Concorde - join the campaign

[k***@gmail.com]

Hi all,

The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

To sum up the situation:
- we aren't arguing with the reasons Concorde went out of service - the
airframes were over 25 years old, whereas the average age of British
Airways fleet is less than five years

- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe

- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com

[frank]

So all of the Concorde jigs & fixtures & the like still exist?

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
- we aren't arguing with the reasons Concorde went out of service - the
airframes were over 25 years old, whereas the average age of British
Airways fleet is less than five years
- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.
PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com

[Greg]

Post by frank
So all of the Concorde jigs & fixtures & the like still exist?

No, they were all destroyed in a shady deal between the British and US
governments, something to do with us not getting the loans we needed unless
we destroyed them so that we couldn't challenge their industry.

Greg

[ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)]

Post by Greg

Post by frank
So all of the Concorde jigs & fixtures & the like still exist?

No, they were all destroyed in a shady deal between the British and US
governments, something to do with us not getting the loans we needed unless
we destroyed them so that we couldn't challenge their industry.

I should have known that Concorde would attract the same level of
conspiracy kookery that also attached to the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2.

The US air industry would have *loved* for the British and French
industries to continue to waste their money building over priced gas
guzzling white elephants instead of building competitive airliners.

[Greg]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
I should have known that Concorde would attract the same level of
conspiracy kookery that also attached to the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2.

The construction jigs at Toulouse and Filton were dug up and destroyed,
that's a fact, so the OP's idea of building more is ridiculous. Whether you
believe there was a connection between this and other facts and the US
giving it's backing for the IMF to bail out the Wilson government in 1976 is
up to you, though how anyone can still think that such underhand dealing is
beneath the US's high moral standards is beyond me 8-).

Greg

[ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)]

Post by Greg

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
I should have known that Concorde would attract the same level of
conspiracy kookery that also attached to the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2.

The construction jigs at Toulouse and Filton were dug up and destroyed,

Yes, but every government destroys the jigs and drawings when they cancel
a previous government's project - they know that if they don't, when the
government changes again, it might restart the program. That's what
happened with the Avro Arrow, the TSR-2, and Concorde. Sometimes even a
new corporate owner does it - when Boeing bought deHavilland Canada, they
destroyed the jigs of the Twin Otter even though there was still a market
for it because they wanted to make sure deHavilland only produced the Dash
8.

If you ask me, Jimmy Carter's biggest mistake as President was not
ordering the destruction of everything to do with the B-1 when he
cancelled the project, so Reagan could come along and make it into a gold
plated hangar queen.

Post by Greg
that's a fact, so the OP's idea of building more is ridiculous. Whether you

Of course it is. You can't revive a project that was a failure 40 years
ago and make it not a failure now.

[Roy Smith]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
You can't revive a project that was a failure 40 years
ago and make it not a failure now.

That doesn't bode well for the 2nd Ave Subway.

[Bob Matthews]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Greg

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
I should have known that Concorde would attract the same level of
conspiracy kookery that also attached to the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2.

The construction jigs at Toulouse and Filton were dug up and destroyed,

Yes, but every government destroys the jigs and drawings when they cancel
a previous government's project - they know that if they don't, when the
government changes again, it might restart the program. That's what
happened with the Avro Arrow, the TSR-2, and Concorde. Sometimes even a
new corporate owner does it - when Boeing bought deHavilland Canada, they
destroyed the jigs of the Twin Otter even though there was still a market
for it because they wanted to make sure deHavilland only produced the Dash
8.
If you ask me, Jimmy Carter's biggest mistake as President was not
ordering the destruction of everything to do with the B-1 when he
cancelled the project, so Reagan could come along and make it into a gold
plated hangar queen.

His second biggest mistake was not taking the Iowa class BBs a few miles
past the continental shelf and opening the sea-cocks.

Cheers

==bob

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Greg
that's a fact, so the OP's idea of building more is ridiculous. Whether you

Of course it is. You can't revive a project that was a failure 40 years
ago and make it not a failure now.

[ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)]

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
If you ask me, Jimmy Carter's biggest mistake as President was not
ordering the destruction of everything to do with the B-1 when he
cancelled the project, so Reagan could come along and make it into a gold
plated hangar queen.

His second biggest mistake was not taking the Iowa class BBs a few miles
past the continental shelf and opening the sea-cocks.

What's the naval equivalent term to "gold plated hangar queen"? "Wharf
queen"?

[Steve Hix]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Greg

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)
I should have known that Concorde would attract the same level of
conspiracy kookery that also attached to the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2.

The construction jigs at Toulouse and Filton were dug up and destroyed,

Yes, but every government destroys the jigs and drawings when they cancel
a previous government's project - they know that if they don't, when the
government changes again, it might restart the program. That's what
happened with the Avro Arrow, the TSR-2, and Concorde. Sometimes even a
new corporate owner does it - when Boeing bought deHavilland Canada, they
destroyed the jigs of the Twin Otter even though there was still a market
for it because they wanted to make sure deHavilland only produced the Dash
8.

The SR-71 tooling was similarly destroyed in 1968, etc.

[Jürgen Exner]

Post by Greg

Post by frank
So all of the Concorde jigs & fixtures & the like still exist?

No, they were all destroyed in a shady deal between the British and US
governments, something to do with us not getting the loans we needed
unless we destroyed them so that we couldn't challenge their industry.

Who "us" and "we" and "them" are you referring to?

jue

[Greg]

Post by Jürgen Exner
Who "us" and "we" and "them" are you referring to?

I don't think it's hard to work out really, but to spell it out the British
Government needed a huge loan from the IMF which just 'happens' to be based
in the US, the British destroyed the jigs so that they could not build any
more Concords which were at the time seen as a challenge to the US aircraft
industry and the US was doing it's best to stop then flying into it's
airports.

