What do you think of the Concorde?
This was a supersonic passenger aircraft capable of speeds over 2,000 km/h. This allowed passengers to reach their destinations very quickly.
However, since the Concorde wasn't doing particularly well from an economic perspective, its flights were discontinued in 2003. In addition, there was once a crash involving this aircraft.
This is what the Concorde looks like:
( https://images.app.goo.gl/sSEqxKnsVk3zeKR69 )
( https://images.app.goo.gl/22u44RwrEBuw18ac8 )
( https://images.app.goo.gl/teZi66W9mYiFHgeh8 )
What do you think of this plane?
Thank you for your answers and kind regards!
(1 votes)
Loading...
Unfortunately, I never flew on the Concorde myself, but I would have loved to experience it.
I've seen them in the museum and Heathrow Airport, though, and I think they're pretty cool. Definitely something different from the regular airliners.
I've seen it several times but I don't think it's that nice
Sollte es wieder geben.
But it wouldn't make much economic sense. The costs would be astronomical these days, and you'd be targeting people with deep pockets, most of whom already have their own private jet.
Never flown, unfortunately, but I did get a private tour with a view into the cockpit (not just through the glass). Would have loved to fly to New York in it…
MFG
It's not so pretty… Also, the Concorde doesn't have flaps. The spoilers are also positioned oddly. Plus, you can barely see out of the cockpit.
It has no spoilers, it doesn't need flaps thanks to specially shaped wings and you can lower the nose to get a better view out of the cockpit.
das Unternehmen Boom arbeitet an einem neuen Überschallflugzeug
A masterpiece of the highest engineering art!
A very sleek and aesthetic aircraft! Arguably the most beautiful civil aircraft ever built.
The Concorde definitely has legendary status.
Unfortunately, I was never able to see the Concorde in action in person, as it was retired in 2003 and I was just 3 years old at the time.
However, in the summer of 2015, I visited the Technik Museum in Sinsheim, where a Concorde is on display and which you can enter.
Of course, it's absolutely no comparison to what it would be like if this aircraft were actually in operation, but it was very interesting to see what it all looks like inside. Very luxurious!
But forever narrow.
Afterwards I went straight to the playground in IL18.
The interior seemed enormous even when I was a child and we always flew in one of these for our Hungarian vacations. And even today, it has plenty of room for me.
Oh ja, eng war es alle mal in der Concorde. Vor allen Dingen waren auch die Fenster an den Sitzplätzen höchsten so groß wie die Handfläche eines erwachsenen Mannes.
Yes, I noticed that too.
My wife had a lot of trouble with the tilt of the plane. Normally, she doesn't mind that, but she wanted to get out quickly.
Meiner Meinung nach war es das schönste Flugzeug, das es je gegeben hat.
I'm glad I saw one once. When landing at London Heathrow. Sooner or later, there will be something similar again, but climate-neutral.
It'll be interesting to see how something like this is supposed to be "climate neutral"? It wasn't for nothing that it was so slim and had no real payload. Drag and power requirements were and are enormous! That's probably also the reason why a ticket cost between €4,500 and €11,000. Without afterburners, you can't get the plane to supersonic speed—let alone twice the speed of sound… If such a plane can be operated in a "climate neutral" way, "birds" like the A380 and others will have a positive climate footprint…
The last sentence shows that you don't understand climate-neutral fuels and are confusing them with conventional mineral kerosene. There are many possibilities: second-generation biofuels (i.e., not from home-grown energy crops, but from manure, sewage sludge, used cooking oil, organic waste, agricultural residues, animal fat, etc.), third-generation biofuels (from maritime biomass, perhaps in the future from the excessive blue-green algae in the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean, or brown algae off the coast of Florida), solar thermal fuel using the ETH Zurich method (already being produced by Synhelion in a pilot plant at the DLR), e-fuels, and even hydrogen. Google Dr. Sabine Klauke, Chief Technology Officer at Airbus; you can sometimes find interviews with her in the press.
