On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 16:31:58 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 13:26:43 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 18:01:30 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 13:42:40 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
Maybe you can tell us why america or any other country hasn't
also developed a passenger jet to replace concorde since then.

Why would anyone want a replacement for something that ran at a
loss?

To make it profitable. Russia tried and the USA tried.

And finally realised the concept was flawed.

The concept wasn't flawed

Corse it was when it could only fly supersonic over water.

and cars can only travel at the limits set in each country on land
they can't even travel over water without help.


it worked as a passenger airliner for 27 years.

On just the one route for most of that time.

So yuo;re sayig n that the 100 sold all travled the same route, that
must have been some demand for that service.

Only 20 were ever built. of those only 14 went into passenger service.

Partly because of the price of fuel and you do remmber the problems with
fuel in the early 70s. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure.


no - because the expected orders from Singapore, for one didn't, appear -
the countries started refusing to allow overflying at supersonic speeds

So how is that the fault of technology or the aircraft itself.

As I said befofe F1 cars are very expensive too and they can't drive over water and can;t manage most roads and even if they can they too arenlt; allowed to travel abouve the speed limits on public roads.

So what is the point of F1 ?



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle