Concorde makes final flights

[Reverend]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39472000/jpg/_39472998_concorde203.jpg

Concorde is making its final flights on Friday, ending 27 years of supersonic travel.Celebrities will experience the last of three flights on the day, as the plane flies from New York to London.Thousands of people are expected to gather at Heathrow Airport to see the trio touch down at about 1600 BST.

The first of the planes departed from Heathrow at 1035 BST for its return flight to Edinburgh.A second is completing a supersonic loop over the Atlantic before returning to Heathrow. The third, the last leg of a return flight to New York carrying about 100 people, includes a businessman who booked his ticket a year ago before the plane's retirement was announced.

Water cannon will spray it with jets of red, white and blue water to evoke the colours of the British, American and French flags in a symbolic farewell on the runway at John F Kennedy airport.

Heathrow airport operator BAA has built a 1,000-seat grandstand for spectators. But the company, together with police and Highways Agency staff, warned other would-be spectators to stay away from the Heathrow area and watch from other positions, or see the final landings on television.

British Airways chief executive officer Rod Eddington said there was a "mixture of sadness and celebration" about the retirement. "It is a wonderful plane, an icon, but its time has come. It's an old plane - it doesn't look it - but it was designed in the 50s and built in the 60s," he told BBC One's Breakfast.

He said one of the reasons for retiring Concorde was because economic conditions had meant the "vast majority" of Concorde's regular customers had not been flying on the plane over the past two years.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3209837.stm)

[efc]

I was watching the news a few minutes ago, when FOX news broke into regular programming to witness the last take off from Kennedy Airport in New York.

A personal recollection of the Concord. My family moved from Germany to Utah in 1980. On our return trip we were next in line for takeoff at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport, when the Concord was allowed to go to the front of the line. We were told that it was the practice since the fuel consumption of those powerful engines was exorbitant. Our plane was a "Rio Airways puddle jumper" that carried approx 14 passengers.

As the Concord moved around us into position, our little plane shook violently. When the Concord began its takeoff roll there is no way to describe the amount of shaking and the noise created. It was over is a moment. We watched the Concord lift skyward at the far end of the runway. I never got a chance to fly the Concord which is to say I could not afford the ticket. Pity.

[Big Booger]

I just can't believe that design came from 1950.. Amazing. It is a shame to see superior technology end.. when we are flying the "air buses" of the sky. I'd have loved to have flown in a Concorde... Would have been the trip of a lifetime..

What was the cheapest for a flight from say New York to London?

[efc]

News reports state that a one-way ticket was $9,000.

[Reverend]

The average return ticket,prior to Concorde being grounded after the Air France crash in Paris in 2000,was approx £6200.

When the suspension was lifted in 2001 the average fare was approx £6800.

The London - New York service resumed,(after the suspension),on November 9th 2001,and some passengers paid up to £9,200 for a return journey.

[Big Booger]

Yah I read that but is that the normal price? My god.. Surely they could use unleaded fuel.. and lower the cost a tad??

:D

What they should do is build a bigger version that holds more passengers and lower the price of that ticket.. That would make the plane a success.. perhaps stuff passengers in wing spots LOL

[Reverend]

One interesting fact i just read in the Daily Mail;

Concorde burnt 5,638 gallons of fuel per hour,or 4.17 gallons per mile.But on a full plane,this meant it was burning only as much fuel per mile per passenger as a large car.

[Big Booger]

that is very interesting.. Concorde doesn't sound to friendly for the environment. I would think that with current technology, a plane like that could be made more efficient? I mean 4 Gallons of fuel per mile???

5000+ gallons per hour. amazing...

I wonder what the next generation of fast planes will be like? Anyone know if there is any plan for say a Concorde 2?

[cash_site]

my chemistry/physics teacher was an old english guy who worked on the design of the jet engines for the Concorde program. He wasnt able to tell us anything until my last year of school - his 25 years of top secret info ended ;)

He said that is was actually quite hard to get an aircraft to go supersonic for long periods of time, and do it safely, time-after-time, and carrying passenger etc. They had to develop a new designed engine for high power thrust output, and efficiency. Its like a 4cyl compared to the output of some Jet fighters. A lot of technology came from the SR-71 program. For highspeed dynamics and engine design.

The biggest limitation though was aerodynamics. They can only reached supersonic with the nose cone extended.

It is a shame they a canned the program. It does seem like we are going back in technology... there should be a movement towards more supersonic planes... I want to be able to visit BB, get some Noodles and sushi, and then be back intime for my Pasta with my folks :D

I guess the rising concern with fuel wastage/shortage/costs, the ridiculously expensive tickets prices, and the fact that it could plow into a city at mach 2... brought about the concorde demise.

My dad nearly flew on Concorde... he went to buy a ticket and the guy infront bought the last one... so he had to settle for first class New-York to London... gee what a shame :p (dont you like bussiness funded trips :D)

[Reverend]

WOW.
I don't know if you guys outside the UK got live footage of the 3 Heathrow landings.It was amazing to see all 3 stacked up for their approaches.

The first flight landed at approx 16.02,the second at 16.04,and the last flight,from JFK, landed at 16.06 (UK times).

The end of an era.

[efc]

Reverend - I wish I had know that the three planes would land together this morning. Hopefully, News agencies will show it again.

BB - I choose to believe that the Aurora, a long thought replacement to the SR-71 actually exists. A little reading on the subject.

LINK (http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm)

[cash_site]

Wow, it would have been great to see those concordes come in... where will be going now? to the Jet Graveyard near Las Vegas?

ALso, good find efc - awesome link... ofcourse they're working on the next big thing ;)

If Bush gets re-elected, development will be quicker, when Bush Snr, left office, they canned further development of the B2 Stealth Bomber, they just finished off whatever was started... they originally wanted a few dozen of them :eek:

I guess we'll only hear about new stuff after the USAF has used them in war :rolleyes:

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by efc
Reverend - I wish I had know that the three planes would land together this morning. Hopefully, News agencies will show it again.

BB - I choose to believe that the Aurora, a long thought replacement to the SR-71 actually exists. A little reading on the subject.

LINK (http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm)

Thanks for that article. But that article left me with the impression that the Aurora didn't exist. I am sure though, that it must.. just a top secret project..

Why are we still flying in 747s when technology like this exists? I am sure it is all fuel related.. but certainly they could build an airplane that could fly supersonic using a lot less fuel than say 50 years ago???

I mean that's like driving a model T in 2003... or one of the gas guzzlers from the 70's.

Is supersonic flight really that inefficient? Maybe if they flew higher with less wind resistance, the plane would use less fuel?