I already have. But you don't understand how it's produced, how much energy is needed for it, and that the production quantity has to be transported here first, is very limited, and that the consumers—industry, transport, and households—are competing for the limited quantities. Based on what's planned (not what's been implemented, but planned), it will cover a maximum of 30% of German industrial demand by 2035. Hmmm. What do we do with European industry? Worldwide? What about transport and households? It'll be a challenge if we also want to make these "birds" climate-neutral, don't you think? Purely from a potential and benefit perspective… A few thoughts on this from me…
I like its form, what it can do, the film (Concorde Inferno) and its story.
But I never flew on it. I only climbed around in it in Sinsheim, and also in the Russian version.
Both are really tight, but cool.
leider verpasst ich wollte fliegen dann wurde es schon eingestellt.
ich finde die Russische Tu144 sogar noch schöner..
steht alles im Technik Museum in Sinsheim
Should I tell you something about the Russian machine?
The USSR has been proven to have spied on the Anglo-French Concorde project. There is a wealth of evidence for this. An agent of the GDR State Security was even sentenced to twelve years in prison for espionage; he had paid French engineers for almost five years to provide him with information about the Western project. Shortly afterwards, in early 1965, France expelled the head of Aeroflot's Paris office for attempting to recruit informants. In 1966, two Czechoslovak citizens, Stephan K. and Jean S., were arrested. They had disguised themselves as priests and were later sentenced to eight and four years in prison, respectively, for Concorde espionage. It is considered highly likely that the Tupolev was a copy of the early development stages of the Concorde. However, the Soviet aviation industry was apparently unable to meet the design challenges that the British-French team overcame – both in terms of sufficiently stable wing construction and the engines.
The engines of the Tu 144 are closer to the fuselage, which made the cabin louder. The engines also consumed a lot more fuel and couldn't maintain Mach 2 without afterburners. The Tu 144 had longer tires to land on the cheap concrete runways in the East. Due to poor wing construction, it also needed canards, or auxiliary wings, to land at a relatively slower speed of 315 km/h. The Concorde could only land at 300 km/h without canards. It also had reverse thrust, which significantly reduced its landing distance. The Tupolev, on the other hand, hoped every time it landed that it wouldn't have to use its drogue parachute. The lack of cockpit windows also meant poor visibility. The only advantage it had was its super-engined thrust of almost 1000 kN, which was 300 kN more than the Concorde, but which meant it was only 100 km/h faster and had almost no range. Therefore, it's definitely not suitable as a long-haul aircraft, which, given its speed, doesn't make sense. Ultimately, you could say the Tu 144 is complete junk.
The Anglo-French design suffered only one incident in 30 years, while its Concorde had to make several emergency landings and even crashed more than five times, including at the Paris Air Show. Between 1976 and 2003, the Concorde carried more than 2.5 million passengers at supersonic speeds on approximately 50,000 flights. The Tupolev, on the other hand, was in scheduled service for just over six months, from November 1977 to May 1978. In total, only 3,284 passengers reached Mach 2 on the Soviet jet.
In addition, the Tu 144 could only maintain Mach 2 for 20 minutes, while the Concorde could fly at Mach 2 for at least 3.5 hours.
Espionage has always been the great craft of the Russians and the Soviets. The USSR's first nuclear weapon, for example, was almost a 1:1 copy of the American Fat Man atomic bomb.
The Breijnew S-13 was a copy of the American Lockheed U2, developed from the wreckage of a shot down U2.
This is also one of the reasons why the Americans aren't providing Ukraine with cutting-edge technology. They don't want current technology that exceeds the Russians' know-how to fall into their hands.
schönstes Flugzeug das es jemals gab, habe sie in mein Herz geschlossen
Top the snoot would droop. The Aardvark F111, the XB-70 Valkyrie, and the B1 Lancer also go in that direction with some elements.