My mother was a BAC employee and worked on Concorde for several years. She finally managed to fly on the plane as a 75th birthday present and was given an invite to the flight deck by the captain. It was one of the happiest days of her life.
Though neither rich nor famous, I flew the BA Concorde twice. Once NY to London on a pass while working in airline management. The second time was London-NY when BA offered one way Concorde on a round trip business class ticket. The experience was pretty amazing. The pre-boarding lounge was as nice as the best lounges I have seen, even the Air New Zealand lounge in Sydney or the Virgin clubhouse in London. The best thing about the second flight was waking up in London on a Saturday morning, having breakfast, taking a taxi to Heathrow for a 10:30 departure, arriving at JFK clearing customs and getting a car service by about 10:15, arriving home in New Jersey early enough to go to my son's high school football game at 1 PM. It was a bucket list experience for a simple business traveler
Me and my mates were playing football on a field and it had just took off from Liverpool airport. It was low ....about 500ft coming right towards us then as it got over our heads it gracefully turned a out and flew back roughly the direction it came....loud and thunderous .....it was amazing.
Thank you for the video! To this day, Concorde is still amazing. My favourite ever aircraft & I had the privilege of flying on her from NYC to London on 5 June 2003. One of my most cherished memories.
Yes the Concorde should still be flying. Especially for time sensitive business people and time sensitive valuable cargo. Concorde hire business would be much more viable than traditional flights.
Doesn't justify it's economic failure, don't get me wrong, the Concorde is my favorite airliner ever but I still don't think it should be flying with all around poor efficiency. There are few people that could need concorde's services but nevertheless normal airliners cost a fraction of the cost and carry so much more passengers.
@@sorin_ea6 perhaps, I still think that there should be an analysis of the current market to see if a supersonic jet fits into this market (probably in limited numbers). And if it indeed fits, it would probably be a very very expensive and time consuming project, I don't know which company is going to do this or if it's going to have enough funding. In the end it seems like a very difficult task to get supersonic airliners in the sky again but I would still be extremely happy if they flew. I know that I would be willing to get a ticket on one of them just to experience that.
I ( as a flying Dutchman ) was passenger of a KLM DC 8 and was landing at the time at JFK airport Ny. At the same time the first landing of an Concorde was taking place also..Was so phroud to see this. Too bad that there were so many anti Concorde protesters overthere ..
Speed doesn't equate progress. The cockpit and systems were antiquated by the time it was retired. It was very bad for the environment. It could only be used on transatlantic routes.
@@9999AWC Well it sort of does. The fact that the option of travelling very quickly across the pond has been gone for 17 years and nothing has come close to the ability of Concorde says it all. It's not just to do with economics, the fact is quite simply that we are now limited to a journey of about three times that of Concorde. When that happens, it is most certainly a backward step . I did not say it was a backward step in technology or economics, I said it was a backward step in aviation history.
@@ozzy8286 "progress in aviation went backwards" definitely implies a step backwards in technology. There's a reason only 14 Concordes were ever built. Yeah they halved the time to cross the Atlantic. But that's it. It was more about political prestige than anything. You're only looking at one aspect of the Concorde and not aviation as a whole. If you had at least mentioned its ability to supercruise for hours non-stop then I would've agreed.
Nr. 11 one Concorde flew for Singapore Airlines. British Airways and Singapore Airlines cooperated, so that flights with a Concorde, to Australia was possible
Another fun fact- Concorde passengers arrived in London at an earlier time than they left New York. Concorde would cross the Atlantic in app 3 hours, New York city timezone is GMT-4 and London's timezone is GMT(or GMT+1 during daylight savings time).
I noted the same thing. Only passenger jet I know of the had the tail wheel. The DC-8-63/73 and the A321 could use one given their history of tail strikes.
The Concord also had 4 landing gears...nose gear, 2 main landing gear and one tail gear that is used to prevent the plane from tails stricks due to its high flare angle during landing.........
Luxury? It was expensive, and they brought on some decent food, but what most people don't seem to understand is how unbelievably cramped the interior of that aircraft was. No matter how expensive your ticket, your seat was really small. You could forget about lying flat or anywhere close to it.