With hindsight of course Concorde was an economic disaster and would never
have challenged anyone, but who was to know that for sure at the time, the
US government wasn't taking any chances and did a secret deal which the
British politicians were happy to accept because, like any politicians, they
only think in the short term.

Of course the why is not very important, the fact is the jigs were destroyed
and so any suggestion of building new Concords is idiotic if for no other
reason than the huge cost of replacing the jigs.

Greg

[k***@hotmail.com]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

....

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

Sorry to disappoint you, but building brand new Concordes now would be,
umm, bizarre. The plane flew it's first flight almost 40 years ago, and
was not developed much further. It would be like selecting Gloster
Meteor as a fighter during 1980's...

Besides, wouldn't a better idea be try to convince Richard Branson or
some other obscure billionaire to actually order Concordes? Airbus is a
corporation, if their client orders something they'll deliver, if
client pays the price...

Mvh,
Jon K

[Flying Rat]

In article <***@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
says...

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
- we aren't arguing with the reasons Concorde went out of service - the
airframes were over 25 years old, whereas the average age of British
Airways fleet is less than five years
- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe

Rubbish. Airbus gets repayable loans. EADS isn't some kind of charity.

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

More rubbish. Both aircraft will provide cheap longhaul operations.

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

Bullshit.
Just bullshit. No jigs exist, no engines are available and the avionics
are thirty years out of date. Are you going to pay the development
costs? Or the cost of hand building the aircraft from scratch?

Post by k***@gmail.com
PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com

I've never read a more blatant load of old rubbish in all my life.

Of course fuel costs had nothing to do with Concorde being
expensive....what a maroon. These nuts think tickets will be cheaper
when oil is three times as expensive as it was when Concorde was flying!

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by Flying Rat

Post by k***@gmail.com
- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe

Rubbish. Airbus gets repayable loans. EADS isn't some kind of charity.

Not quite. Repayable at the sole discretion of EADS, no interest, no
repayment terms. That's effective "you may pay us back at some point in the
future if you feel like it" which means it is a grant.

Post by Flying Rat

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

More rubbish. Both aircraft will provide cheap longhaul operations.

neither will be economic successes for Airbus though. But then Airbus is a
political rather than an economic entity.

Post by Flying Rat

Post by k***@gmail.com
PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com

I've never read a more blatant load of old rubbish in all my life.
Of course fuel costs had nothing to do with Concorde being
expensive....what a maroon. These nuts think tickets will be cheaper
when oil is three times as expensive as it was when Concorde was flying!

and what about maintenance cost, crew training, support infrastructure, and
the miriad other things needed inside an airline to operate a small number
of highly specialised aircraft that can only ever be used on a very small
number of routes.

[Flying Rat]

Post by Jeroen Wenting
Not quite. Repayable at the sole discretion of EADS, no interest, no
repayment terms. That's effective "you may pay us back at some point in the
future if you feel like it" which means it is a grant.

you are completely wrong.

Loans are made at a positive APR and also with royalty clauses. Please
don't read the cheerleading at airliners.net and take that as fact.

EADS borrows at what is referred to as a 'commercial' APR and repayment
of principal is frequently tied to frames produced. In the case of the
A320, launch finance is long since repaid and the British Government is
now receiving a royalty on each aircraft sold.

The A300 finance is now 99% repaid. The final small payment comes due
when the aircraft completes production shortly. If Airbus takes a line
out of production then repayment agreements would apply to all other
supported products such as the A330/A340.

The finance was arranged that way so that Airbus would not be crippled
by heavy principal repayments if the A300 and subsequent aircraft failed
to sell. Later finance was strictly under the one-third rule, EADS
Airbus needing to raise the remaining two-thirds from normal sources or
its own turnover.

FR

[Flying Rat]

Post by Jeroen Wenting
neither will be economic successes for Airbus though. But then Airbus is a
political rather than an economic entity.

you really are talking rubbish now.

EADS is a private company listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. BAe
Systems is a private British company. The two own Airbus outright.

FR

[Keith W]

Post by Flying Rat

Post by Jeroen Wenting
neither will be economic successes for Airbus though. But then Airbus is a
political rather than an economic entity.

you really are talking rubbish now.
EADS is a private company listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.

Well sort of. Only a third of their shares are traded, another 30% are
owned by Daimler Chrysler , 15% are owned by the Lagardere Group
(used to be known as Matra) with the French and Spanish governments
owning 15% and 5% respectively.

Post by Flying Rat
BAe
Systems is a private British company. The two own Airbus outright.

BAE Systems have recently announced they are selling their 20% interest.



Keith

[Sla#s]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

...mostly from people who haven't a clue what getting it into the air again
actual means!

And what a horrendous waste of money.

OK it was a beautiful aircraft - but remember it for that, don't try to
relive a glorious age - make a new one! Stop living in the past.

Slatts

[Michael Ware]

Post by Sla#s

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

...mostly from people who haven't a clue what getting it into the air again
actual means!
And what a horrendous waste of money.
OK it was a beautiful aircraft - but remember it for that, don't try to
relive a glorious age - make a new one! Stop living in the past.
Slatts

Yes, money much more well spent on some kind of low-orbit, near-innerspace
type vehicle, for NewYork-Tokyo type trips. Not for hopping the pond.

[Clive]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

...mostly from people who haven't a clue what getting it into the air =

=

again
actual means!
And what a horrendous waste of money.
OK it was a beautiful aircraft - but remember it for that, don't try t=

o

relive a glorious age - make a new one! Stop living in the past.
Slatts

OK - so it would be really expensive to maintain in flying order.

