the batteries on only last 8 years on average, so you need to be replacing those. Not the most "efficient" thing.

No. Quite clearly it had utility to a miniscule number of people.

I'd define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than "miniscule".

That makes it useless to the people who paid for it.

I think it's pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it, otherwise it wouldn't have been for the elite few, if it was free. And maxtorque has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that quite a lot of the technology developed for Concorde is now in use on current planes. No, I'm not saying these technologies wouldn't have been developed without Concorde, but that investment from the public purse into them has clearly trickled down to the modern Airbus fleet.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

I'm sure he'd rather redefine it.

You need to look up the definition of efficiency.

The evidence you supplied is un-peer reviewed and also does not take into account other recent additions such as the batteries on only last 8 years on average, so you need to be replacing those. Not the most "efficient" thing.

You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted? The peer-reviewed papers that specifically address the impacts of battery manufacture and disposal?

I'd define 2.5m people as somewhat larger than "miniscule".

Could you please tell us a) how many [u]different[/u] people flew on Concorde during its lifetime and b) its percentage of total commercial air travel in the same period.

I think it's pretty well documented that those 2.5m people paid for at least some of it,

I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today, I would name names but he/she/it will run off and tell teacher 😆 not that that would be in the least bit hyocritical 😉

You mean apart from the numerous peer-reviewed papers cited in the very first link I posted?

Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?

Why not just use them as your source, rather than a secondary, non-peer-reviewed report?

Because the report is the only one I'm aware of that pulls together those different sources into one place.

Could you please tell us a) how many different people flew on Concorde during its lifetime

No. But I'm pretty sure it's not a 'miniscule' number

Yet they were still subsidised heavily by the public purse.

But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.

I see one of the regular windbags is huffing and puffing like a good un today

Huffing after just one post, piggy? You need more exercise...

No. But I'm pretty sure it's not a 'miniscule' number

In the context of utility, I find that unlikely. Regardless, your assertion is unproven.

But they did pay for some of it, right? So presumably not useless to all the people who paid for it.

If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well...

If you really believe that the tiny number of beneficiaries constitute utility on any meaningful scale, well...

Given the number of people on this thread who've never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.

And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.

If flying on the thing is the only condition by which one can benefit from Concorde, sure. Can you prove that's the case?

Prove a negative? No, I can't.

Prove a negative? No, I can't.

So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?

Given the number of people on this thread who've never flown on it who liked it, it clearly had a lot of utility, even for those who never did fly on it, but appreciated its engineering.

Again, the key word here is "scale".

And if you want to go down that route, the amount of government money spent on other things that have no use to the vast majority renders the amount spent on Concorde, by your definition, miniscule.

Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things. Though a defence of "but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost" is a bit weak, to say the least.

So you mean it might not be useless to everyone after all?

It might not be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Again, the key word here is "scale".

It is. I work with many people who never even saw Concorde in the flesh. Having discussed it over coffee with a few of them this morning, most of them appreciated it to. So its appeal seems to be global. Not bad for something so useless.

Feel free to start a separate thread on any of these things.

You seem to have been happy enough to debate other topics on here for quite some time. Why the change now?

Though a defence of "but Sir! Look how much other stuff cost" is a bit weak, to say the least.

Seems to be one you're not prepared to argue, however

It might not be.

Hallelujah!