I don't think Concorde would be flying today, but I think it should have stayed in the air longer than it did. I'm fairly confident the 2008 recession would have killed the plane. But at the time, the main reason why BA and AF didn't want to continue with the plane longer was because Airbus, who ran the maintenance program for the jet, pulled out. It was rumored this was to push the A380 at the time. But I would have loved to have gotten a chance to fly on the plane. They had $999 tickets into Toronto (or Montreal) from Britain during its farewell season, but...I was barely out of high school, I was broke so never got the chance. Not to mention the fact that I didn't live in any of the above cities, but it was "affordable."
YES! The Concorde should keep flying! It's the fastest way to cross the Atlantic and airlines could make huge profits from the Concorde. It'd be better if they made a neo variant too.
> "airlines could make huge profits from the Concorde" So why didn't they make "huge profits" from it when it was in active service? Answer: It wasn't commercially unviable, and would be less so today given how industry and passenger requirements have changed over the decades. Of course, that doesn't detract from how marvelous it was.
Daniel Hendricks I’m saying the airlines that operate it make profit because the Concorde was mainly used for rich business personnel travelling across the ocean to get to and from work. But I get your point, the Concorde really wasn’t fuel efficient.
@@SimpleFlyingNews You always do a great job. Have you seen the interview with the ex-Concorde British Captain on the French Concorde disaster? It shed a lot of light as to what happened with that accident. Talk about your perfect aviation domino effect.
Loving the great daily content keep it up and stay safe who cares about technical mistakes the amount of content you guys release each day is absolutely amazing keep it up
i would love to see it flying today as i have never seen it fly, but it simply isnt feul efficient enough and with only 90 passengers on baord an econmy-style seat would cost the same if not more than a first class seat on another plane
Yes. It should still be in the air. Sir Richard Branson asked the British government to give him the same deal BA got (1 pound a year) and he would fly them but no go.
I would loved to have seen Concorde continue flying. However the sonic boom problem will not go away for now. Fix that and supersonic passenger flight will again be possible. Until then dream on
It won't go away until flights take place near outer space, unaffected by atmospheric forces - that's pretty high and a great deal of fuel to get there. Meanwhile what was gained from the quick crossing times? Not much.
Being a Concorde geek, I have to note two errors - it was a joint project between BOAC and their French counterparts rather than a merger, and it is the fastest commercial aircraft over the Atlantic, but not the fastest aircraft as the video notes - that record sits with the SR-71. And yes, the white bird should still be flying! Given the taxpayer funded the project to the tune of £2Bn back in the sixties, the aircraft sold to BA for just £1. They made huge profits from it over the years, and one of the airframes (AF) only had a third of its lifespan used when retired. One should have been kept flying, but BA dug their heels in and refused to discuss it. Worse still, those that are sat at Museums are only on loan from BA, so the museum couldn’t work with a return to flight project even if they wanted to. Rumour has it the French have kept one with its engines running at Le Bourget.
Maybe after a little bit of upgrades to instruments and some fatigue checks, it should be completely ok to fly if people are willing to pay that price.
Yes I believe the Concorde concept should have been completely halted at the time..and fully and thoroughly gone through and re engineered to eliminate all of its design flaws..The design of this passenger Aircraft was decades ahead of its time with its technology..even today..over 50 years later.
There are many words where you can rearrange 4 letters (as long as they are two of the same) to get the same word: racecar, cucumber, limitless, vivisect, opponent, imitation, hippopotamus, likelihood, silverware ... ?
Hell yes, Concorde should've continued & still be flying everyday. It wasn't that aircraft's fault that the other aircraft lost that piece of metal on the runway.
In fact the fastest trans Atlantic flight was in 1974 by an SR-71 at 1 hour 55 minutes. You did not differentiate commercial from military in your commentary.
Number 5 is incorrect 1974: On a flight to the Farnborough Air Show outside London, Maj. James Sullivan and Maj. Noel Widdifield fly the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird from New York to London in 1 hour, 54 minutes, 56.4 seconds. The 1,806-mph flight still holds the transatlantic speed record between the two cities.
If Concorde isn't commercially viable, why would a conversion job have a greater likelihood? If not for viability, Concorde was an excellent aircraft and would still be flying today.
