Why Concorde Failed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- Of all commercial aviation endeavours, few have had such a lasting impression on the general public as the Concorde project. Seemingly ahead of its time, the supersonic 1960s design was seen by many to be the first of many futuristic jet liners. Capable of flying from London to New York in just 3 hours, it herald a new era for aviation, bringing the world closer together, and inspiring us toward even more ambitious travel possibilities.
So, what happened to the Concorde? We look at the ambitious project, and why we suddenly stopped going down this bold path of supersonic air travel.
Please consider supporting this channel by becoming a member: raafdocumentary.com/support/
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.com.au/?ref=AMAHA and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history. - Фільми й анімація
UA-cam have demonetized this video - no explanation apart from "After manually reviewing your video, we've confirmed that it isn't suitable for all advertisers. As a result, it will continue to run limited or no ads." If anyone can spot the bit that would offend most advertisers I'd love to hear about it.
Everything seems to be placed in context mate. UA-cam is a weird mystery sometimes; sorry you got demonetised.
Disgusting. I see no reason whatever. At the very least it should appear to air travel advertisers, cars, and DIY.
theres that Boom private venture SST project in the US at the moment and theres even another group working towards a viable hypersonic vehicle thats not a cruise missile
The Concorde program was borne out of technical ambition and national pride, not market demand. I've read that it was barely profitable. But- failure? It is worth remembering that Concordes flew passengers without serious incident for 27 years before the Air France accident, which then revealed a single-point failure mode that would have been expensive to correct.
It was corrected. The UK Concordes all had the needed corrections. It was the French who viewed the Concorde as a noisy anachronism. They had control of the safety assessment as part of the original deal, allowing them to shutdown the Concorde.
As to being barely profitable, that was only true initially. Once BAE started looking for profit, they found postal services for signed documents extraordinarily profitable. A 2nd stage was to find what the flying public thought the cost of the seats were. It was realized the Corporates, who went first class, were being grossly undercharged. The price increased wasn't even noticed by the first class, whose companies made for their seats.
Don't pardon puns 🙂 Puns are great!
But, they suffer greatly when the speaker mentions them (also goes for "no pun intended" et al).
Saying "pardon the pun" just amplifies the playfulness of the moment - I don't think they suffer at all by this turn of phrase. But I guess they can be overdone.
I might be on the extreme end. But to me, it makes the whole thing feel awkward. Kind of like having to explain a joke.
How is this Australian Military aviation?
I'm sure someone associated with Australian military aviation had some association with Concorde, at some place somewhere 😉
@@raafdocumentaries Any chance you have done or will do a doco on the RAAF Beaufighters roll on D Day?
@@Anthony77739 That sounds interesting - will look into it.
Maybe not military but Qantas did have plans for 4 - 6 Concordes. Like everyone else that had plans, with the exception of BA and AF, they eventually cancelled the order.
@@markhansen5142 Didn't know that. That's very interesting.
To be fair, Concorde was a successful failure, okay it never would've flown without massive public funding- but it was an engineering masterpiece, the only truly functional SST.
The Tupelov TU-144 by contrast had a lot of issues, even if those issues could've been been resolved (who knows?) it would've taken the Russians another 10-15 years to finish the development. They (probably wisely) gave up.
The American effort was even more lame. A billion dollars of mostly public money wasted on the Boeing 2707, and it never even flew once! The only thing remaining of the project is a wooden mock up!
It was remarkable how the US was able to spend more on building a wooden mockup than it took Europeans to build an operational aircraft.
1. The Concorde didn't fail. It was the French, after all the problems with airport debris had been solved, and implemented on the UK Concordes, who used their safety panel authority, part of the original deal , to shutdown Concorde.
The French had never upgraded their Concordes since they first had them, and didn't want the embarrassment of the UK having operational planes, and they not, shutdown the Concorde. The UK government should have insisted that the safety authority should revert to them.
2. BAE ran the Concorde at a profit with it serving as a serious draw for their service.
Expensive? Accident prone? Both?
Accident prone? Watch the video before commenting.
The Concorde had a relatively safe record up until the paris crash in 2000 which ended its career, which as the video mentioned was not even the planes fault (a previous aircraft, a dc-10 ironically left debris) It was just speculation and fear mongering. As a matter of fact, up until then the Concorde never had any passenger fatalities
@@olliestegscdu4553French not a cultured nation such as England!
@@olliestegscdu4553
The corrections needed to prevent a further incidents were implemented on all the UK Concordes. Unfortunately the French regarded the Concorde as a noisy nuisance, and since they had control of the safety panel, as part of the original deal, were able to shutdown Concorde.