Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"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. it worked as a passenger airliner for 27 years. On just the one route for most of that time. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
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. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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. 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 Another bare faced lie. Only 20 were ever produced, 6 were never operational and BOAC got theirs for free. all travled the same route, Yes they did. that must have been some demand for that service. In fact just 6 each for BOAC and Air France due to the stupidly high maintenance requirement. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
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. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote: "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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. 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 Another bare faced lie. Only 20 were ever produced, 6 were never operational and BOAC got theirs for free. all travled the same route, Yes they did. Only in so far as the routes were transatlantic Both London & Paris were termini that must have been some demand for that service. In fact just 6 each for BOAC and Air France due to the stupidly high maintenance requirement. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
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. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
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 -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote: 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. The problems with fuel didn't seem to stop other aircraft operating profitably. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure. No one said it was. Just commercially not viable. -- *Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
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 |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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 Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air France noticed that they were never going to be viable. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. None of the other were ever going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any. The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time, because it was viable. and you do remmber the problems with fuel in the early 70s. Didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure. Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 18:04:26 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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 Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air France noticed that they were never going to be viable. So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? None of the other were ever going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any. So why order them ? The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time, because it was viable. because they were more fuel efficint and larger meaning more passengers. A similar thinmg happened in the USA with gas guzzerlers the large american cars like hummer that do single figure miles per gallon. and you do remmber the problems with fuel in the early 70s. Didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time. Because they were designed for mass transport that is why. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure. Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water. It could f;ly supersonic over land and did and you do know that more of the area of earth is covered by water than land didn't you. From the UK you can't go far without traveling over water. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote: [Snip] So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? perhaps they didn't know that at then time. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? Which others? Onlt Air France had them. None of the other were ever going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any. So why order them ? They didn't The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time, because it was viable. because they were more fuel efficint and larger meaning more passengers. A similar thinmg happened in the USA with gas guzzerlers the large american cars like hummer that do single figure miles per gallon. and you do remmber the problems with fuel in the early 70s. Didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time. Because they were designed for mass transport that is why. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure. Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water. It could fly supersonic over land and did No it didn't - but yes it could. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
On Thursday, 10 January 2019 13:50:38 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , whisky-dave wrote: [Snip] So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? perhaps they didn't know that at then time. Did anyone know it at the time which was before 1969. You see they were ordered in 1963 but cancelled in 1973 , that should tell yuo something but does it ? Why would someone wait 10 years and then cancel. It wasn't because of th3e usualky allow 28 days for delivery that most orders seemd to take when buying from anywhere other than the high street. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? Which others? Onlt Air France had them. It's all on wiki. I only remmeber pam am quantas and untited airlines as they ordered 6 each making the it 666. Surely you don't believe what wodney said in that it was because concorde coulnd't fly over land, otherwise they'd never have left the airport. None of the other were ever going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any. So why order them ? They didn't They did or perhaps reserved them but I'm not sure if you can reserve such things that won't exist for another 10 years. Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water. It could fly supersonic over land and did No it didn't - but yes it could. But when did they decide that and it wasn;t just concorde like speed limits for cars it applied to all aircraft and it wasn;t 'overland' the limit was imposed over populated areas like cars now being restricted to 20 MPH in a lot of cities so why does anyone bother buying a car that can do more ? Which makes just about every car made today not worth buying if you can't go above 20 MPH. Not sure how good your georgraphy is but the UK is surroinded by water which planes and boats have to cross to get to anaother country and most people use airplanes to get to another country. Even eurostar speed is restricted. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 18:04:26 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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 Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air France noticed that they were never going to be viable. So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? They didnt. BOAC was given them for just £1 by the govt that was actually stupid enough to **** all that money against the wall on something that was never going to be viable. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? They were conned by the sales bull**** and once they realised that they were never gunna be viable, cancelled their orders. None of the other were ever going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any. So why order them ? The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time, because it was viable. because they were more fuel efficint and larger meaning more passengers. And those are the reasons why Concorde was never going to be viable, along with the fact that it was only even possible on the one/two routes, London/Paris to New York carting the stinking rich and those whose employer was actually stupid enough to pay the terminally stupid fare price. and you do remmber the problems with fuel in the early 70s. Didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time. Because they were designed for mass transport that is why. So it was completely stupid for the UK and frog govts to be ****ing so much money against the wall to cart the stinking rich etc on that one route. Something only a ****wit Labour govt would be stupid enough to do. It didnlt mean the technology was a failure. Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water. you do know that more of the area of earth is covered by water than land didn't you. Pity about where the major aircraft volume goes. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"charles" wrote in message ... In article , no - because the expected orders from Singapore, for one didn't, appear - the countries started refusing to allow overflying at supersonic speeds that's not a reason for failure in SE Asia many of the most profitable long distance city-pairs will be mostly flying over water tim |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"tim..." wrote in message ... "charles" wrote in message ... In article , no - because the expected orders from Singapore, for one didn't, appear - the countries started refusing to allow overflying at supersonic speeds that's not a reason for failure in SE Asia Yes it is. Very little of those routes is over water. many of the most profitable long distance city-pairs will be mostly flying over water Wrong. **** all of them are. And **** all of those travelling are the stinking rich who don't care about the cost of the ticket either. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article , tim...
writes "charles" wrote in message ... In article , no - because the expected orders from Singapore, for one didn't, appear - the countries started refusing to allow overflying at supersonic speeds that's not a reason for failure in SE Asia many of the most profitable long distance city-pairs will be mostly flying over water tim Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. -- bert |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article ,
bert wrote: Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. Regardless of how you try to fiddle the figures, your own ears would tell you it was the noisiest of all passenger aircraft by a vast margin. In the time when jets were getting quieter. -- *A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , bert wrote: Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. Regardless of how you try to fiddle the figures, ??? We are talking reason for Concorde's poor sales figures. your own ears would tell you it was the noisiest of all passenger aircraft by a vast margin. In the time when jets were getting quieter. I didn't say it wasn't I merely gave a comparison to another common sound level. -- bert |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
On Thursday, 10 January 2019 18:56:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 18:04:26 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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 Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air France noticed that they were never going to be viable. So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? They didnt. BOAC was given them for just £1 by the govt that was actually stupid enough to **** all that money against the wall on something that was never going to be viable. But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes. The US versions never went into servoce not even for 5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? They were conned by the sales bull**** and once they realised that they were never gunna be viable, cancelled their orders. But still tried to build their own which were even less viable, so did russia. In fact the US thought they could build a mach 3 plane but failed. Both the russain and american versions failed the UK/French versions flew for 27 years. And those are the reasons why Concorde was never going to be viable, along with the fact that it was only even possible on the one/two routes, London/Paris to New York carting the stinking rich and those whose employer was actually stupid enough to pay the terminally stupid fare price. People were willing to pay the money. They were for 27 years. you do know that more of the area of earth is covered by water than land didn't you. Pity about where the major aircraft volume goes. There's more dog **** in the world than gold too. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article ,