Yes the Concorde should still be flying. Especially for time sensitive business people and time sensitive valuable cargo. Concorde hire business would be much more viable than traditional flights. AND even it was the bestest plane of AVATION
Not really problems, it was limited to Mach 1.2, I think, while painted Pepsi blue. This was to prevent the air-frame overheating. The BA/Singapore Concorde G-BOAD was painted in Singapore Airlines livery on the left side and British Airways livery on the right hand side, the only Concorde to carry a colour scheme that was not either Air France or British Airways, with the sole exception of the temporary painted 'Pepsi' Concorde. Braniff Airlines flew Concorde on internal USA routes subsonic for a while. The Braniff aircraft bore USA registrations but were always in Air France and British Airways colours even though they were flown by fully qualified Braniff pilots and cabin crew. The pilots were trained and licenced to fly Concorde at Mach 2 plus though they never did. There are many photos on the Internet showing Concorde in Braniff colours but, unfortunately, they are all Photoshopped. Singapore did not lease Concorde, its operation was a joint venture between BA and Singapore Airlines. The video here is also incorrect when it states that the British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatile merged. They did not. Concorde was a joint venture between the two companies supported by the governments of both Britain and France. Today Aerospatiale is better known as Airbus and BAC is now a sub-contractor to Airbus and is known as British Aerospace.
Concorde fly again ? Yes..its a must. I believe with advanced technology, the engines should be created fastest in WARP speed to MACH 3 ...silence, and safe..... I wish those richest man shown at Forbes mag would like to challenge in support this aircraft to fly again ..with new designed body....Fly Concorde fly...!
I know that this is about Concorde and despite never making it to commercial production, I think that the Boeing 2707 would have been worth mentioning. Also noteworthy is the alleged+obvious state-sponsored industrial espionage surrounding the Tu-144.
@@rafiahaspagi1165 *False.* I don't know what you consider a "normal" airline, but I know that in the United States (the country with the second largest commercial aviation market in the world, after China), Delta, United Airlines, Southwest and American *do* serve vodka (and most common alcoholic beverages). I imagine that others do as well (airlines are generally are in favor of making money). Like I said, it probably varies by country of origin and religion (for example, consumption of alcohol is banned in many/most Middle Eastern countries).
Wait a second does airbus own the rights to the Concorde now if they ever tried to come back to it maybe if there will be a market for that in the future.
Concorde was not commercially viable (for anyone who disagrees: why was it cancelled?). It would be far less viable today (for similar reasons that airlines are retiring 747 and A380). A next-gen supersonic commercial airliner will need to be a complete redesign to meet modern industry and passenger requirements, which have changed _significantly_ over the decades. There is also the sonic boom that is hard to address, making viability even more difficult (though not impossible, certainly as technology progresses). That said, Concorde was an engineering marvel and is greatly missed.
Alright try to surprise me (Edit) 1. I knew that (Edit) 2. I do not think I knew that (Edit) 3. I knew that (Edit) 4. I sort of knew that (Edit) 5. I knew that (Edit) 6. I doubt that, but yes it was very luxurious (Edit) 7. I did not know that (Edit) 8. I didn’t know that (Edit) 9. I knew that (Edit) 10. I did not know that
Yes he should to be develop again super sonic plane.. Becouse the technology of airplanes today are most advance before.. They could make it more better and safe to ride it by the manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus industry if they develop it again...
Yes, the Concorde should still be flying, I'm sure with today's technology there could be a more fuel efficient version allowing to be more environmentally friendly.
I don't know about Air France's or the situation with Concordes in the hands of other entities, but I imagine that it's similar to BA: "All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn." Whose tax money should pay to undo all of that for an airshow? Yours? (not to mention safety checks and other likely maintenance required for an airliner that has atrophied in storage for almost 2 decades)
It wasnt grounded, it was retured, but no-one was allowed to buy them and put them back in the air, brandson wanted one, you will ever see one in the air again at any cost unfortunately
A beautiful aircraft. The French struggled to make profit, and when they had the chance, did not help to get her back to flight, withdrawing support. The sad crash was caused by lack of maintenance on another aircraft. Sad, sad day when withdrawn from service, but she was expensive to run and maintain.
