Jump to content

Talk:Concorde/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Pepsi sponsorship deal

The web link in the reference to the Independent article describing the sponsorship deal with Pepsi doesn't link to the whole article. I believe this link is to the correct article. However, whilst the date and overall subject matter are correct, nowhere does it mention anything about Concorde. I can't access the El Mundo article also referenced due to a combination of the website being in Spanish and it apparently requiring a paid subscription to access the archive. Tdf4638 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The article states that "The Tu-144S had a significantly shorter range than Concorde, due to its low-bypass turbofan engines." Readers might reasonably be expected to wonder what "low-bypass turbofan engines" are, so I've linked this term to Turbofan#Low-bypass_turbofan.

-- 179.210.201.86 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Regarded as an aviation icon" from lead section

The aircraft has been regarded as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel,[1]...

  1. ^ Jury, Louise (16 March 2006). "Concorde beats Tube map to become Britain's favourite design". The Independent. London.

The citation given here does not support the article text. The article from The Independent is about a "favourite British design" poll. It says nothing about engineering, nor does it imply anything about being "regarded by many" regarded as "an icon". To make such an inference looks like original research. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Since, according to the revision to the article at 00:23, 23 July 2016, the article discusses many people praising the aircraft type, the lead-section sentence should be able to stand alone without a citation. This particular citation does not actually serve to verify the statement in question. However, my previous removal of the citation was reverted. I propose getting rid of it again, for the above reasons. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending input from other editors, I have again removed the citation to The Independent. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest its replacement.
The contest, organised by BBC 2's The Culture Show and the Design Museum in London, saw nearly 212,000 votes cast in a process which began with 25 iconic designs chosen by experts, including the mini skirt, the Catseye, the E-type Jaguar and the Penguin paperback book....would certainly justify the "iconic." Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The citation has since been restored and then removed again by another editor. I think this is just as well, since the only person who can verifiably (yet indirectly) be found describing Concorde as "iconic" here is the author of the article themselves. However, "regarded as an aviation icon" is vague and doesn't convey meaningful factual information or establish context for the reader. I think the statement should be rewritten using more matter-of-fact language, per Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy. Attributing the view in question to a particular source, if possible, would be a simple fix. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Since there have been no other objections, and since the "Public perception" section doesn't contain any more information about praise and criticism of Concorde than what appears in the Independent piece, I rewrote that portion here to more accurately summarize the material in the article. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the highest praise for Concorde came from sculptor Henry Moore sometime back in the 1980s, I cannot remember the quote, but it was along the lines of Concorde being the pinnacle (or epitome) of Modern Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.147 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
"Concorde Special - Flawed Icon", and "Concorde flies into history" "Both carriers regret the withdrawal of their marketing icon". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I added a quotation from the first article here. Icon, however, is still the kind of vague peacock term that could be used to mean anything – "marketing icon" – what is that supposed to mean? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It was Sir Hugh Casson, who described Concorde as: "A piece of twentieth-century sculpture" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Two-part interview with Concorde pilot John Hutchinson on YouTube here: Part 1: [2] - Part 2: [3]

Unexplained removal

There is a vandal who is obsessed with deleting my edits. Stop it or you will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I havn't edit-warred to add or remove the image in question - it is worth noting that it, as the caption clearly indicates, a photo of a SCALE MODEL of a Concorde, not a real aircraft. Prehaps you might present convincing arguments here as to why you think that this photo should remain when the article has plenty of photos of real aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pan Air Do Brasil

If the TIME reference provided in the article supports the claims made in the 'Sales Efforts' section, it is impossible to see because of the TIME paywall. The other sources do not support the notion that Pan Air Do Brasil was the first company to option Concorde. In fact, other sources (not provided in the article) e.g. here and here mention an option in 1963 and no earlier. If a citation for the 1961 figure—which is before the Anglo-French Agreement was even formalized—cannot be found, then the claim should be removed from the table. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The 1961 order for Sud Caravelles included an option for three "Super Caravelles" which later was assumed to be for Concordes and certainly the president of Panair do Brasil in 1963 took pride in that they were the first airline to order Concordes. Certainly flight in 1963 showed that Panair did have options or reservations for three aircraft but I dont think it was confirmed or became anything more than a reservation. So they did place a reservation or option in 1961 for Concorde although it didnt exist! Panair went belly up in 1965 so nothing came of it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: I do see mention of a letter of intent put forth by Panair in 1961 for three Super Caravelles, per Esso Aviation News Digest pg. 47, which you can see using search terms like "Panair will take". The wording here is important, however, because that same source mentions options for Caravelle VIRs. LOIs differ from options; Panair Do Brasil did not have an option proper in 1961, though based on the sources I linked earlier, it does seem they put in proper options at the later 1963 date. As such, it does not appear that Panair can claim to be first to properly option Concorde, even if they had an LOI issued for what amounts to half of Concorde's predecessor. This isn't pedantry, especially when one considers that Panair—shortly to go under—never could have made good on its LOI nor later option, whereas the other organizations listed in the article specifically chose not to exercise their options. Mentioning Panair optioning Concorde in the narrative section of 'Sales Efforts' is fine, especially with the foregoing book source. Putting Panair at the top of list the is not, because that list specifically refers to options. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Finktron (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Clearly worth a mention as Panair did believe they had a "reservation" but it doesnt appear to have turned into a formal option so I would agree it should be in the narrative but not the table. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