BUT, lsn't that the case of most old aircraft. OK the concorde is =

supersonic, maybe it could be flown, but not supersonic - ok, well maybe=
=

that would defeat the object of getting it in the air again.

One last thought..... if nobody ever restored OLD aircraft... no =

Spitfires, Mustangs, etc.

Airshows would also loose a lot of money..

Clive

[150flivver]

Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

[Steve Hix]

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

Missed some recent satellite launches? (OK, so someone might want to see
it man-rated first...)

[Keith W]

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

What retirement ?

The Atlas series is still very much in use.

Keith

[Bob Matthews]

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

==bob

[ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)]

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

[Steve Hix]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

I wonder if the did the same thing to the RB-36E at Castle AFB?

[Bob Matthews]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

How about the XC99? Did they ever get that monster to taxi?

==bob

[eatfastnoodle]

I'm interested in why there are so many "campaign for signature to save
something" rubbish lately, I mean, if you are trying to attract
attention from politicans, that method may actually work, since
political campaign is basically a giant campaign to collect signatures,
but to ask commerical entities to spend billions of their money to
satisify your stupid dream is beyond selfish, nobody has any obligation
to help you, if you are really serious about saving a TV show or
concorde or anything else, dont sign your name and expect others to
risk their ass for you, donate your own money, otherwise, your so
called campaign looks selfish and not serious.

[Flying Rat]

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

How about the XC99? Did they ever get that monster to taxi?

http://www.air-and-space.com/xc99.htm

that what you are thinking of?

FR

[Curt]

Post by Bob Matthews
How about the XC99? Did they ever get that monster to taxi?

Yep, on its way to logging over 7,400 hours.

Curt

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/apr_04/apr04_events41.html
XC-99 Goes To Air Force Museum


Parts of the historic XC-99 aircraft were hauled via opportune airlift
from the Kelly Annex at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas, to the Air Force
Museum near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in April. The aircraft, a
derivative of the Consolidated B-36 Peacemaker, made its first cargo run on
14 July 1950. It went on to log more than 7,400 hours of flying time and
moved more than 60 million pounds of cargo. The XC-99 was flown on its final
voyage on 19 March 1957 and has been located in an open area of the Kelly
Annex for many years. The one-of-a-kind cargo transport is expected to
undergo an extended restoration process before going on display.

[frank]

The B-36 didn't have wing struts.

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.
--
Oh, NT is reliable. You can count on it to keel over under just any
circumstance.
-- Rik Steenwinkel

[Steve Hix]

Post by frank

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

The B-36 didn't have wing struts.

Perhaps he just misspelled "spars"

[ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)]

Post by frank
The B-36 didn't have wing struts.

Sorry, I meant spar, not strut.

[Richard Brooks]

Post by ptomblin+ (Paul Tomblin)

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by 150flivver
Let's start a signature campaign to bring the Atlas rocket out of
retirement. Relive those thrilling moments of Mercury capsules
orbiting the earth. With enough signatures I'm sure it will happen.

While we're at it, which would be more expensive to restore to flight
status: A B36J or a Concorde?

There was a group that was going to restore a B-36 to flight status -
until the Soviets discovered it and insisted that it be counted in the
START counts. The State Department showed up with a Soviet observer and
cut the wing struts.

So the ex-Strathallan Lancaster having a hangar girder go through the
wing spar was a secret plan by the Russians. There is such a thing as
having too many bombers! ;-)


Richard.

[Sla#s]

<SNIP>

Post by Clive
OK - so it would be really expensive to maintain in flying order.

Too much of it was 'one off' - the hydraulic oil for example!
and as mentioned above even the metal it was made of.

Post by Clive
One last thought..... if nobody ever restored OLD aircraft... no
Spitfires, Mustangs, etc.

Hell I could repair one of those - we still use that technology, metals,
rivets, oils etc in GA aircraft today.

Just look how long it took to get a Superfortress back in the air - that's a
really simple aircraft compared to Concorde.
Just to overhaul one Olympus would cost more than the B29.
It would be cheaper to get Burt Rutan to build you a replica!
In fact that may very well be your best bet.

Of course from an engineering point of view - nothing is impossible - the
question is how long you got and how much can you afford?

Slatts

[Pooh Bear]

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

Pardon ? What's questionable about them ?

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,

No they couldn't, the jigs have been trashed.

Post by k***@gmail.com
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

LOL ! Does that make the fuel cheaper too ?

Graham

[Bob Urz]

Post by Pooh Bear

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

Pardon ? What's questionable about them ?

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,

No they couldn't, the jigs have been trashed.

Post by k***@gmail.com
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

LOL ! Does that make the fuel cheaper too ?
Graham

The next "concorde" will be a near orbit to destination craft.
I would not hold your breath waiting for it. You will see it
in a Bond movie long before you can ride one.

Bob

----== 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 =----

[Bob Matthews]

Post by Bob Urz

Post by Pooh Bear

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

Pardon ? What's questionable about them ?

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,

No they couldn't, the jigs have been trashed.

Post by k***@gmail.com
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

LOL ! Does that make the fuel cheaper too ?
Graham

The next "concorde" will be a near orbit to destination craft.
I would not hold your breath waiting for it. You will see it
in a Bond movie long before you can ride one.

For a flight from New York to Singapore, with a peak speed of 7,000 mph,
what sort of G-forces would the passengers be subjected to? I realize
that this would vary with the profile, but it sounds like the beverage
cart would be a hand full.

==bob

Post by Bob Urz
Bob
----== 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 =----

[Dave Kearton]

Post by Bob Matthews
For a flight from New York to Singapore, with a peak speed of 7,000
mph, what sort of G-forces would the passengers be subjected to? I
realize that this would vary with the profile, but it sounds like the
beverage cart would be a hand full.
==bob

Will probably see the introduction of the 'beverage drip'.