I imagine that they would have done anything that was feasible to prevent it burning 2 tons of fuel while taxiing. The engineers that worked on it were at the top of their field. Evidently, they couldn't come up with an alternative, and electric motors are not a recent invention.
Because this channel is called simple flying, I am going to start like this: ,,Thinking simply I think that the (Concord-)e is the best airplane that humankind has ever made. Rich in elegance, and flying in such speeds I think that an aircraft like this will never be built again. (If it will, it surely won't be as nice as the Concorde. Some of people that will read this will think that is good that Concorde is not longer in service due to the fatal crash in the year of 2000. OK, I understand... ...may God rest their souls. But still I think that shutting down the production, and grounding it is not the right idea. Let's think for a moment... Boeing 737 (300,600,800,MAX) had so many crashes... ...only one type let's say Boeing 737-300." Conclusion: Concorde should fly. For ones that think that Concorde started the era of supersonic flight, I think that they are wrong... ...as seen unfortunately the Concorde was the start, and the end of the supersonic era of flying."
> "But still I think that shutting down the production, and grounding it is not the right idea. Conclusion: Concorde should fly." It was cancelled because it is not commercially viable. Whose tax monies do you think should subsidize renewed production? Yours? A new design that meets modern commercial and passenger requirements (which have changed _significantly_ over the decades) combined with technological advancements that would presumably reduce the cost gives supersonic travel a future, but it will _still_ need to be redesigned. Airlines and manufacturers generally want to make money. If it's profitable, it will be popular with the airlines. If it's not, it will be cancelled.
It wasn't cancelled due to the accident. It was just too inefficient to be profitable. The trend is for passenger airplanes to be more fuel efficient, with bigger and bigger turbofans, and usually lower cruise speeds, not faster. Maybe supersonic provate jets might have a chance, but not passenger airplanes, unless some - unlikely - major breakthrough in propulsion makes them viable again.
There was another airplane that tried the idea that faster is better the Convair 990A Coronado. It was the fastest subsonic airliner of its time. It failed as well, it seems that when a certain speed is exceeded fuel consumption because of increased drag makes an airliner uneconomical. I'm not saying this problem can't be solved, but when one considers the bottom line, the number of passengers that can be flown per mile expending the least amount of fuel, that is a goal that most airlines are striving to achieve.
Of course it should, if there were people willing to fly and the aircraft was making a profit. A sad day to see it’s end And why wasn’t Virgin allowed to to buy it. Crazy and very annoying.....
Never understood that at the time and still don’t. It was a chance to possibly help clear the development cost. I think BA didn’t want the shame of Virgin making a go of it. Politics.....
Would i like to have seen Concorde remain in service ? Absolutely! Do i think it should have continued flying ? Probably not no, it was elitist, it was inefficient, it was polluting, it was impractical due to its extremely limited routes & when it was retired it was unnecessary. As for plans to replace it ? I don't think so for all of the above reasons.
My mother was a BAC employee and worked on Concorde for several years. She finally managed to fly on the plane as a 75th birthday present and was given an invite to the flight deck by the captain. It was one of the happiest days of her life.
Touching story. 👍
I hope your mom is still around.
John Johansen vernon is about 53 years old so maybe
Though neither rich nor famous, I flew the BA Concorde twice. Once NY to London on a pass while working in airline management. The second time was London-NY when BA offered one way Concorde on a round trip business class ticket. The experience was pretty amazing. The pre-boarding lounge was as nice as the best lounges I have seen, even the Air New Zealand lounge in Sydney or the Virgin clubhouse in London. The best thing about the second flight was waking up in London on a Saturday morning, having breakfast, taking a taxi to Heathrow for a 10:30 departure, arriving at JFK clearing customs and getting a car service by about 10:15, arriving home in New Jersey early enough to go to my son's high school football game at 1 PM. It was a bucket list experience for a simple business traveler
William Farrell That sounds absolutely amazing!
Never seen a concorde in service :(
Must be awesome to see her arriving after a transatlantic flight!
it was majestic and also majestic on shaking your house (I lived 2 kilometres away from the airport)
@@bolacapoeira You're lucky!!!!!