STAC

This article breaks out the acronym STAC as Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee, which is definitely attested to in Conway's High-Speed Dreams. I am a bit confused, though, because the Wikipedia article for Bristol Type 223 refers to STAC as the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee. Are both names valid? Was there a name change at some point? There appear to me to be more references to an Aircraft Committee than an Advisory Committee in the literature, e.g. at the U.K. National Archives, in official NASA reports on supersonic aircraft, in much more contemporary news articles on Concorde, etc. Is there any kind of definitive answer to this question? Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that when the committee was first formed it was not known if any aircraft would subsequently be ordered and so the committee was operating in an initial advisory capacity at first in order to assist in the formulation of any requirement for such an aircraft. Later when the requirement for such an aircraft was better defined the committee name may have changed to include the specific 'aircraft' when such an aircraft had definitely become a possibility and of interest. But that's just my guess.
Initially, with the technology of the time, it would not have been known if a supersonic passenger aircraft was possible, so the aircraft would not have been a concrete possibility. Later it had become one, and so the name of the committee may have been changed to reflect this. But as I wrote, that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
When they released a report in 1959 the London Times called it the supersonic transport aircraft committee. The committee had been formed by the Ministry of Supply in November 1956 and recommended two aircraft, a Mach 2 150-passenger transatlantic aircraft and a Mach 1.2 100-passenger aircraft for stage lengths up to 1500 miles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Supposed erroneous information

Please, check phrase in article: "The first flight with passengers after the accident took place on 11 September 2001, landing shortly before the World Trade Center attacks in the United States." Source don't confirm that. Compare information in these sources:

  1. Fox News
  2. BBC News
  3. BBC News (this is 'dubious', if compared with the source 2). PauloMSimoes (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The text is referring the the first commercial flight (with passengers). The first 2 articles linked above are about the first test flight after the crash, while the 3rd is about the first commercial flight. You seem to be missing the difference between the two types of flights here. -Finlayson (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Source in article says: "A British Airways Concorde made its first passenger flight Monday since last year's Paris crash that killed 113 people, the UK Press Association reported." 11 Sep 2001 was Tuesday! And where is in source, the flight take-off/landing times? Besides, was not "the first commercial flight"; per source: "The passengers were all BA engineers who have worked to make the Concorde airworthy again". A 20-minute flight commercial? I know the difference. PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Think nothing of it. Article: "Normal commercial operations resumed on 7 November 2001". PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Retirement reasons

" .. It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first-class passengers subsonically ..."

Not very likely. After Concorde was re-branded in the 1980's the British Airways fleet of seven Concordes generated up to 25% of BA's profits, a figure of around £500,000,000 (half a billion) pounds net profit.[4]

If BA had had their way, the aircraft would never have been retired in 2003. It was the withdrawal of the Concorde service by Air France and the resulting transfer of all the maintenance of certificating costs to BA by Airbus that forced BA reluctantly to withdraw too. Previously BA and AF had shared these costs, but with the withdrawal of Air France, BA could only support these increased costs with a large Concorde fare hike that was unrealistic.

Air France had withdrawn their Concorde service because of a general passenger boycott of Air France due to France's lack of support for the Second Gulf War.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, perhaps because of the traditional linguistic and trading ties between the UK and US, Air France were never as enthusiastic a Concorde user as was British Airways (or so it seemed), and as a result BA utilised its fleet far more then AF did, and the highest-time BA aircraft had around twice the flight hours (~23,000 hrs) of the AF Concorde (~11,000 hrs) that crashed in 2000.