Likewise for bathroom trips - eeeuuuwwww

[Steve Hix]

In article

Post by Dave Kearton

Post by Bob Matthews
For a flight from New York to Singapore, with a peak speed of 7,000
mph, what sort of G-forces would the passengers be subjected to? I
realize that this would vary with the profile, but it sounds like the
beverage cart would be a hand full.
==bob

Will probably see the introduction of the 'beverage drip'.
Likewise for bathroom trips - eeeuuuwwww

"We'll be landing in Singapore in a few minutes; please be patient while
the cabin crew disconnects your catheters. Thank you for flying ... "

[Flying Rat]

Post by Bob Matthews

Post by Bob Urz

Post by Pooh Bear

Post by k***@gmail.com
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly questionable
projects

Pardon ? What's questionable about them ?

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,

No they couldn't, the jigs have been trashed.

Post by k***@gmail.com
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

LOL ! Does that make the fuel cheaper too ?
Graham

The next "concorde" will be a near orbit to destination craft.
I would not hold your breath waiting for it. You will see it
in a Bond movie long before you can ride one.

For a flight from New York to Singapore, with a peak speed of 7,000 mph,
what sort of G-forces would the passengers be subjected to? I realize
that this would vary with the profile, but it sounds like the beverage
cart would be a hand full.

relatively low G force, apparently.

High G force is a feature of straight-up launches like the shuttle, and
even that doesn't really generate a lot of G. An orbit skimming
spaceplane would be a much gentler ride, probably comparable to flying
in an older jet fighter without the severe punch. Once it is in low
orbit then the passengers would experience weightlessness and need
adapted refreshment service, although the flight duration would mean a
meal service would not be necessary.

The deceleration phase would also be a lot less brutal than an Apollo or
Soyuz re-entry. As the plane is in very low orbit it won't be travelling
nearly as fast as a spacecraft so there is a lot less energy to lose.

When Concorde was operating, it flew subsonically to the Bristol Channel
area then lit the afterburners. A spaceplane would do something broadly
similar, flying from an airport to a track point where it then powers up
and continues acceleration all the way into low orbit. Concorde reached
its cruising altitude and speed, where it then operated within the
atmosphere. A spaceplane could continue higher and faster as it would
not be constrained by the need for atmospheric oxygen or external
pressure on the fuselage.

FR

[Keith W]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

Nonsense

The underlying problems of short range, low capacity and high
fuel consumption remain and even if you believe that supersonic
aircraft are a good idea using a 40 year old design is just silly.

Keith

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

That is complete garbage, Concorde used creep resistant alloys specially
developed for the project and those alloys simply aren't made any more, the
standard sheet alloy for Concorde was designated CM1001-1 whereas normal
airliners use L164 & L166 type alloys.
The existing Concorde airframes will be starting to show corrosion by now so
I will never support restoring Concorde to fly again, it will just cost too
much money.
The remaining Concordes should remain as they are - museum pieces.
Regards Mike.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.
- we aren't arguing with the reasons Concorde went out of service - the
airframes were over 25 years old, whereas the average age of British
Airways fleet is less than five years
- Airbus receives billions of Euros every year in subsidy - it has a
duty to build the best planes it can for the people of Europe
- the A380 and A350 (which hasn't yet started) are highly

questionable

Post by k***@gmail.com
projects
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.
PLEASE add your support to the petition at www.save-concorde.com

No, it's just not cost effective in this day and age with the
prevailing fuel pricing. If there were money to be made, the airlines
would already be doing it.

[David Cartwright]

Post by k***@gmail.com
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

Sadly, the only thing that could possibly get Concorde flying again is not a
bunch of signatures - it's a very hefty cheque from a very rich
aviation-enthusiast benefactor. I would dearly love to see it fly again, but
I am resigned to it being a part of history, not something for the future.

Post by k***@gmail.com
- fresh Concorde air-frames could be built by Airbus at modest cost,
and given that R&D has already been written-off, the tickets could be
priced much lower.

There has been much written in this newsgroup about the destruction of the
tooling, etc, and it is pretty certain that it would not be possible to
build new airframes without massive tooling-up costs. What I do find myself
wondering, though, is how much of Concorde's design concept is being used as
the basis for the next generation of small, fast airliners - whatever they
turn out to be like. After all, what we have is a fuselage and wing design
that permits continuous supersonic flight with no need for afterburners
(unlike the Tu-144 "Concordski", Corncorde pilots switched off the reheat on
attaining supersonic speed). Not a bad starting point for a modern company.

D.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Post by David Cartwright

Post by k***@gmail.com
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

Sadly, the only thing that could possibly get Concorde flying again is not
a bunch of signatures - it's a very hefty cheque from a very rich
aviation-enthusiast benefactor. I would dearly love to see it fly again,
but I am resigned to it being a part of history, not something for the
future.

Not even that. It would also require the active support of EADS to provide
the spare parts needed to get and keep the aircraft airworthy.
As EADS has no economic interest in supporting a 40 year old design of which
only 2 or 3 would ever fly again when they can sell and support a larger
number of new aircraft to fly the same routes using the same people and
infrastructure that's not going to happen.

Concorde wasn't economically feasible. Except for a short period in the
1980s it never was (and then only for BA). Good riddance and goodbye.
Sure she looked nice, but this was supposed to have been a commercial
aircraft, not an entry in a beauty contest.

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

Post by Jeroen Wenting

Post by David Cartwright

Post by k***@gmail.com
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!