bert wrote: In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes In article , bert wrote: Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. Regardless of how you try to fiddle the figures, ??? We are talking reason for Concorde's poor sales figures. your own ears would tell you it was the noisiest of all passenger aircraft by a vast margin. In the time when jets were getting quieter. I didn't say it wasn't I merely gave a comparison to another common sound level. You regularly have discos flying over your house? I'd take more water with it. But in common with so many you've fiddled figures to suit yourself. Sound pressure levels are a function of distance. Not difficult to get high levels close to speakers. -- *A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , bert wrote: In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes In article , bert wrote: Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. Regardless of how you try to fiddle the figures, ??? We are talking reason for Concorde's poor sales figures. your own ears would tell you it was the noisiest of all passenger aircraft by a vast margin. In the time when jets were getting quieter. I didn't say it wasn't I merely gave a comparison to another common sound level. You regularly have discos flying over your house? I'd take more water with it. But in common with so many you've fiddled figures to suit yourself. Sound pressure levels are a function of distance. Not difficult to get high levels close to speakers. Oh dear we are touchy aren't we. -- bert |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Thursday, 10 January 2019 18:56:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 18:04:26 UTC, Rod Speed wrote: "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... 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 Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air France noticed that they were never going to be viable. So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be viable ? They didnt. BOAC was given them for just £1 by the govt that was actually stupid enough to **** all that money against the wall on something that was never going to be viable. But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable That was never any airline. but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes. Yes. The US versions never went into servoce not even for 5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers. Yep, for other reasons, much to ambitious and never viable. BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free. So why did others order them ? They were conned by the sales bull**** and once they realised that they were never gunna be viable, cancelled their orders. But still tried to build their own which were even less viable, That sort of thing has to be tried with prototypes given that its untried technology with something that large. so did russia.In fact the US thought they could build a mach 3 plane but failed. And thats the reason it failed, much too ambitious. Both the russain and american versions failed the UK/French versions flew for 27 years. But was only marginally viable on just the one route and even then, only the stinking rich and those whose employer was paying for the ticket could afford. No way did it ever make any sense for a Labour govt to be ****ing all that money against the wall on that sort of plane. It was always just more stupid socialist dick waving. And those are the reasons why Concorde was never going to be viable, along with the fact that it was only even possible on the one/two routes, London/Paris to New York carting the stinking rich and those whose employer was actually stupid enough to pay the terminally stupid fare price. People were willing to pay the money. Only the stinking rich and those whose employer was that stupid. And they never paid a penny towards the development or manufacturing cost, that was paid for by the general public. you do know that more of the area of earth is covered by water than land didn't you. Pity about where the major aircraft volume goes. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , bert wrote: In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes In article , bert wrote: Another issue as the noise levels at take off. The initial sale tour was in an aircraft using prototype engines which were substantially noisier. Unfortunately the damage was done even though the production versions were below the sound levels in a typical disco. Regardless of how you try to fiddle the figures, ??? We are talking reason for Concorde's poor sales figures. your own ears would tell you it was the noisiest of all passenger aircraft by a vast margin. In the time when jets were getting quieter. I didn't say it wasn't I merely gave a comparison to another common sound level. You regularly have discos flying over your house? I'm more of a Defender man myself. I'd take more water with it. But in common with so many you've fiddled figures to suit yourself. Sound pressure levels are a function of distance. Not difficult to get high levels close to speakers. -- bert |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