In addition, on 9/11 BA had lost around 50 regular Concorde passengers who worked in the Financial Markets in New York and who were based in the World Trade Center, including a number of people from Cantor Fitzgerald. Quite a number of Brits worked in the WTC during the week and went home to the UK at weekends. By 2003 BA Concorde passenger numbers had started to pick up back to pre-9/11 levels but had not quite reached these earlier levels when the aircraft was withdrawn from service.

BTW, within BA the nickname for the aircraft was "The Rocket".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend a rephrasing of the last section. Building the machinery to produce a few hundred thousand seals isn't going to be pocket-money, however it isn't going to require innovative design, either, and will be far less than a year's income. That phrase would be hard to justify quantitively, I feel, and such a case should be made to answer the worries about NPOV that that raises.
Similarly, Captain Lowe's further argument that it took seven years of testing to get her in the air misses the point completely, and further disproves his qualification to comment. My father, Reg Main, at that time a rising star of the mechanical engineering profession, was deeply involved in why it took so long to get her in the air. What actually happened is that the problems of such an innovative design proved greater than anticipated: for example, the first draft of the aircraft used fairly standard delta wing designs (such as the Avro Vulcan) which didn't have the headache of a supersonic speed. The first test flights soon discovered the problem, they would get close to the sound barrier and the engines would flame out. What was happening is that the shock wave of sound ahead of the aircraft pushed the air the engines needed to burn away from the nacelles, and so the engines flamed out, starved of air. To get past the problem, the nascelles had to be redesigned as described: these were the first to use such a variable design. That was not the only problem they found: the difference in the temperature of the airframe between standing on the apron at ground level and flying at speed at height meant the aircraft would expand an incredible amount, at speed it is several feet longer than on the ground. That meant the fuselage also had to be redesigned as well, to cope with that without losing pressure. All of this was ground-breaking engineering, and that took time to get right in hard, pragmatic, delivered reality, theory after theory had to be further refined from the experiences of the test designs, we have but must not abuse the benefit of hindsight here. Previous transsonic airframes were not pressurised, the typical image of a military pilot of the day is one of an oxygen helmet and pressure suit: the man was pressurised, not the airframe. However, these lessons were learned, and are in the Library of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, published in the IMechE's journal, The Engineer, so they don't need to be learned again, as Captain Lowe suggests. Such ignorance, sadly, reduces his comments to a matter of personal opinion rather than a substantiated fact.
A more relevant indication of a path forwards would be a reference to the several low-orbital projects under active development, from Richard Branson and Elon Musk, among others: you may also consider whether references to more hypothetical propositions such as the use of vacuum railways are appropriate, although I feel they are not, because the Encyclopaedia must remain rooted in reality. The low-orbital projects are nearing completion, and suggest a similar step-up in speed Concorde offered, making the revival of the aircraft less merchantable, unless a new generation of aircraft would be more acceptable to airlines in the mass-market sector, taking the other approach to travel, more and faster flights rather than ever larger payloads.
More questionable is whether we can still justify that use of fuel. Similarly, other regulatory headaches may make the project unviable for political reasons, however to conclude that the project is dead, as this meme does, lacks neutrality. You should allow time to tell, while retaining objective neutrality, and to some extent that may mean, with my historian's cap on, that you need a more anodyne and far simpler comment, restricting yourself to something like "Efforts to get some Concordes back in the air continue." That simple phrase allows time to tell: this is right in the middle of the academic norm excluding events within the last 25 years from the eminent domain of history, not least because many documents remain under secrecy embargo during that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.132.218 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I smell B.S.

"...It was later revealed that the original STAC report (preliminary design and shape--ed), marked "For UK Eyes Only", had secretly been passed to the French to win political favour. Sud made minor changes to the paper, and presented it as their own work..."

Typical British exaggeration of accomplishments and capabilities (See British Space Program, TSR2, DHC Comet, HOTOL, Beagle [Mars probe]), there are many such examples, but not enough time to document. One only has to look at the contemporary shapes of military and civilian aircraft--designed in Britain--to realize they were not capable of designing the elegant shape of the Concorde. Here are some examples--do you see anything approaching the Concorde? How about with the British English Electric? Or the De Haviland Comet? No?, then how about the Vickers Valiant? The Handley Page Victor? The Avro Vulcan? The Harrier? Do you see it? Neither do I. Dig a little deeper and we see some truly strange proposals under Bristol (British) Type 223--which amazingly enough, are oddly shaped much like a typical British aircraft. The final design does bear a resemblance, and looks like a rip off of the French or Russian design. With the French aircraft design we have the Mirage III. How about the Mirage IV? I see a lineage. Or the French proposal, the Super Caravelle. Smaller than the final variant, but the design? Bingo--right down to the wing. [Reference: http://aerospacebristol.org/the-story-of-concorde/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.58.105 (talk)