The only one I've seen was parked out on the tarmac at JFK back in the mid 80s.
@@davidoldham7476 I saw it on my "own" airport in Porto, Portugal :D
Me and my mates were playing football on a field and it had just took off from Liverpool airport. It was low ....about 500ft coming right towards us then as it got over our heads it gracefully turned a out and flew back roughly the direction it came....loud and thunderous .....it was amazing.
#11 The Concorde had four main landing gears.
The fourth being at the tail of the fuselage, preventing it from damaging tail strikes.
Thank you for the video! To this day, Concorde is still amazing. My favourite ever aircraft & I had the privilege of flying on her from NYC to London on 5 June 2003. One of my most cherished memories.
Yes the Concorde should still be flying. Especially for time sensitive business people and time sensitive valuable cargo. Concorde hire business would be much more viable than traditional flights.
Doesn't justify it's economic failure, don't get me wrong, the Concorde is my favorite airliner ever but I still don't think it should be flying with all around poor efficiency.
There are few people that could need concorde's services but nevertheless normal airliners cost a fraction of the cost and carry so much more passengers.
@@notproplayer3649 There should be a redesigned and much more efficient supersonic jet. BOOM Overture for example.
@@sorin_ea6 perhaps, I still think that there should be an analysis of the current market to see if a supersonic jet fits into this market (probably in limited numbers).
And if it indeed fits, it would probably be a very very expensive and time consuming project, I don't know which company is going to do this or if it's going to have enough funding.
In the end it seems like a very difficult task to get supersonic airliners in the sky again but I would still be extremely happy if they flew.
I know that I would be willing to get a ticket on one of them just to experience that.
Me: Lives in London and has to be at work in New York in 4hrs.
Concorde: Hop on my 2hr flight record
I ( as a flying Dutchman ) was passenger of a KLM DC 8 and was landing at the time at JFK airport Ny. At the same time the first landing of an Concorde was taking place also..Was so phroud to see this. Too bad that there were so many anti Concorde protesters overthere ..
beautiful aircrafts die young, first concord and now the A380.
ⱱiṥit mЎ çhańńel. top documentaries about plane crashes.
We must have been in the samen KLM Plain
Thats one of my fave aircraft so it should flying and a good memories of that fast boi
Another fact. When Concorde was retired from service, it was the first time in history that progress in aviation went backwards.
If progress = speed.
Speed doesn't equate progress. The cockpit and systems were antiquated by the time it was retired. It was very bad for the environment. It could only be used on transatlantic routes.
@@9999AWC Well it sort of does. The fact that the option of travelling very quickly across the pond has been gone for 17 years and nothing has come close to the ability of Concorde says it all.
It's not just to do with economics, the fact is quite simply that we are now limited to a journey of about three times that of Concorde.
When that happens, it is most certainly a backward step .
I did not say it was a backward step in technology or economics, I said it was a backward step in aviation history.
@@ozzy8286 "progress in aviation went backwards" definitely implies a step backwards in technology.
There's a reason only 14 Concordes were ever built. Yeah they halved the time to cross the Atlantic. But that's it. It was more about political prestige than anything. You're only looking at one aspect of the Concorde and not aviation as a whole. If you had at least mentioned its ability to supercruise for hours non-stop then I would've agreed.
@@9999AWC it definitely could super cruise and nothing else like it.
Nr. 11 one Concorde flew for Singapore Airlines. British Airways and Singapore Airlines cooperated, so that flights with a Concorde, to Australia was possible
Imagine a Concorde neo
I'm in.
Imagine flying on the Concorde from the USA to Australia & New Zealand. Qantas should consider it.
@@litamtondy im thinking of engines used on a B-1B Lancer and use it on the Concorde.
Ive heard that in 2023 there will come a new supersonic aircraft called boom.
I heard that Theranos is ramping up to release a machine that offers more than 1,000 blood tests from a single drop of blood.
@@dmhendricks boom!
Coronavirus: I’m gonna ruin this whole mans career
@@dude6403 Boom is targeting the private corporate jet market and that is not going to be effected by CV19.
U mean boom overture and aieron as2
4:19 The 10th fact displays "#9" on the screen?