On Monday, 14 January 2019 15:42:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable That was never any airline. What has that to do with it ? but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes. Yes. So the UK ones were better and actually worked. The US versions never went into servoce not even for 5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers. Yep, for other reasons, much to ambitious and never viable. From the same country that has cars that gas guzzle, so surely cost of fuel wasn;t a problem, perhaps their engineering wasn;t as good. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016...hat-never-flew Supersonic flight is back on the agenda in the US, after more than 45 years in limbo. Lockheed recently announced a collaboration with Nasa to design a quieter supersonic jet that may, one day, carry passengers. So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival? One company, Douglas Aircraft, produced a concept in 1961 for an airliner that could fly at three times the speed of sound (Mach 3). Douglas not only believed that such an aircraft could be flying by 1970, but that there would be a market for hundreds of aircraft. The quest for a supersonic airliner became almost as important to the US as the race to the Moon. You look back to that time and there really was a lot of technological advancements in aeronautics, says Peter Coen, Nasas supersonic project manager at Langley Research Center in Virginia. Whether it was a consideration of the market and what type of aircraft might be needed, or whether it was a case of one-upping Russia and Europe. So the USA and Russia could get one into service but the UK/France did. President Kennedys carrot to Lockheed and Boeing was that the government would pick up 75% of the cost of the programme if either could produce a design that could rival Concorde. No one company had the money to invest in suchb a venture anymore than one company could go to the moon. But still tried to build their own which were even less viable, That sort of thing has to be tried with prototypes given that its untried technology with something that large. Yes and the UK/France achived it, neither the Russians or the american could. so did russia.In fact the US thought they could build a mach 3 plane but failed. And thats the reason it failed, much too ambitious. and that's a good thing is it a failure . Both the russain and american versions failed the UK/French versions flew for 27 years. But was only marginally viable on just the one route and even then. So, no one has been to the moon since does that make the american Apollo missions a failure ? only the stinking rich and those whose Even the stinking rich couldnt afford to go to the moon. employer was paying for the ticket could afford. No way did it ever make any sense for a Labour govt to be ****ing all that money against the wall on that sort of plane. It was always just more stupid socialist dick waving. People even paid for short trips on it. People were willing to pay the money. Only the stinking rich so what. But even today you can buy tickets to see it. |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote whisky-dave wrote But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable That was never any airline. What has that to do with it ? Thats what determines if you ever sell any of them. but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes. Yes. So the UK ones were better Much worse in fact than the 747 and thats why they sold thousands of those and Concorde had to give the 14 to BOAC and Air France. and actually worked. The US versions never went into servoce not even for 5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers. Yep, for other reasons, much to ambitious and never viable. From the same country that has cars that gas guzzle, so surely cost of fuel wasn;t a problem, Corse it is. Thats why so few of the 747s are still flying and have been replaced by vastly more fuel efficient replacements now. And it really is vastly more fuel efficient too. The 747 did about 10KG of fuel per pax mile. The A750 now manages less than 2. Forget the units now, but the numbers are accurate. perhaps their engineering wasn;t as good. In the case of the yank one they were too ambitious trying for Mach 3 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016...hat-never-flew Supersonic flight is back on the agenda in the US, after more than 45 years in limbo. And it remains to be seen if they can ever get any airline to buy any given the massive problem of no country actually being stupid enough to allow them to fly supersonic over their country with so much of the pax volume flying over land. Lockheed recently announced a collaboration with Nasa to design a quieter supersonic jet that may, one day, carry passengers. Unlikely given the problem that no country is actually stupid enough to allow them to fly supersonic over their country. So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival? That it was too ambitious at the time. One company, Douglas Aircraft, produced a concept in 1961 for an airliner that could fly at three times the speed of sound (Mach 3). Douglas not only believed that such an aircraft could be flying by 1970, but that there would be a market for hundreds of aircraft. And even you should have noticed that they have gone bust. And that Boeing that isnt stupid, hasnt. The quest for a supersonic airliner became almost as important to the US as the race to the Moon. Thats bull**** and there was never any race to the moon either. You look back to that time and there really was a lot of technological advancements in aeronautics, says Peter Coen, Nasas supersonic project manager at Langley Research Center in Virginia. Whether it was a consideration of the market and what type of aircraft might be needed, or whether it was a case of one-upping Russia and Europe. So the USA and Russia could get one into service but the UK/France did. Only by giving them to BOAC and Air France for free and having the general taxpayer pay the immense cost of what only ever got used to cart the stinking rich and those whose employer was stupid enough to pay for the ticket. Absolutely classic terminal stupidity that only a socialist govt could come up with. President Kennedys carrot to Lockheed