Your ref above says "The Bristol design team was given the go ahead to develop a 110-seat long-range supersonic airliner, known as 'Type 223'. At the same time, Aerospatiale of France was developing their similar 'Super Caravelle'. To save costs, the development projects were combined, and the result was the Anglo-French Concorde." Seems to be pretty straightforward to me. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Typical British exaggeration ... Wikipedia is no place for original research or ideas of this kind. See also WP:NPOV where it explains neutral point of view, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 02:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See the Fairey Delta 2 of 1954. If flew a year before any Mirage. It also had a 'drooping nose' like Concorde.
The two SST projects were originally for two different aircraft, the French one was for a short-ranged supersonic airliner to be used within Europe, the British one was for a transatlantic aircraft to be used on longer ranges. The short-ranged one was calculated to be unprofitable for the airlines over such short ranges and unlikely to sell, so the best of the two designs were combined for a transatlantic aircraft and the result was Concorde.
On short flights the aircraft spends too great a proportion of the Mach 2 flight accelerating and decelerating, so that the reduction in overall flight times over a subsonic airliner is much less than it would be on a longer journey as it spends a smaller proportion of the flight travelling at Mach 2. Concorde took around fifteen to twenty minutes, including ten minutes of reheat, to accelerate while climbing from subsonic up to Mach 2, although it could decelerate and descend at the other end of the flight much more rapidly if needed using reverse thrust on the two inner engines. IIRC, the maximum rate-of-descent possible was quite extreme, around 10,000 fpm. This was originally a requirement of the then-new SST Certificating conditions, which required a rapid rate-of-descent should a cabin window burst, and which was later made unnecessary by the incorporation into the Concorde design of an additional pressurization/air conditioning unit that, in conjunction with the existing units, provided sufficient combined capacity to maintain breathable cabin pressure for a more normal descent despite a blown window. The time taken to accelerate to the aircraft's cruise speed was also one of the (numerous) reasons for the cancellation of the competing US B-2707 Mach 2.7 airliner project, as the even-more prolonged acceleration times (compared to those of a Mach 2 aircraft like Concorde) made the aircraft potentially unprofitable for the airlines on any other than the longest trans-Pacific routes, which, at the time, possessed too low passenger traffic to make a Mach 2.7 airliner viable for any airline.
Concorde needed the two countries combined to be what it was, the French to give it style, the British to give it class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk)
"Concorde needed the two countries combined to be what it was, the French to give it style, the British to give it class." Got a reference for that? - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Alas no, that was my own contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Finlayson (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The examples cited miss the point, that they were either transsonic or pressurised. Combining the two in a passenger liner made for unique problems, which is why it took the aircraft so long to reach production. Another aspect is that the design team lacked computing resources we nowadays take for granted to run test scenarios, so they had to test them the hard way, in reality: the history of the early American X-aircraft shows how dangerous that was, at exactly the time Concorde's specifications were being defined. These may have been the last aircraft to be tested after design, much as the bull-nose Rover was (indeed, that car was built, and then blueprinted from the prototype, which nearly caused a disaster, as the crane lifting the chassis to the measurement bay lost one of the strops, dropping the chassis to the floor and bending it. Before the bend set, the Chief Engineer of Rover, Frank Shaw, sent a lad for a sledgehammer and took careful aim, reversing the dint so exactly the chassis reverted to the "memory" shape held in the metal). I include that as a comment on the engineering practices of the day, which pretty much stopped at wind-tunnel testing, which was a major element in Concorde's design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.132.218 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BA purchase price contradiction

Article initially states British Airways paid £1 per aircraft, total of £7. Later on it states Lord King, the head of BA, paid £16.5 million plus the first year's profits. Later on again, the article quotes Richard Branson's offer to pay 'the original £1 per aircraft'. So, was it £1 per aircraft, or is the Lord King section correct? 213.202.174.162 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

