On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bertÂ* wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a year
from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded for more
than a year following it, the passengers had to move to conventional
jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they originally
charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost, it started
to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done. The
wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other work had
been done) to prevent a similar occurence. However, some of the
companies who manufactured spares and maintained the aircraft decided to
pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes airworthy.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a year
from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded for more
than a year following it, the passengers had to move to conventional
jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't add
up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it cost
to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they originally
charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost, it started to
make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.

No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other work
had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.

That clearly didnt avoid that accident.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained the
aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes airworthy.

No reason why say airbus couldnt have done that.

The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too..

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 07:58:02 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.

No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other work
had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.

That clearly didn¢t avoid that accident.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained the
aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes airworthy.

No reason why say airbus couldn¢t have done that.

The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldn¢t happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too..

LOL! The senile cretin knows it ALL better, AGAIN! Always the same old story
with you, eh, senile Ozzietard?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bertÂ* wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was
very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a
year from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded
for more than a year following it, the passengers had to move to
conventional jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make
it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they
originally charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost,
it started to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.

No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other
work had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.

That clearly didnt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood. The tanks were lined AFTER the accident, but
BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained
the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes
airworthy.

No reason why say airbus couldnt have done that.

The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

SteveW

On 11/09/2018 23:35, Steve Walker wrote:
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bertÂ* wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was
very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a
year from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded
for more than a year following it, the passengers had to move to
conventional jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make
it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they
originally charged. By charging what the passengers thought it
cost, it started to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.

No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other
work had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.

That clearly didnt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood. The tanks were lined AFTER the accident, but
BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained
the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes
airworthy.

No reason why say airbus couldnt have done that.

Forgot to say, Airbus was the main one that pulled out!

The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was
very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a year
from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded for more
than a year following it, the passengers had to move to conventional
jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they originally
charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost, it started
to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.

No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other work
had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.

That clearly didnt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood.

Nope.

The tanks were lined AFTER the accident,

I'm not taking about internal anti leak lining,
I am talking about the proposal to have much
more metal pieces proof skins on the underside
of the wing to prevent a recurrence of the thing
on the runway breaching the bottom skin of the
wing and causing that spectacular crash.

but BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

Nope.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained
the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes
airworthy.

No reason why say airbus couldnt have done that.

The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

We arent talking about a lining.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:05 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


You have misunderstood.

Nope.

LOL! What an assclown! Just croak finally, senile Rot! You are not good for
anything anymore!

--
Latest RETARDED "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Senile Rot: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rot: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On 11/09/2018 23:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:
....
The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

We arent talking about a lining.

The accident, while caused by a piece of metal, was not due to it
penetrating the fuel tank. The metal burst a tyre and the impact of the
tyre debris on the underside of the full fuel tank created a pressure
wave that burst the tank ahead of the impact point. The cure was
two-fold: burst proof tyres and a Kevlar lining inside the fuel tank, to
protect it from rupturing.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/2018 23:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:
...
The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

We arent talking about a lining.

The accident, while caused by a piece of metal, was not due to it
penetrating the fuel tank. The metal burst a tyre and the impact of the
tyre debris on the underside of the full fuel tank created a pressure wave
that burst the tank ahead of the impact point. The cure was two-fold:
burst proof tyres and a Kevlar lining inside the fuel tank, to protect it
from rupturing.

But someone suggest that there needed to be a much more
substantial skin under the wing so that if some metal had
been driven into the bottom of the wing, that wouldnt have
seen the wing punctured and have streamed a column of flames.

The accident itself was complicated by the lack of a spacer
on the undercarriage and another aircraft off the side of
the runway being used for takeoff which meant that the
Concorde didnt just stop on the runway and the pilot
chose to take off at well below V1 and had the flight
engineer decide for himself to shut down one engine
and that meant that the Concorde couldnt fly and
ended up crashing into the ground.