Sadly, the only thing that could possibly get Concorde flying again is
not a bunch of signatures - it's a very hefty cheque from a very rich
aviation-enthusiast benefactor. I would dearly love to see it fly again,
but I am resigned to it being a part of history, not something for the
future.

Not even that. It would also require the active support of EADS to provide
the spare parts needed to get and keep the aircraft airworthy.
As EADS has no economic interest in supporting a 40 year old design of
which only 2 or 3 would ever fly again when they can sell and support a
larger number of new aircraft to fly the same routes using the same people
and infrastructure that's not going to happen.
Concorde wasn't economically feasible. Except for a short period in the
1980s it never was (and then only for BA). Good riddance and goodbye.
Sure she looked nice, but this was supposed to have been a commercial
aircraft, not an entry in a beauty contest.

Although EADS now own Airbus, the design authority for Concorde actually lay
with Airbus.
Regards Mike.

[Andrew Crane]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Wow - if only BA had thought of this, they could have saved it three years
ago. They thoguht it would take lots of money. How silly they will look now
they realise it would just take a few signatures.

Regards
Andrew

[Paul A. Suhler]

I've been told that the Concordes suffered from a structural
weakness in the fuselage, in the vicinity of the forward edge
of the wing. The Concorde at the Museum of Flight, in Seattle,
has what looks like a wedge-shaped patch on the fuselage. As
explained to me by Jim Goodall, the stresses of landing and
takeoff caused more flexing than expected. Runway roughness
would exacerbate the stress, so every runway that it operated
from was assigned a value from 1 to 5. When the total reached
20, then an inspection was required. That means that four
landings and takeoffs from the worst runway would put it at
the limit. (How the count was reset to zero, I don't know.)

This was just another reason for operation to be so expensive.

Does anyone have the whole story on this? The version he heard
may not be complete.

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .

You are in error. The modifications necessary to make it safe
were made and the aircraft was returned to service.

It was retired because it was no longer profitable to operate.

Keith

[Sylvain]

Post by Keith Willshaw
It was retired because it was no longer profitable to operate.

you mean to say that there was a time when it was profitable?

--Sylvain

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 22:29:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .

You are in error. The modifications necessary to make it safe
were made and the aircraft was returned to service.

Made it safe in respect of the cause of the French crash Keith what
other potentially lethal faults where/are still left undiscovered and
would remain undiscovered until one day a sequence of events
triggered whatever off and brought another one down in flames.
I will never forget watching that AF concorde with flames and smoke
streaming from it on TV to my dying day in fact it has put me off
flying in any aircraft now . I am due to go to Brussels again shortly
and I will be going by Eurostar has I have done ever since the
concorde crash even though it does entail an overnight stay in Belgium

Post by Keith Willshaw
It was retired because it was no longer profitable to operate.

I agree but it only became no longer profitable to operate due to the
Air France crash and many people deciding that they would not risk
their lives in it no matter how many times BA and the UK air safety
people said it was safe to fly .

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by Keith Willshaw
You are in error. The modifications necessary to make it safe
were made and the aircraft was returned to service.

Made it safe in respect of the cause of the French crash Keith what
other potentially lethal faults where/are still left undiscovered and
would remain undiscovered until one day a sequence of events
triggered whatever off and brought another one down in flames.

Something that can be said of any machine made by man.

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
I will never forget watching that AF concorde with flames and smoke
streaming from it on TV to my dying day in fact it has put me off
flying in any aircraft now . I am due to go to Brussels again shortly
and I will be going by Eurostar has I have done ever since the
concorde crash even though it does entail an overnight stay in Belgium

I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home, you may
recall there have been some rather nasty train crashes
over the years.

Keith

[Graeme Wall]

[snip]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
I will never forget watching that AF concorde with flames and smoke
streaming from it on TV to my dying day in fact it has put me off
flying in any aircraft now . I am due to go to Brussels again shortly
and I will be going by Eurostar has I have done ever since the
concorde crash even though it does entail an overnight stay in Belgium

I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home, you may
recall there have been some rather nasty train crashes
over the years.

But whatever you do don't go to bed, it's a very dangerous place. More
people die in bed than any other single location.

[FatKat]

Post by Graeme Wall
[snip]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
I will never forget watching that AF concorde with flames and smoke
streaming from it on TV to my dying day in fact it has put me off
flying in any aircraft now . I am due to go to Brussels again shortly
and I will be going by Eurostar has I have done ever since the
concorde crash even though it does entail an overnight stay in Belgium

I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home, you may
recall there have been some rather nasty train crashes
over the years.

But whatever you do don't go to bed, it's a very dangerous place. More
people die in bed than any other single location.

Only the faint of heart...

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:10:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"

Post by Keith Willshaw
I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home,

Maybe that is the reason my car only does a maximum of 32 miles in any
week mostly it does around 15 I only go out when going out is a must
just like my Belgium trip four times a year is a must .

Post by Keith Willshaw
you may recall there have been some rather nasty train crashes
over the years.

At least with a train or car crash you don't have the shear terror of
falling maybe 30,000 feet to face before dying .

[James Hart]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:10:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"

Post by Keith Willshaw
I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home,

Maybe that is the reason my car only does a maximum of 32 miles in any
week mostly it does around 15 I only go out when going out is a must

That's bad news then, most car accidents happen near to home, so you're
upping your chances again.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:10:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
At least with a train or car crash you don't have the shear terror of
falling maybe 30,000 feet to face before dying .

Truly it is said "A coward dies a thousand deaths"

Keith

[FatKat]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:10:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
At least with a train or car crash you don't have the shear terror of
falling maybe 30,000 feet to face before dying .

Truly it is said "A coward dies a thousand deaths"

or suffers a thousand usenet flames.