and Boeing was that the government would pick up 75% of the cost of the programme if either could produce a design that could rival Concorde. Absolutely classic terminal stupidity that only a socialist govt could come up with. No one company had the money to invest in suchb a venture And no US plane manufacturer was stupid enough to do that. Boeing had enough of a clue to realise that the 747 made a lot more sense and ended up doing very well out of that decision while BAC went bust. anymore than one company could go to the moon. But still tried to build their own which were even less viable, That sort of thing has to be tried with prototypes given that its untried technology with something that large. Yes and the UK/France achived it, neither the Russians or the american could. But it was such a complete dud that it had to be given to BOAC and Air France for just £1 and no airline was actually stupid enough to buy it. so did russia.In fact the US thought they could build a mach 3 plane but failed. And thats the reason it failed, much too ambitious. and that's a good thing is it a failure . Try that again in english when not blotto, even Chrome doesnt do gobbledegook yet. Both the russain and american versions failed the UK/French versions flew for 27 years. But was only marginally viable on just the one route and even then. only the stinking rich and those whose employer was paying for the ticket could afford. No way did it ever make any sense for a Labour govt to be ****ing all that money against the wall on that sort of plane. It was always just more stupid socialist dick waving. People even paid for short trips on it. Not trips to anywhere, just joy rides. Makes no sense to be ****ing all that money against the wall so some could have a supersonic joyride. Again, someone only a terminal ****wit Labour govt could do. People were willing to pay the money. Only the stinking rich so what. So it makes no sense what so ever to be taxing the general public and ****ing all that money against the wall on something that only the stinking rich flew anywhere on. |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Irish Border
On Monday, 14 January 2019 17:23:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote Rod Speed wrote whisky-dave wrote But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable That was never any airline. What has that to do with it ? Thats what determines if you ever sell any of them. How do you work that out ? Oh you don't do you, just talk crap. but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes. Yes. So the UK ones were better Much worse in fact than the 747 but the 747 couldn't reach mach 2 not even mach 1 the 747 took about 8 hours concorde about 3.5 hours that's less than half the time and yet we're considering spending 56 billion+ on cutting the time it take to get from Birmingham to London by 20 mins !. and thats why they sold thousands of those and Concorde had to give the 14 to BOAC and Air France. We sell far more dog **** bags. Ford sell more cars than lamborghini,. Dell sell more PCs than Apple but apple sells more tablets than dell. From the same country that has cars that gas guzzle, so surely cost of fuel wasn;t a problem, Corse it is. Thats why so few of the 747s are still flying Does that make 747 a failure ? and have been replaced by vastly more fuel efficient replacements now. And it really is vastly more fuel efficient too. The 747 did about 10KG of fuel per pax mile. The A750 now manages less than 2. Forget the units now, but the numbers are accurate. Yeah sure , someone here a research student has worked on the 787 on the banks of sensors around 250 per wing segment or something similar and how to 'manage' them all in real time. perhaps their engineering wasn;t as good. In the case of the yank one they were too ambitious trying for Mach 3 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016...hat-never-flew Supersonic flight is back on the agenda in the US, after more than 45 years in limbo. And it remains to be seen if they can ever get any airline to buy any given the massive problem of no country actually being stupid enough to allow them to fly supersonic over their country with so much of the pax volume flying over land. only 1/3rd of the earth is covered by land and as most intercontinental flights cross the water. Lots of countries won't let planes even military fly over their land at any speed. So why are they still designing military aircraft that can exceed the speed of sound if no one will allow them to fly over land ?, try thinking about it. Why do most car manufactuers built cars that can go fater than most speed limits allow. ? Lockheed recently announced a collaboration with Nasa to design a quieter supersonic jet that may, one day, carry passengers. Unlikely given the problem that no country is actually stupid enough to allow them to fly supersonic over their country. Most countires arent as stupid as yopu, and the reason they don;t allow it is because going through the sound barrier creates a loud noise. Then ISS is constandly traveling faster and no one has banned that. Unlike you no one is that stupid. So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival? That it was too ambitious at the time. So why are they trying again ? What makes you think that those countries that wouldn't allow concorde go faster than mach 1 will allow the new USA plane to go above mach 1 ? The quest for a supersonic airliner became almost as important to the US as the race to the Moon. Thats bull**** and there was never any race to the moon either. Yes there was a space race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race is this yuor best attempt thinking that you can fool me by calling the space race a race to the moon. You do know that niether concorde or the russian or american versions were in the 'race to the moon' as you prefer to call it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Irish Border | UK diy | |||
OT Irish Border | UK diy | |||
OT Irish Border | UK diy |