And the detail is academic anyway. After the accident,
which happened on the same day as 9/11. almost no
one chose to fly with Air France on the Concorde after
that and once Air France had decided to pull the plug
on the Concorde because almost no one chose to fly
on their Concordes after that, it wasnt economically
viable for BA to pay the entire cost of Concorde
maintenance, let alone for any redesign stuff, so they
both chose to pull the plug on Concorde on the same day.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:24:09 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

The accident, while caused by a piece of metal, was not due to it
penetrating the fuel tank. The metal burst a tyre and the impact of the
tyre debris on the underside of the full fuel tank created a pressure wave
that burst the tank ahead of the impact point. The cure was two-fold:
burst proof tyres and a Kevlar lining inside the fuel tank, to protect it
from rupturing.

But

Darn, the "argumentative asshole" knows it all better, AGAIN! LOL

FLUSH the usual self-opinionated senile **** unread again

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

"Rod Speed" Wrote in message:



And the detail is academic anyway. After the accident,
which happened on the same day as 9/11.

Not even the same year let alone the same day.

Tim

--

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bertÂ* wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still
going strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it
was very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity
to young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a
year from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded
for more than a year following it, the passengers had to move to
conventional jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just
didn't add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they
originally charged. By charging what the passengers thought it
cost, it started to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldnt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.
No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other
work had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.
That clearly didnt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood. The tanks were lined AFTER the accident, but
BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and
maintained the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep
the planes airworthy.
No reason why say airbus couldnt have done that.
The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldnt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

SteveW
There was an interesting documentary a while back on the cause of the
crash. The tanks only ruptured because they were brim full instead of
having an air space above the fuel - and they were brim full because the
aircraft was at maximum load due to excess baggage.
The shock wave created by the impact caused the tank to burst from the
inside out. The impact occurred in the only place on the tank which
could cause that to happen. Unlucky.
--
bert

Its all a bit academic. They also had to be refitted at that time and of
course in the very start the plane was a first tentative step, I saw designs
for a much bigger aircraft whose engines did not rely on reheat to get off
the ground and cover the nearby areas in soot! Nobody seemed to have the
bottle to make it,and as the US had cancelled their design, it seems to
have died a natural death due to lack of interest. However if you could in
fact make a bigger one and it was relatively cheep to run I suspect there
would still be a market for it, but it needs a greater range to be worth the
while.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was
very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a
year from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded
for more than a year following it, the passengers had to move to
conventional jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make
it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they
originally charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost,
it started to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldn?Tt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.
No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other work
had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.
That clearly didn?Tt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood. The tanks were lined AFTER the accident, but
BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained
the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes
airworthy.
No reason why say airbus couldn?Tt have done that.
The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldn?Tt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

SteveW
There was an interesting documentary a while back on the cause of the
crash. The tanks only ruptured because they were brim full instead of
having an air space above the fuel - and they were brim full because the
aircraft was at maximum load due to excess baggage.
The shock wave created by the impact caused the tank to burst from the
inside out. The impact occurred in the only place on the tank which could
cause that to happen. Unlucky.
--
bert

Brian-Gaff wrote

Its all a bit academic. They also had to be refitted at that time and of
course in the very start the plane was a first tentative step, I saw
designs for a much bigger aircraft whose engines did not rely on reheat to
get off the ground and cover the nearby areas in soot! Nobody seemed to
have the bottle to make it,

No one was stupid enough to do that.

and as the US had cancelled their design,

Because it never made any economic sense.

it seems to have died a natural death due to lack of interest.

Because it never made any economic sense.

However if you could in fact make a bigger one and it was relatively cheep
to run

It never could be. Its always going to cost a hell
of a lot more to fly a Mach 2 than below Mach 1.

I suspect there would still be a market for it,

Nope, because it was never going to be viable
to fly at Mach 2 over land and **** all of the
routes that matter arent over land.

There were never going to be enough prepared
to pay much more to fly from europe to NY
or anywhere else that can be flown to over water
to pay for the immense development cost.

but it needs a greater range to be worth the while.

The problem isnt the range, its that it cant fly supersonic over land.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 11/09/2018 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news On 11/09/2018 10:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2018 20:56, wrote:
On Monday, 10 September 2018 20:45:00 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 17:41:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

It amazes me that some aircraft - Douglas DC3 - are still going
strong
at 80 years old, whereas others are dead in 15...

