Talk:Concorde/archive

Does anyone know how many Concorde planes there are? (the "fleet" of Concordes)?

please see this: http://www.concorde-jet.com/e_air_france.htm and this: http://www.concorde-jet.com/e_british_airways.htm for a reference -- WojPob

Thanks!

---

Whatever happened with the Soviet civilian supersonic transport program (Tupolev?)

See Tupolev Tu-144

Thnaks!

---

Sucessfull should be removed or moderated. Concorde is technical success but a commercial flop.

Improved now? --Brion

Better. But it needs to be extended. On the long run Air France and Bristish may have earn money with Concorde. But production and studies for Concorde where a financial disaster. On the other hand some say than Concorde was necessary to allow european aircraft industry to becane competitive. The benefit of Concorde may well be in Airbus. In France Concorde is widely considered as an expansive flop while in US very few considers the Appollo program as to expansive. I will try to a paragraph about it. Ericd

Apollo was never a for-profit enterprise. --Brion

Right, but was really Concorde for-profit ? Every major decision was made by politicians nor busisnessmen. Ericd

---

I have changed 17,000 meters to 60,000 feet because, in most of the world, aviation uses feet for altitudes. 60,000 feet is 18,000 meters. I know that Concorde virtually never cruises in normal operations at 60,000 feet but I am quoting the max operational cruise height.
I have also removed the phrase in the first line about non-profitability. I view this as contentious for an encyclopaedia. How is profit measured, has the fact that the aircraft were given to BA and Air France been allowed for, what is the source of the non-profit statement and so on. Best to leave well alone , IMHO.
My credentials for saying all this? I worked at British Aerospace at Filton, near Bristol UK, for 36 years, 12 of them on Concorde aerodynamics. Arpingstone 20:12 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Are you sure about the bit about low numbers after the crash? The news report I heard specifically disavowed the crash as a reason for the grounding. - Montréalais

---

As Concorde is a french word used by both the UK and France, it is never written as the Concorde, always concorde, to avoid linguistic confusion over le or the. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:20 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

The first picture is just a model. Who are you trying to fool? dave 07:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I prepared this pic for the Concorde article so I resent your silly remark! Think before you write, please.

Firstly, I've looked closely at the bigger version of the picture. The exhaust from the nearest engine can just be seen.

Secondly, Derek has one and a half thousand superb aircraft pictures on a site called www.airliners.net, he has no need to use models! Just go to that site, select Photographer in the Keywords search box and type in Derek Pedley. All 1479 of his pictures will appear.

Thirdly, it certainly does not look like a model to me, no Concorde model that good has ever been issued.

Fourthly I worked on Concorde at Filton, Bristol, for 12 years so I do know what the real thing looks like (and it overflies my house every morning on its way to New York).

If Derek Pedley (who let me use his photo) sees your comment he'll never let me have a photo again. Please engage your brain before writing!

Adrian Pingstone 08:20 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

It's obviously not a model the photo has sme low contrast that is characteristic of a photo taken at long-distance with a telephoto lens. Ericd 08:35 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe he's just trying to badly spoof Monty Python and the Holy Grail's "It's only a model" line? <g> -- John Owens

Ok, fine it's not a model. I was just kidding around. But it does look an awful lot like a model. Maybe there should be a disclaimer, saying "this is not a plastic model" beneath it. dave 18:48 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this kind of joke. I had to spend time composing a serious reply and then you don't have the decency to apologise for wasting my time. Moreover, you changed the caption to read ".....this is a plastic model" which I had to revert.

Adrian Pingstone 19:43 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, well your long serious reply was a bit excessive and unecessary. I don't need proof that it isn't really a model. It still looks plastic. I'm sorry for posting "this is a plastic model" and I'm also sorry that you chose to use a picture that looks so much like a plastic model. dave 04:14 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that there's nothing in the shot to reference it to. Maybe we should find a picture of the Concorde with a quarter next to it or something. :-) --Alan D

Yes, you're correct. You know how the when the moon is near the horizon people think it is bigger than when it is directly overhead? Well, it isn't, it's just because when it is near the trees, mountains, houses, whatever, it appears larger relatively. But overhead, there is nothing to compare it to, so it looks small. So the concorde just needs something next to it. The paint also needs to be scuffed up a bit, make it look like real metal. dave 05:46 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Adrian, please just ignore the above. Any place has a tiny minority of rude and ignorant people who don't appreciate quality work when they see it. They are not worth wasting a moment of your time on. Everyone around here appreciates the excellent work you have put in, and we all hope that you will contine to improve Wikipedia's visual appeal - something that has been sadly lacking until recently. Don't reply to this thread: you have real work to do. Tannin 10:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, you are a real gentleman. Thanks for your highly-valued support. Thread closed! -- Adrian Pingstone 12:09 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thread re-opened. Tannin and Adrian, I honestly thought it was plastic. Period! I was not trying to be rude initally, it was just some constructive criticism that I didn't think a plastic model should be used as a picture. I think I got annoyed over Adrian's comments above where he listed 4 reasons why it is not plastic, which was very condescending. All he had to do was politely tell me that it wasn't plastic, and quote the source, and it would have ended right there. Instead he took it personally, and I decided to have a bit of fun after that. I guess everyone doesn't share my sense of humour. Just don't take me so seriously. Anyways, Adrian, I truly am sorry. Thread closed once more. dave 15:25 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Dave. Apology accepted, no hard feelings. (Well, I shouldn't speak for Adrian in this, but I'm sure he would feel the same.) I withdraw my comment above. The thread isn't that long, but I think this is a good time to archive it anyway. Then we can start afresh Tannin 15:31 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, starting fresh is good. dave 15:49 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)