'The original £1 per aircraft' sale was a 'sale' in law only, as the 'owners' of the airline also already owned the aircraft.
At the time of the handing-over of the Concordes into airline service in 1977 both British Airways (BA) and Air France (AF) were nationalised companies owned by each respective nation's taxpayers. These same taxpayers had also paid for the design and construction of the aircraft, and were therefore legally also the owners of each aircraft built. Hence the 'owners' of the airline had already paid for the aircraft.
The original "£1" per-aircraft purchase price was a token payment by BA necessary to make the transfer of ownership from the manufacturer/government to the airline (a distinct corporate body) a legal sale with all the benefits/obligations that under consumer law come with the purchase of any item, and this itself was necessary because legally the taxpayer already owned both the aircraft, and the airline, and so if the aircraft were just 'given' to BA with no payment of money made the transfer would have been otherwise lacking the rights and obligations set out in contract law. Without this, things such as the aircraft, engine, and other equipment warranties, aircraft and engine performance guarantees, etc., would have been invalid and the 'customer' (BA) would have had no legal recourse against the manufacturer or equipment suppliers if the aircraft had proved faulty or unsatisfactory. By paying the £1 nominal payment the airline obtained the aircraft with all the normal legal benefits and safeguards as a buyer it would have had if it had purchased an aircraft from any other source.
In 1987 BA was privatised and so Lord King then had to pay the government (taxpayer) the real value (£16.5 million, etc.,) for each aircraft using money supplied by the private investors who had bought the company. This was a real sale.
Branson's 2003 "£1" offer was taking-the-p***s as the previous 1977 one-pound per-aircraft 'price' had not been a market value, but merely a legal device to transfer a piece (or rather seven pieces) of nationalised property to an also-nationalised company whilst giving the latter (BA) all the normal legal benefits of a commercial sale. Branson's lawyers would/should have told him this, and so the offer was most likely a publicity stunt. For one thing, BA was not likely to willingly retire an aircraft that generated a considerable portion of their profits, and after being forced to do so, they certainly wouldn't have sold it to a competitor to then operate. In addition all the Concorde-qualified engineering staff were at either BA or AF and Branson would have needed their services if he had acquired the aircraft.
So in answer to your original question, they both are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Where's the source of it being exactly £1? I watched the video and Heseltine says 'we gave it to them'. That's not £1. Also, my understanding is that BA didn't own the aircraft outright, that 80% of the profits were to be kept by the government.GliderMaven (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I was merely answering a question but IIRC the original sum was £1, and for the reason I stated. IIRC, it was only for the first year the privatised BA had to pay some of its profits back to the government (taxpayer). After that it wholly-owned the Concordes. I'm not sure about 1977 but back in 1999 many of the BA aircraft I worked on were owned by merchant banks and leased to BA, however the Concordes were actually owned by the company.
Michael Heseltine wasn't in power when the Concorde entered airline service in 1977, he was in opposition to James Callaghan's Labour Government so he may have been making a political point. In 1987 when BA was privatised he was in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. By then the seven BA Concordes were already ten years old.
According to Flight here:[5] pre-privatisation BA was required to pay the government (taxpayer) 80% of its Concorde profits to recover some of the aircraft's development costs, and the £16.5 million figure was paid in 1984 in return for not having to pay the 80% share of the Concord profits, and taking over responsibility from the government for the Concorde upkeep and support costs previously paid by the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh right, so you're saying, as an anonymous source here, that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect your memory of the original sum???? Yeah, no, we're not going to do that. We need an actual reliable source to the exact sum that we can reference. I mean, yeah, BA owned their Concordes lock-stock and two smoking barrels in 1999, after they'd paid millions for them, but not in 1971. And maybe BA paid one pound for something, or not, but they clearly didn't own Concorde outright for one pound.GliderMaven (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, you stated above that: "In 1987 BA was privatised and so Lord King then had to pay the government (taxpayer) the real value (£16.5 million, etc.,) for each aircraft using money supplied by the private investors who had bought the company. This was a real sale." This is also very wrong. BA bought Concorde in 1983, four years before BA was privatised.GliderMaven (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to remove the £1 claim, it's fictitious and unreferenced.GliderMaven (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
£1 per-aircraft BA purchase price stated in video here: [6]
... and if you had just asked nicely instead of given an ill-informed opinion in an accusatory manner you would not now be looking like a p*****k.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
"Captain Joe's" video on his youtube page is not a reliable source. Anyone can set up a youtube channel and claim anything. Got a reliable source? Because at the moment, you've got nothing. See WP:RELIABLE. He hasn't cited any references.GliderMaven (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

thats nonsense it didnt cost $275 to fly that route in 1997 - would be $1000 """"For example, in 1997, the round-trip ticket price from New York to London was $7,995, more than 30 times the cost of the cheapest option to fly this route.""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:D94:975D:40F7:F94:DA70:4AC1 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

old Concorde sites from airline operators

I'm not sure if these are good ELs for Wikipedia, but I found Air France's earliest saved Concorde official page: http://web.archive.org/web/19970707233436fw_/http://www.airfrance.fr:80/voyage/vousvoyagez/concorde/DA4_f.html WhisperToMe (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And this: http://web.archive.org/web/19990428150303/http://www.british-airways.com:80/concorde/ WhisperToMe (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

error?

