117 replies to this topic

[G-BOAC]

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

boeing hated concorde?

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jul 10 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 9 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

boeing hated concorde?

What?

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

Nick., on Jul 10 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

Alright OP. This is absolute bull that your blaming the state/city of New York And/Or the entity of the US itself for a broken nose cone. Grow the up.

Thanks for that insight, ill keep it in mind. I ain't and Old Pensioner either.

[Flying_Pie]

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

[George Bush]

Would you explain to me how 'new yorkers' as you put them are responsible for bad maintenance of that aircraft.

It's just the people who are responsible for maintaint that aircraft that are doing it badly. To generalise so much as to say New Yorkers is VERY inflammatory. Get your head fixed on.

[fluffy]

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

Crap.

[G-BOAC]

fluff, on Jul 10 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

Crap.

Also Jibberish.

The only flaw Concorde had was it did not sell due to the fuel crisis in the 70s.

Thanks

[Flying_Pie]

fluff, on Jul 10 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

Crap.

why is it crap? I never said the concorde was bad, but it wasn't good for business, that's all...to agree with him in saying concorde is a better aircraft than anything boeing's made, and to say boeing could never meet or exceed it is BS

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

The only flaw Concorde had was it did not sell due to the fuel crisis in the 70s.

and that it went several million dollars over budget, causing aircraft prices to go up when the thing already costed a fortune....it was an expensive plane to fly and maintain, and even though I think it's an awesome aircraft, it wasn't good for business...that's why it never made it big

[fluffy]

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

fluff, on Jul 10 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Yes.... well they never liked it. They could not beat us at it and we have by far created a better a/c than them.

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

Crap.

why is it crap? I never said the concorde was bad, but it wasn't good for business, that's all...to agree with him in saying concorde is a better aircraft than anything boeing's made, and to say boeing could never meet or exceed it is BS

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

The only flaw Concorde had was it did not sell due to the fuel crisis in the 70s.

and that it went several million dollars over budget, causing aircraft prices to go up when the thing already costed a fortune....it was an expensive plane to fly and maintain, and even though I think it's an awesome aircraft, it wasn't good for business...that's why it never made it big

I can't remember the precise details, but the Boeing SST had many a flaw of it's own, and it's that reason coupled with the production costs which made them cancel it.

Out of interest, what were the flaws with Concorde bar the noise and range?

Edited by fluff, 10 July 2008 - 02:10 PM.

[Flying_Pie]

fluff, on Jul 10 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

I can't remember the precise details, but the Boeing SST had many a flaw of it's own, and it's that reason coupled with the production costs which made them cancel it.

Out of interest, what were the flaws with Concorde bar the noise and range?

boeing's SST was mainly cancelled because they realized an SST was just too expensive and impractical to put into production at the time (of course their lack of money helped that realization). they had more orders than concorde did at one point, but they just couldn't go through with it because they didn't have enough money, since they were a private company and because they already had the 747 and 737 projects to work on.

I shouldn't have referred to concorde's weaknesses as flaws, it was a great plane but it was just impractical, that's what it comes down to...it never really made much of a profit (if any) because it was expensive to fly and maintain, I said that in my last post. I'm not trying to this anyone, but it's a true fact that boeing does have the knowledge and resources to make an SST

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

no...sorry but the concorde was full of flaws, it's hard to believe it stayed in service for as long as it did. boeing could have easily made an SST, but it's just not commercially reasonable to...

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

why is it crap? I never said the concorde was bad, but it wasn't good for business, that's all...to agree with him in saying concorde is a better aircraft than anything boeing's made, and to say boeing could never meet or exceed it is BS

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

but it's a true fact that boeing does have the knowledge and resources to make an SST

Nobody said they don't.

[Flying_Pie]

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jul 10 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

but it's a true fact that boeing does have the knowledge and resources to make an SST

Nobody said they don't.

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

They could not beat us at it

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jul 10 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

but it's a true fact that boeing does have the knowledge and resources to make an SST

Nobody said they don't.

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

They could not beat us at it

At the time.

[Flying_Pie]

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jul 10 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Jul 10 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

Flying_Pie, on Jul 10 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

but it's a true fact that boeing does have the knowledge and resources to make an SST

Nobody said they don't.

G-BOAC, on Jul 10 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

They could not beat us at it

At the time.

alright, but that's still debateable as well...not gonna get into it though

[_NW_]

Concorde had a very serious design flaw...

Some genius decided to put the gear right under the fuel cell..  so that when the tire explodes, shrapnel pierces the wing and punctures a hole in the fuel tank..  and the fuel tank did not incorporate any self-sealing bladders in case of a puncture.

[Flying_Scotsman]

NWilkinson, on Jul 10 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

Concorde had a very serious design flaw...

Some genius decided to put the gear right under the fuel cell..  so that when the tire explodes, shrapnel pierces the wing and punctures a hole in the fuel tank..  and the fuel tank did not incorporate any self-sealing bladders in case of a puncture.

It's easy to say that with hindsight.  Don't forget, the aircraft was designed in the 1950's and first flew in 1969.....31 years of service until this major incident is hardly a very serious design flaw.

It wasn't just "some genius" either, there were many of them!

[_NW_]

Yes but it happened twice.. and it was still a design flaw.. having a design flaw doesn't make it an unreliable aircraft or one that's not remarkable..  even the 747 had a few design flaws...

[fluffy]

NWilkinson, on Jul 11 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

even the 747 had a few design flaws...

Even? Why are you using the word "even"? Did you somehow not expect an American aircraft to have design floors as they're reserved for every other nations?

[G-BOAC]

How can you mention the fact of that Paris crash was a design flaw? - it was an American built a/c that created that accident and nothing to do with Concorde wings.  One thing is a stupid fat 747 would have hit the titanium engine strip at 120mph Concorde at a mere 200mph so how can you compare the two let alone if i throw anything at aluminum alloy at in excess of 200mph it is not going to like it and will damage it. Unfortunately in the case of Concorde it was going so fast that Rubber hit the tank like a rifle bullet thus sending shock waves around and with full fuel in there the only way to go was out and it found a hole and that was the tank servicing panel.

NWilkinson, on Jul 11 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

Yes but it happened twice.. and it was still a design flaw.. having a design flaw doesn't make it an unreliable aircraft or one that's not remarkable..  even the 747 had a few design flaws...

Please Excuse me?

Evidence Please!

[Mul.]

....

We've heard this argument many times now. G-BOAD will be restored. It'd be ludicrous to believe that this is intentional neglect for a remarkable aircraft like concorde. This can only be due to funds, or the lack of.