[FatKat]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:10:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"

Post by Keith Willshaw
I suggest that if you feel this way you stay safely at home,

Maybe that is the reason my car only does a maximum of 32 miles in any
week mostly it does around 15 I only go out when going out is a must
just like my Belgium trip four times a year is a must .

I don't know if anybody has pointed this out yet, but on reputation
alone, it appears that Belgium must be Europe's safest and most
risk-shy city.

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by Keith Willshaw
you may recall there have been some rather nasty train crashes
over the years.

At least with a train or car crash you don't have the shear terror of
falling maybe 30,000 feet to face before dying .

And don't forget all those horrific accidents where the 747 derailed or
had its cars become decoupled in flight - that never happens on trains.

[Clive]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).

Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.

From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

Clive

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Clive
The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.

This is a chicken and egg problem. The Concorde was unusually
susceptible to the problem that happened. Had it been designed
differently, the accident may not have happened. In fact, there
was a previous similar accident (that did not result in a crash),
and at that time, the airlines decided not to fix the problem.
That is the sad part--they had prior warning, which they ignored.
That is also true of both Space Shuttle accidents.

-john-

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:26:47 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
That is the sad part--they had prior warning, which they ignored.

It is a sad fact that companies and governments today have very little
regard for human life all they are interested in is making money.

Post by John A. Weeks III
That is also true of both Space Shuttle accidents.

Both a total unnecessary waste of life why the yanks are hell bent on
sending tones of metal into space I shall never know.

[FatKat]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
Both a total unnecessary waste of life why the yanks are hell bent on

sending tones of metal into space I shall never know.

Unlike Russians, Chinese, Japanese and various Europeans who send up
Kilos of metal into space?

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:35:03 +0100, Clive

Post by Clive
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

Never been in a 747 never had any intention of going in a 747 don't
want to go in a 747 and the only way anyone will get me in that
monstrosity that Airbus have built will be to put me in a coffin with
the lid screwed down .
Time we got back to the days of the BAC 1-11 .

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:35:03 +0100, Clive

Post by Clive
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

Never been in a 747 never had any intention of going in a 747 don't
want to go in a 747 and the only way anyone will get me in that
monstrosity that Airbus have built will be to put me in a coffin with
the lid screwed down .
Time we got back to the days of the BAC 1-11 .

You yearn for an aircraft which wuld not meet modern safety
standards. Of the 244 airframes built 32 were lost in accidents.

The design was susceptible to deep stall from which recovery
was impossible and the twin tail mounted engines mean that
an uncontained engine failure will not only probably knock
out the other engine but also damage the flight controls.

Keith

[Guy Alcala]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:35:03 +0100, Clive

Post by Clive
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

Never been in a 747 never had any intention of going in a 747 don't
want to go in a 747 and the only way anyone will get me in that
monstrosity that Airbus have built will be to put me in a coffin with
the lid screwed down .
Time we got back to the days of the BAC 1-11 .

You yearn for an aircraft which wuld not meet modern safety
standards. Of the 244 airframes built 32 were lost in accidents.
The design was susceptible to deep stall from which recovery
was impossible and the twin tail mounted engines mean that
an uncontained engine failure will not only probably knock
out the other engine but also damage the flight controls.

Now Keith, you should know that making rational arguments is a waste of time
with someone who suffers from irrational fears.

Guy

[FatKat]

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

[Clive]

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
outnumbers those by Concorde.

But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
caused fatalities.

It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
other aircraft.

Clive

[FatKat]

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off so
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and human
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
outnumbers those by Concorde.
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
of the aircrew.

Post by Clive
However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
caused fatalities.

Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
use was provided by one against the other?

Post by Clive
It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
other aircraft.

And you would suspect that based on what?

[Clive]

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off

so

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it

now

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and

human

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular

human

Post by FatKat
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
outnumbers those by Concorde.
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
of the aircrew.

Post by Clive
However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
caused fatalities.

Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
use was provided by one against the other?

Post by Clive
It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
other aircraft.

And you would suspect that based on what?

747 - 1500hrs test (Source Boeings own site)

Concorde....

Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974
onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not
surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype,
preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test
hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as
for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.

Clive

[FatKat]

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by k***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The campaign to get Concorde flying again has attracted 2,000
signatures this week!
Please add your support at www.save-concorde.com.

Concorde grew old and killed many humans and so was pensioned off

so

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
has not to kill again which it surly would have done .
It was a beautiful aircraft but you wouldn't catch me flying in it

now

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

The Concorde crash has been proven to be debris on the runway and

human

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive
error (groundcrew).
Had the debris not been on the runway and the gear been assembled
correctly then the accident would not have happened.
From your post then we should all stop flying 747's. How many people has
the 747 killed?

What is the incidence of fatal or serious incidents in other aircraft
traced to circumstances similar to that of the Concorde? I doubt that
it's as much as Concorde, given how much higher use that type has
provided compared to Concorde in roughly the same period of time. Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular

human

Post by FatKat
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie). There is ofcourse FT800 (if
you accept/buy the official story), but the demonstrable safety record
of the 747 still seems spotless in comparison.

Partially correct - I'll agree that the number of hours flown by 747's far
outnumbers those by Concorde.
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

Actually, the Lockerbie incident was caused by deliberate conduct by
terrorism, whereas the Concorde accident appears to involve debris that
could be found on any runway in the world. Also, the fact that the
Concorde accident occurred "outside" the control of the crew is at best
irrelevant and at worst aggravating - we're talking about design flaws,
the plane being unfit when it leaves the factory despite the expertise
of the aircrew.

Post by Clive
However, a lot of aircraft accidents have been caused by design errors -
Concorde never suffered any of those - or at least design error that
caused fatalities.