First flight 2 March 1969 / Produced 1965–1979 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.0.233 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the article- "Construction of two prototypes began in February 1965" - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we please clean up the summary

The size of the summary and the amount of random small facts has made it significantly larger than most other aircraft summaries and it really should be reduced in size.

Generally the summaries only include the most important facts about the aircraft, not so many minor facts. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Max speed / Mach number

Why does it say max speed is 1354mph? Speed of sound is 767mph so if Concorde travelled at over double the speed of sound how can it be 1354mph? Kevsteele32 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources state and because speed for a given Mach value vary with altitude. You are listing the speed of sound at sea level there. See WP:MACH-NUMBER and Mach number for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The speed of sound decreases with altitude in the troposphere, so that it is only about 660mph at 32,000 feet on a standard day. Above 32,000 feet is the stratosphere, where the speed of sound remains much the same up to about Concorde's cruising altitude of 60,000 feet. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Konkorde" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Konkorde. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention in the article of the 1976 Concorde-B proposal

No mention in the article of the 1976 Concorde-B proposal [7], including use of more powerful and efficient engines to avoid use of afterburners. - Rod57 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That'd probably be something to put in a Variants section and label as 'proposed' or something comparable, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

main picture

I stumbled upon this nice candidate to replace the main picture:

  • current picture; from below, gear down, nose partly down
    current picture; from below, gear down, nose partly down
  • proposed picture, from above, gear up, nose up, vivid sky
    proposed picture, from above, gear up, nose up, vivid sky

any objection?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your proposed one is better! - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure I like the unatural angle of the proposed image and the cloud also confuses the eye. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The proposed image is a great one! However, I find the numbers on the wings leading edge a distraction. The current image w/gear down and faint smoke trail is cool and I prefer it. - Samf4u (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: how is it an unatural angle?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The image was taken at an air display with the aircraft displaying to the crowd, it is not the normal angle that people would associate with seeing a Concorde. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
ha, ok. but the goal is to pick the picture best depicting the aircraft configuration. and no one can see it inflight anymore. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
And it is the point of an air show to best display an aircraft. We are accustomed to takeoff/landing pictures because those are the ones most easily taken, but they are not the best representatives of most aircraft operations.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How about

- both in flight photos with the gear up and at a less distracting angle.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The left one could be interesting (I requested a slight rotation to make it horizontal) but is a little bit from behind (an airshow picture, again). The right one is too much from below and better shows the delta wing than the complete airliner, it looks like it doesn't have any windows.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Error : "Close up of engine nozzles of production Concorde G-AXDN. The nozzle consists of tilting cups"

Look at the photo, described as "Close up of engine nozzles of production Concorde G-AXDN. The nozzle consists of tilting cups." : that's not G-AXDN. AXDN is the first pre-production Concorde (01), and the tilting cups were put first on F-WTSA (02).

2A01:CB0C:88D2:1A00:C84C:26DB:39B8:35F5 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Speed of sound

The second sentence of page Concorde is this: "It had a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound at Mach 2.04 (1,354 mph or 2,180 km/h at cruise altitude), with seating for 92 to 128 passengers." The km number is 2500, not this 2180. It was important aim of the factory to catch the dream limit of 2500 km/h! >> https://s11.metric-conversions.org/speed/mach-to-kilometers-per-hour.htm

The speed of sound varies with altitude - the quoted website only gives the conversion at Sea Level - the cruise altitude for Concorde is ~ 56,000 feet (17,000 m).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, now I learnt something. (or we learnt :D) Have you oppinion about max km speed of Tu-144? (what isn't in its page) Showowindow (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Concorde fleet