It amazes *me* that Concorde got junked for no valid reason
whatsoever,
over one single accident that was not in any way a design defect.



Concorde got junked for two reasons
1 9/11 killed its market and planes were flying virtually empty
2. Most of the original design engineers were retiring and it was
very
difficult to sell Concorde maintenance as a career opportunity to
young
aeronautical engineers with no replacement on the horizon.

No it was canned because it was uneconomic.

British Airways is thought to have made a profit of about £30m a
year from Concorde before the crash. However, when it was grounded
for more than a year following it, the passengers had to move to
conventional jets and never came back in sufficient numbers to make
it worthwhile.

Thousands of pounds ticket price to save so little time just didn't
add up for almost all people...

The BA price was based upon a survey of what passengers thought it
cost to buy a ticket - which was quite a bit more than they
originally charged. By charging what the passengers thought it cost,
it started to make a profit.

But that was never going to pay for what needed to be done
to ensure that that accident couldn?Tt happen again and its far
from clear that very many would continue to use Concorde when
it became so clear how vulnerable the design had always been.

From a documentary I saw a few years ago, it had already been done.
No it hadn't.

The wing tanks had been lined with a self-sealing liner (and other
work had been done) to prevent a similar occurence.
That clearly didn?Tt avoid that accident.

You have misunderstood. The tanks were lined AFTER the accident, but
BEFORE the decision not to put them back into service.

However, some of the companies who manufactured spares and maintained
the aircraft decided to pull out, leaving no way to keep the planes
airworthy.
No reason why say airbus couldn?Tt have done that.
The problem was that they wanted to make the bottom
of the wing much more solid so that piece of metal that
went from the runway into the tank couldn?Tt happen
again and that would have cost a hell of a lot to do
and effected the performance too.

The lining was deemed adequate.

SteveW
There was an interesting documentary a while back on the cause of the
crash. The tanks only ruptured because they were brim full instead of
having an air space above the fuel - and they were brim full because the
aircraft was at maximum load due to excess baggage.
The shock wave created by the impact caused the tank to burst from the
inside out. The impact occurred in the only place on the tank which could
cause that to happen. Unlucky.
--
bert

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 20:36:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH all the usual troll crap largely unread again

That senile troll simply has ALL the answers, ALWAYS! LMAO

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On 15/09/2018 11:01, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Its all a bit academic. They also had to be refitted at that time and of
course in the very start the plane was a first tentative step, I saw designs
for a much bigger aircraft whose engines did not rely on reheat to get off
the ground and cover the nearby areas in soot! Nobody seemed to have the
bottle to make it,and as the US had cancelled their design, it seems to
have died a natural death due to lack of interest. However if you could in
fact make a bigger one and it was relatively cheep to run I suspect there
would still be a market for it, but it needs a greater range to be worth the
while.

NASA, Virgin Galactic and Spike Aerospace are all working on supersonic
aircraft. NASA and Spike are working on trying to eliminate the sonic
boom. Earlier this year, Boeing unveiled its plans for a hypersonic
aircraft, flying at Mach 5. The concept is far from finished.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 15/09/2018 11:01, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Its all a bit academic. They also had to be refitted at that time and of
course in the very start the plane was a first tentative step, I saw designs
for a much bigger aircraft whose engines did not rely on reheat to get off
the ground and cover the nearby areas in soot! Nobody seemed to have the
bottle to make it,and as the US had cancelled their design, it seems to
have died a natural death due to lack of interest. However if you could in
fact make a bigger one and it was relatively cheep to run I suspect there
would still be a market for it, but it needs a greater range to be worth the
while.

NASA, Virgin Galactic and Spike Aerospace are all working on supersonic
aircraft. NASA and Spike are working on trying to eliminate the sonic
boom. Earlier this year, Boeing unveiled its plans for a hypersonic
aircraft, flying at Mach 5. The concept is far from finished.


The sonic boom was a key factor in limiting Concord's application. Also
the first demo flights were using the prototype engines which were much
noisier than the production ones.
--
bert