Except for the one in 2000. How many errors of similar or otherwise
comparable circumstances befell 747, keeping in mind how much greater
use was provided by one against the other?

Post by Clive
It would be interesting to know, but I suspect that the number of hours
flown by Concorde (before it was given a permit to fly) was more than any
other aircraft.

And you would suspect that based on what?

747 - 1500hrs test (Source Boeings own site)
Concorde....
Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974
onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not
surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype,
preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test
hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as
for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.
Clive

And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then?
And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to
test-flight time is what?

[Clive]

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive
Concorde....
Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974
onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not
surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype,
preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test
hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as
for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.
Clive

And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then?
And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to
test-flight time is what?

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?

Clive

[FatKat]

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive
Concorde....
Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974
onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not
surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype,
preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test
hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as
for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.
Clive

And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then?
And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to
test-flight time is what?

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.

Which is sort of the point...actually one of many points against
Concorde. According to AirSafe.com, The 747 flew about 16 million
flights over the course of its continuing career, and in that time
suffered 28 fatal events. Concorde suffered only one, but amassed a
much smaller flight record - only 90 thousand - meaning that we'd have
to multiply the number of fatal events by 180, then further factor the
much smaller passenger capacity of the Concorde to get a better idea of
what Concorde could have done were it actually judged by the same
standards as unglamorous subsonic jobs that actually move the vast bulk
of airline passengers and generate revenues for their operators. This
is ofcourse putting aside the possibility that fatal-event numbers
would not remain proportionate to the number of flights in the event
that operators would try to get more flights out of Concorde.

Post by Clive
The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career.
Good enough?

If you really think that it took the crash of Concorde to begin the end
of its career, then that's probably good enough for you. For me, the
fact that Concord made only a negligible dent on air travel, carried
only the deepest-pocketed passengers - if anybody- and laid no ground
for a successor.

[John Wright]

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive

Post by FatKat

Post by Clive
Concorde....
Both European airlines operated demonstrations and test flights from 1974
onwards. The testing of Concorde set records which are still not
surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype,
preproduction, and first production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test
hours were supersonic. This equates to approximately four times as many as
for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.
Clive

And the ratio of hours of revenue flight for the two are what then?
And when you combine the two, the ratio of revenue flight hours to
test-flight time is what?

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.

Which is sort of the point...actually one of many points against
Concorde. According to AirSafe.com, The 747 flew about 16 million
flights over the course of its continuing career, and in that time
suffered 28 fatal events. Concorde suffered only one, but amassed a
much smaller flight record - only 90 thousand - meaning that we'd have
to multiply the number of fatal events by 180, then further factor the
much smaller passenger capacity of the Concorde to get a better idea of
what Concorde could have done were it actually judged by the same
standards as unglamorous subsonic jobs that actually move the vast bulk
of airline passengers and generate revenues for their operators. This
is ofcourse putting aside the possibility that fatal-event numbers
would not remain proportionate to the number of flights in the event
that operators would try to get more flights out of Concorde.

Post by Clive
The crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career.
Good enough?

If you really think that it took the crash of Concorde to begin the end
of its career, then that's probably good enough for you. For me, the
fact that Concord made only a negligible dent on air travel, carried
only the deepest-pocketed passengers - if anybody- and laid no ground
for a successor.

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.

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

Post by John Wright
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 .

[Keith W]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by John Wright
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 =----

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:34 +0100, "Keith W"

Post by Keith W
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 . 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 .
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 .

[Keith W]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:34 +0100, "Keith W"

Post by Keith W
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.

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
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.

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
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 =----

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:14:40 +0100, "Keith W"

Post by Keith W
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

Available to the over sixties without advanced purchase the last time
I went I booked by phone one day and left four days later, I shall
have to be booking again very soon will be needing another 3K of
tobacco the only reason for going .

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Clive
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-

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:27:11 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
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 .

[Keith W]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:27:11 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
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 =----

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Clive
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on
the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life.
Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that
the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some
other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill
over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that
is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious
thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a
Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed
to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment.

-john-

[Alistair Gunn]

The only curious thing is why it took so long.

As you said later on in your post ...

In fact, a previous time that a Concorde hit debris and punctured the
fuel tanks, the aircraft managed to survive without crashing.

... so that would be two cases in more than a few years of take-offs /
landings. Which would tend to suggest that the reason "it took so long"
was because it wasn't a very likely event.

I could also point the Boeing 737 rudder defect?

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Clive
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on
the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life.
Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that
the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some
other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill
over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that
is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious
thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a
Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed
to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment.
-john-

SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been
there.

[FatKat]

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Clive
But, The concorde crash was caused by something outside the control of the
concorde crew i.e. debris from another aircraft (also the same for the
Lockerbie 747), So had it not been for that it's record would have been
100%.

That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on
the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life.
Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that
the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some
other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill
over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that
is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious
thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a
Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed
to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment.
-john-

SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been
there.

It shouldn't have been there in the sense that even in the real world
airplanes aren't supposed to shed small pieces of themselves, or in the
sense that this is just a bad thing? In the first case, the idea that
a piece of metal might have been on the ground was not only wrong, but
unforseeable. I've yet to hear anybody say that this is the case, and
that there's no realistic way that such bits of metal would find their
way onto a runway - therefore, regardless of the misconduct (if it was
misconduct) of the flight that left the offending piece of scrap, the
possibility of such scrap would appear in a spot that would threaten
Concorde was forseeable and should have been a design consideration.

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Mike Lindsay
SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been
there.

