wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe
it
was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

You don't know much about it do you?
It did super cruise.
It wouldn't have got halfway across the Atlantic if it had to use the after
burners.
There wasn't any in flight refuelling for it.


However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.

...and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was
continued for ego reasons.

The Concorde was well down the development path when the problems started.
The SST wasn't even started until it looked like Concorde was going to take
the passengers away.


We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.

In your dreams.

Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

Lies.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.

More bull****.

Are you claiming the shuttle is faster than Apollo then?
Apollo was doing about 25,000 mph on re-entry, the shuttle doesn't.