If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In article op.tcfv2ea5j9nxpm@clive,
Clive wrote: Concorde had been the safest working passenger airliner in the world according to passenger deaths per distance travelled, although the Boeing 737 fleet acquires more passenger miles and service hours in one week than the Concorde fleet acquired in the course of its entire service career. The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career. Good enough? No. The safety record that the Concorde had was a quirk of statistics. The Concorde had low flight hours and zero fatal accidents. That made the safety number look good. Once it had its first fatal accident, the Concorde dropped to the bottom of the list, and became the least safe working passenger airliner in the world. With one fatal accident and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like models of safety. -john- -- ================================================== ==================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ==================== |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
wrote in message ... On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:27:11 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" wrote: With one fatal accident and so few flight hours, the Concorde made the Russians look like models of safety. And the cause of the crash was due to an object being thrown up from the runway and piercing a fuel tank in the wing ,now has most aircraft have tanks located in their wings are not all the jets that are about to take off at this very moment not susceptible to this problem . The cause of the crash was NOT the puncture of the wing tank but was the ignition of the leaking fuel by the afterburning jet engine behind it. Since most aircraft do NOT have such afterburning engines aft of them this would not be problem. There have been major fuel leaks on other aircraft without such fires. Of course your favourite aircraft, the BAC One-11 DID have low bypass rear mounted engines and so was rather more susceptible to such problems. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright wrote: Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of keeping it running were rising year after year. Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the drawing board . Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete. Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh ! Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:34 +0100, "Keith W" wrote: Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete. Concorde was obsolete before it was built due to its very high operating cost and small passenger capacity plus the passenger market that it was aimed at plus of course the excessive noise it made I saw and heard it once over here on one of its test flights before going into service . Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should acquire a dictionary. Why do you think only a few ever went into service at great expense to the British and French tax payers just has the channel tunnel is/was in fact but at least ordinary people can afford to travel via the tunnel, I have been through it four times in either direction in the last year in fact . In fact the Channel Tunnel cost the British taxpayer nothing. The private investors who put up the money lost a bloody fortune however. By your definition this makes it obsolete ! Taxpayer money has however been spent on the high speed rail link between London and the tunnel portal. 29.00 London to any station in Belgium is a good deal I think and much cheaper than going by any airline and less messing around at the other end even though the journey will take me 11 hours from here to where I go in Belgium and the same returning the next day . The minimum return fare from London to Belgium is £59 and that is only available with a 21 day advanced purchase. I frequently use Eurostar between London and Paris but usually end up paying around £150 for a semi-flexible ticket Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
In article , Keith W keithspam@k
willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk writes wrote in message .. . On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright wrote: Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of keeping it running were rising year after year. Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the drawing board . Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete. Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh ! Keith But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart. -- Mike Lindsay |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Keith W wrote:
Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete. no quite: we should never make anything which is already obsolete on the drawing board (e.g., A380, Concorde, etc.) just for the sake of prestige -- but then, it's tax payer money, why bother asking such questions? --Sylvain |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Keith W wrote:
Obsolete does not mean unprofitable. Perhaps you should acquire a dictionary. don't be pedantic; it was obsolte as a blue print -- and so is the A380 -- because it was trying to solve a problem that was no longer relevant or never existed, other than in the imagination of the decision makers: fly faster across the Atlantic (considering the severly limited range of the Concorde, and the fact that nobody wanted the dang thing to overfly them at supersonic speed, it couldn't really be used for anything else), who cares? when most of the time spent travelling is spent waiting in line at the large hub airport (and traveling to and from said large hub airport), or in the case of the A380 competing with the boeing 747 thirty years to late, and when it has been clear for quite a while now that the big-hub-to-big-hub model of air transport no longer make sense. that said, if the private sector wants to sink money into projects like that, I am all for it; hey, let's try to raise some money to build the largest pyramid too while we are at it. --Sylvain |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Concorde - join the campaign
Mike Lindsay wrote: In article , Keith W keithspam@k willshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk writes wrote in message .. . On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:55:34 +0100, John Wright wrote: Concorde was already on the slippery path to obsolescence long before the crash - many of the suppliers who made original parts for it had gone out of business, either that or jigs and tools had been lost, so many more parts were having to be specially made. So the costs of keeping it running were rising year after year. Which all goes to prove it should never have been allowed of the drawing board . Right we should never make anything which will become obsolete. Guess that means back to the horse and cart huh ! Keith But you can't get much more obsolete than a horse and cart. I'll reserve my judgement when I get the fuel and maintenance bills for each, and try to keep an open mind until somebody's horse & buggy goes down in flames over some French village. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Concorde - join the campaign | Keith Willshaw | General Aviation | 10 | July 11th 06 09:30 PM |
Concorde - join the campaign | LWG | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 9th 06 09:06 PM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Brian Goodspeed | Soaring | 0 | June 7th 06 01:44 AM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Jim Carter | Owning | 0 | June 6th 06 03:28 AM |
Concorde - join the campaign | Jim | Naval Aviation | 2 | June 3rd 06 10:27 PM |