Thought you might like to visit the site below for spectacular photos of the Concorde in its final flight. 
http://lorendjones.com/concorde/
http://lorendjones.com/concorde/
Farewell Concorde
- Thread starter novaqt
- Start date
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Wonderful pics! Thank you for sharing this tribute to a graceful bird.
Never had the thrill of a Concorde ride, guess I'll have to wait for one to appear at my nearest aviation museum.
BTW, certainly other final flight pics/articles will be appearing in the weekly newsmags. TIA for anyone who can post a link.
Never had the thrill of a Concorde ride, guess I'll have to wait for one to appear at my nearest aviation museum.
BTW, certainly other final flight pics/articles will be appearing in the weekly newsmags. TIA for anyone who can post a link.
DHHeronCLE
Newbie
- Jan 24, 2004
- 11
- 0
I always though I would get to take a Concorde trip, but I failed to act quickly enough. The a/c is a remarkable technical acomplishment, all the more so in that it was built using early 'sixties technology. No other a/c has ever flown at Concorde speed over Concorde ranges carrying Concorde loads. Yeah, an SR-71 can fly faster, and as far, but the stretch version carries all of two, while Concorde can carry 100 pax and their baggage.
I've often wondered what might have been had the Brits and the French really pursued the program, and built a couple hundred of the originals. There were and are many long overwater routes for which advanced versions would have been ideal. There would no doubt have been -200 and -300 versions, and the net cost to the Europeans would have been no worse than what they have spent subsidizing Airbus. Also, with more a/c flying more hours, enough would have been learned to have improved safety (2 hull losses in a program Concorde's size is not really great) and to have reduced maintenance costs greatly.
Boeing would have been forced to build the 2707, and the DC-10 and L-1011 would likely not have been built as they were. One would likely have been a supersonic a/c, leaving the other subsonic widebodied trijet to suceed.
I is always interesting to speculate, but in the end, the Brits and the French may give themselves a well deserved pat on the back, for having done something no one else has been able to do.
I've often wondered what might have been had the Brits and the French really pursued the program, and built a couple hundred of the originals. There were and are many long overwater routes for which advanced versions would have been ideal. There would no doubt have been -200 and -300 versions, and the net cost to the Europeans would have been no worse than what they have spent subsidizing Airbus. Also, with more a/c flying more hours, enough would have been learned to have improved safety (2 hull losses in a program Concorde's size is not really great) and to have reduced maintenance costs greatly.
Boeing would have been forced to build the 2707, and the DC-10 and L-1011 would likely not have been built as they were. One would likely have been a supersonic a/c, leaving the other subsonic widebodied trijet to suceed.
I is always interesting to speculate, but in the end, the Brits and the French may give themselves a well deserved pat on the back, for having done something no one else has been able to do.
GUARANTEED
Newbie
- Jan 29, 2004
- 12
- 0
It a shame to see such a fine aircraft retired.