The text in section "Aircraft on display" is mistaken. Only 20 units were built, not 26 units. Several sources confirm this. Two aircraft were prototypes (sn 001 and 002), two were pre-production (sn 101 and 102) and two were development aircraft (sn 201 and 202). The source "Towey 2007" (per infobox on Concorde aircraft histories), cite "20 (including 6 non-airline aircraft"). 18 remain preserved (sn 203 was destroyed in accident and sn 211 was scrapped).--PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the count back to 20 (the change was made 2 days ago, perhaps a misreading of the infobox). --Wire723 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, both the other user and I both misread the Infobox info, thanks. Concorde aircraft histories explains the non-commercial and commercial breakdown. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just heard (Master Minds quiz show, Game Show Network on cable TV) that law was passed to forbid Concorde from flying supersonic over U.S. This is because of sonic boom. Carlm0404 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn’t plausible that the Congress would pass a law of this kind directed at an airplane type. It is much more likely that the law prohibited any civilian airplane from supersonic flight over the territory of any US state. Alternatively the law might prohibit supersonic flight over mainland US without the permission of the Defense Department. Dolphin (t) 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You are thinking of FAR 91.817. You will notice it does not mention Concorde. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. One of the reasons that the US supersonic airliner program failed was because of environmental concerns that were just coming to the forefront at that time, ie. late 60s/early 70s. The Boeing 2707 would have likely faced the same restrictions as The Concorde had it been produced. Those restrictions are still in place today though the FAA is looking at modifying the restrictions to allow for the newer supersonic transports now under development that have hope to have reduced sonic booms. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

French flagman aircraft

At the moment, the article contains this: Presidents Georges Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and François Mitterrand regularly used Concorde as French flagman aircraft in foreign visits. Does that make sense, and work well in idiomatic English – even in an aircraft article? Whilst I understand what it means I find it a somewhat odd wording … but maybe it’s OK like that so I’m not starting a huge war over it! Just interested in the (to me) apparent oddness. Best to all DBaK (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, makes no sense to me like that! Where I live (Canada) a "flagman" is a person who signals traffic at a construction site. I think it means "flag aircraft", but it would be better to explain it something like: "used Concorde as French government charter VIP aircraft for foreign visits."- Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

11 September 2001

"The first flight with passengers after the events of 11 September 2001, landed shortly before the World Trade Center attacks in the United States."

This section has had edits and reverts (see article history) but still has issues with intelligibility and accuracy. The author is trying to say that there was a test flight (to/from Heathrow in the UK) on 11 September 2011. It landed around the time of the attacks on the World Trade Center on the same day (takeoff at 10:30 BST; landing at 13:50 BST — after the first plane hit the North Tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower) . It was not a commercial flight as only British Airways engineering staff were on the flight. It was the first flight with "passengers" (aka non- flight crew) onboard since the crash on 25 July 2020.

A valid source would be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1537086.stm DONAL HUNT (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Noise discussion is incomplete

Concorde was an extremely noisy aircraft even when flying subsonically. The article correctly states that even noisier aircraft were still in service (like the Boeing VC-137), but they were near the end of their effective life and already being replaced. Concorde was very much noisier than passenger aircraft that were being delivered at about the same time. The quote from BAC's technical director at the time, "production Concordes will be no worse than aircraft now in service and will in fact be better than many of them", is misleading sales talk and has no place in a Wikipedia article. "better than a few old aircraft that are already being replaced because they're too noisy" would have been true. Suggest omitting the quote completely. Barbacana (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The quote is adequately sourced and given context. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Inflation calculations seem off

It says the original cost estimate was £70 million (£1.53 billion in 2020) and the eventual cost £1.3 billion (£9.57 billion in 2020).

The original shows about 22x adjustment for inflation while the eventual shows about 7.3x adjustment for inflation. I'm guessing that is because the nominal prices are from greatly different years, but it seems confusing. 2600:100E:BE1A:3AFB:C86B:6F68:B5E9:4210 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Inflation was high between 1962 and 1976.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There are also different comparators for values. The 70 million to 1.53 billion uses "real " (commodity, retail price index) value. But Concorde is not a loaf of bread. By labour value it would be £3 billion. income value £4 billion and by economic share (of British GDP) £5 billion. See the calculation here at measuringworth.com GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a possibility of using the GDP deflator for the inflation template, I think. Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Time zone effect

I notice another comment in the forum. Because of time zones, the flights were more popular westbound, it would take minus two hours London-NY. Eastbound it took 8 hours because the clock was set forward 5 hours, and many rich and busy preferred a normal overnight flight, 11 hours after time zone adjustment, sleeping in first class compared to sit in Concorde. The forum author writes he was rebooked into Concorde after a cancelled flight because the Concorde had many unbooked seats eastbound.--BIL (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

While fascinating, none of this can be used in the article unless you have a reliable source for it (ie not a forum). - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
see above... the "forum" (Quora) cites British Airways. MBG02 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Avionics (in Specifications template)

Briefly, yes only the notable bits of kit should be listed, but a nuanced approach should be taken to the current list which does contain too many things: someone needs to read up on the subject properly and remove from the list only those items of avionics which were commonly fitted to airliners when Concorde came into service.