You still miss the point. It doesn't matter if it should or
should not have been there--sooner or later, there is going to be
FOD on the runway or ramp. If you could make a rule that prohibited
FOD, then the USAF wouldn't have to do a FOD walk every morning at
each of the US airbases. The fact is that you have to design for
FOD, or you crash and burn, just like the Concorde did. In comparison,
one F-15 lost half a wing, and an A-10 came back with a missile lodged
in the wing, and both planes lived to fly again. That is the difference.

As it turns out, for many years, the Concorde flew with an on-board
FOD generator in the form of the main landing gear. Time after time
the tires would shred on take off or landing, and spray debris all
over the bottom of the aircraft and all over the runway. It wasn't
supposed to happen, but it did. At least until a better tire design
was made available.

-john-

[Keith W]

Post by Mike Lindsay
SMALL piece of FOD? Or a big chunk? Whatever, it shouldn't have been
there.
--
Mike Lindsay

Frankly that doesnt matter. No single failure should result in the
loss of an aircraft and the FOD simply burst a tyre, something
that is always a possibility. It was the tyre fragments that punctured
the wing tank and the armouring of the tank that removed the
hazard wasnt exactly rocket science.

Keith

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:25:55 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on
the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life.
Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that
the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some
other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill
over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that
is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious
thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a
Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed
to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment.
-john-

Agreed John but like some 747's now it was an old aircraft and should
have been taken out of service long before the crash in France the
747's will probably be run until they drop also .

[FatKat]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:25:55 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"

Post by John A. Weeks III
That is a totally unrealistic line of thought. There will be FOD on
the ramp or runway as some point in an airplane's operating life.
Had that small piece of metal not been on the runway the day that
the Concorde crashed, it would have been on some other runway some
other day. An airplane that is designed to crash, burn, and kill
over 100 people when it its a small piece of FOD is an aircraft that
is both flawed and an accident waiting to happen. The only curious
thing is why it took so long. In fact, a previous time that a
Concorde hit debris and punctured the fuel tanks, the aircraft managed
to survive without crashing. That is probably the true wonderment.
-john-

Agreed John but like some 747's now it was an old aircraft and should
have been taken out of service long before the crash in France the
747's will probably be run until they drop also .

I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in
the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why
should things be any different for the 747?

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

Post by FatKat
I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in
the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why
should things be any different for the 747?

Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
firmly on the ground from now on .

[FatKat]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by FatKat
I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in
the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why
should things be any different for the 747?

Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
firmly on the ground from now on .

Are there still -200's & 100's in service? It's probably because I'm
in the NYC but the only 747's I see these days are the -400's, with
maybe a few of the older planes flying irregularly for cargo outfits.
I suppose it's different in other places - I know when I go to Miami,
there's always a smattering of cargo and charter outfits flying older
planes. For a dedicated plane watcher, MIA is a cool place to check up
on old types - it's like an airline dumoing ground. (I know I saw an
Eastern jet hanging around there for a few years after they went out of
business.)

[Flying Rat]

In article <***@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, FatKat
says...

Post by FatKat

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by FatKat
I wouldn't say that. We've had DC-10's, L-1011's and 727's retired in
the past few years before they began raining from the skies - why
should things be any different for the 747?

Just set matters straight regarding the 747 we are talking about the
OLD 747's not the new ones that are still rolling out of the factory.
It don't make much difference to me anyway my feet are remaining
firmly on the ground from now on .

Are there still -200's & 100's in service? It's probably because I'm
in the NYC but the only 747's I see these days are the -400's, with
maybe a few of the older planes flying irregularly for cargo outfits.
I suppose it's different in other places - I know when I go to Miami,
there's always a smattering of cargo and charter outfits flying older
planes. For a dedicated plane watcher, MIA is a cool place to check up
on old types - it's like an airline dumoing ground. (I know I saw an
Eastern jet hanging around there for a few years after they went out of
business.)

there are a few -200 series 747s still flying passengers. There are also
a good few -300 series which look like the newer versions but are more
similar to the early models under the skin.

There are a couple of -100 passenger aircraft still about, although with
airlines in places like the Gulf. Many of the -200 versions still in
service are of the Combi layout with a side cargo door which makes them
more desirable to operators.

Northwest was the last main US operator with any kind of regular B742
passenger flying, although they may have parked their aircraft up by
now.

[M***@blueyonder.co.uk]

Post by FatKat
Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie).

And Amsterdam a few years ago both Lockerbie and Amsterdam flights
ended up killing innocent people in their homes. We live under or
near to most aircraft north south flight paths including most oceanic
flights from the states including BA's 268 from LA at around 14.30
every day of the week . 268 always radio's his position to Manchester
control when he is over our house then makes a left turn over towards
Sheffield then a right and down to high wicombe where he goes into an
holding pattern and does a couple of circuits before being called into
Heathrow .
Radio scanners can be very informative and also flight tracking pages
on the net such as http://www.aeroseek.com/webtrax/fboweb.html which I
use on most days of the week .
A 747 crashing on an housing estate is bad enough God help the people
under an Airbus A380 when the first one comes down fully loaded .

[FatKat]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk

Post by FatKat
Of
course we have lost 747's, but mostly in incidents of spectacular human
accident/incident (Tenarife, Lockerbie).

A 747 crashing on an housing estate is bad enough God help the people
under an Airbus A380 when the first one comes down fully loaded .

God help pretty much everybody above and below....

[Lev]

On a similar note:

The last available Tu-144 (Russian version of Concorde) is being
auctioned on 28/08/2006 in Moscow. The starting price is around £70k -
bargian

Fancy one in the back garden :-)

[Richard Herring]

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
you wouldn't catch me flying in it now
where it still in service I value my life to much for that .

- and -

Post by M***@blueyonder.co.uk
very soon will be needing another 3K of
tobacco the only reason for going .

Oh, the irony.