Thus, fly by wire (Concorde was the first such airliner), inertial navigation, electronic engine controls, digital intake controls, and several other items should certainly be left in place.

Please don't just hack and slash at this list without looking at each item properly - unless an easily interpreted definitive statement on exactly what should be included can be found someone in the guidance.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in your argument with the other users, but I suggest you be mindful of WP:3RR. I notice in the article history the edit from 16:39 yesterday is shown as coming from an IP editor, rather than from your username, but I also note you almost certainly wrote the edit summary, given its striking similarity to your other summaries in this exchange and given that your edit summary of 18:56 begins with "As per my explanation," which appears to refer back to the explanation in the 16:39 edit summary. I won't report it as a violation, but I suggest you be mindful of that rule before you continue reverting other people's edits. 1995hoo (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Aircraft_specs says for Avionics field is "a place to put any specific avionics used." This is meant for named or specific avionics components, not generic type info. Details and generic info really belong in the Design section instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Notability of JFK opposition to Concorde?

President Kennedy was angered by Pan Am's interest in Concorde, referring to initial efforts for the US Boeing 2707 etc. This is seen in the SimpleFlying 45ref and its source, and a recent BBC documentary. How notable is this? TGCP (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Notable for inclusion in the article on John F. Kennedy, but less so for the article on Concorde. Dolphin (t) 14:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, really about Kennedy and his domestic politics, rather than this aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sunrise in the West

Should add that Concorde flew faster than the earth spins and would catch-up with the sunset, so passengers could see the sun rise in the West [ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/concorde-contemplatio Fig (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)n] .

See WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How many Concorde passenger flights?

Article says 55 for Tu-144.

I’m sure it’s on Google somewhere but I can’t find it.

Estimate? 2 per week? 27 years? 2700 flights?

MBG02 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

On this forum there is an educated guess of 100.000 flights.--BIL (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I gotta get better at this searching stuff. (That was easy, with "British Airways"). (Of course, unnecessary if it's on Wiki).
British Airways Concorde made just under 50,000 flights and flew more than 2.5m passengers supersonically. [8]
I was thinking (later) that it must've been over 2 flights per week. So, 100k flights, 74 per week average. Must've often been around 200 pw. MBG02 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Still haven't found it.

This site [9] says 50,000 flights (in total).

This site [10] implies 50,000 too; and (if I read it correctly) says 1 round trip per day by Air France, and 2 by British Airways => 42 flights per week for most of 1976-2000 => 24.5 years => 53.6k flights.

MBG02 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere ages ago that each and every flight was subsidised by taxpayers by several hundred euros, and so it never made any real profit. Article is poor on the real economics of it, and also its contribution to future technology.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well what you read was wrong.
Initial British Airways flights before privatisation charged a fare rate of 'First Class plus 20% Supersonic tariff' and due to the low take-up (many potential passengers thought that fares were much higher than they were in reality) did not produce a profit. After privatisation in 1987 British Airways (BA) management raised Concorde fares to what the market would pay, most of Concorde's passengers being businessmen who's fare was being paid by their employers. BA from then on made a profit on their Concorde operations such that BA's seven Concordes were eventually generating 25% of BA's net profits.
Taxpayer subsidies stopped upon BA privatisation in 1987.
Just prior to the the halt in Concorde operations in 2003 BA had been studying a 10-year Life Extension programme to continue flying Concorde until 2013. Operations were not stopped because BA didn't want to continue using Concorde, quite the reverse, otherwise they would not have spent over £1,000,000 per-aircraft on the Kevlar fuel tank liners. 86.8.126.91 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

XB70 converted for commercial use (?)

Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections Jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your sources? BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
How? There are only 2 prototypes built and they are on display now.-Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The conversion was in the design stage, it was mentioned in a recent documentary on British TV. Needs a proper source for addition here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Add a Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era?

I tried today to add this template, but ended up just messing up the See also area and I gave up, but I would love to have this in the article. I'm thinking Boeing 2707, Tu-144, and the Lockheed L-2000 to be added. Forevernewyes (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In practice there is just the Tupelov, the others never left the drawing board. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Ive seen many real planes have the "See also" section have drawing board planes, also both had mockups made of them, so i see that as pretty reasonable to add. Just a thought A-37Dragonfly (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that the B-2707 had been developed for several years, and had a mockup built like the L-2000. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
How is that in any way relevant to this article? Congress pulled the plug before a prototype was even assembled, much less flew. We don’t need to lard up every article with trivia. 1995hoo (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concorde/Archive_5&oldid=1257344824"