And the 4th as "#3"
@@jedrzejstach8248 yup
Comeon editor does mistake he is a human only at end
@@amaan_kazi 100% true. I'm just letting them know so that they can not make that mistake again in the future
I love all of your vids!!
Absolutely it should still be flying. The costs of making it safer and then Sept 11, 2001 finally finished this beautiful machine off.
Amazing daily uploads
Another fun fact- Concorde passengers arrived in London at an earlier time than they left New York.
Concorde would cross the Atlantic in app 3 hours, New York city timezone is GMT-4 and London's timezone is GMT(or GMT+1 during daylight savings time).
No, the other way around. It is always later in London than it is in New York.
@@TheRip72 yep. It's the other way around
Love the vids, keep them up!!
Also you missed out stuff that the Concorde had an extra wheel at its tail for all those amazing landings
I noted the same thing. Only passenger jet I know of the had the tail wheel. The DC-8-63/73 and the A321 could use one given their history of tail strikes.
It will never be surpassed. The greatest Plane to ever fly.
The Concord also had 4 landing gears...nose gear, 2 main landing gear and one tail gear that is used to prevent the plane from tails stricks due to its high flare angle during landing.........
Luxury? It was expensive, and they brought on some decent food, but what most people don't seem to understand is how unbelievably cramped the interior of that aircraft was. No matter how expensive your ticket, your seat was really small. You could forget about lying flat or anywhere close to it.
Absolutely A very big YES.
I don't think Concorde would be flying today, but I think it should have stayed in the air longer than it did. I'm fairly confident the 2008 recession would have killed the plane. But at the time, the main reason why BA and AF didn't want to continue with the plane longer was because Airbus, who ran the maintenance program for the jet, pulled out. It was rumored this was to push the A380 at the time. But I would have loved to have gotten a chance to fly on the plane. They had $999 tickets into Toronto (or Montreal) from Britain during its farewell season, but...I was barely out of high school, I was broke so never got the chance. Not to mention the fact that I didn't live in any of the above cities, but it was "affordable."
YES! The Concorde should keep flying! It's the fastest way to cross the Atlantic and airlines could make huge profits from the Concorde. It'd be better if they made a neo variant too.
> "airlines could make huge profits from the Concorde"
So why didn't they make "huge profits" from it when it was in active service? Answer: It wasn't commercially unviable, and would be less so today given how industry and passenger requirements have changed over the decades. Of course, that doesn't detract from how marvelous it was.
Daniel Hendricks I’m saying the airlines that operate it make profit because the Concorde was mainly used for rich business personnel travelling across the ocean to get to and from work. But I get your point, the Concorde really wasn’t fuel efficient.
Dude it cost alot and if it still is flying probally countries will ban it even france and england since of its sound
A very big part of why it was dismissed is exactly the fact that airlines WEREN'T making huge profits.
What’s the background music
I saw it pass off my house on its farewell flight back to Filton ❤
Nice! I didn't know about the "e"...
Glad we helped you learn something new :) - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews You always do a great job. Have you seen the interview with the ex-Concorde British Captain on the French Concorde disaster? It shed a lot of light as to what happened with that accident. Talk about your perfect aviation domino effect.
I'll take a look. And thanks for the feedback! - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews I can dig it up again. I believe his name was Hutchinson? But not sure. It was on an aviation podcast last year. Fascinating stuff.
👍 - TB
I knew all these facts before...but this is very interesting !
Loving the great daily content keep it up and stay safe who cares about technical mistakes the amount of content you guys release each day is absolutely amazing keep it up
i would love to see it flying today as i have never seen it fly, but it simply isnt feul efficient enough and with only 90 passengers on baord an econmy-style seat would cost the same if not more than a first class seat on another plane
Yes. It should still be in the air. Sir Richard Branson asked the British government to give him the same deal BA got (1 pound a year) and he would fly them but no go.
WHAT was the first airbus and boeing?
Boeing Model 1 (imaginative name) and Airbus A300
The first Airbus was the A300. The first Boeing was the Model 1.
I would loved to have seen Concorde continue flying. However the sonic boom problem will not go away for now. Fix that and supersonic passenger flight will again be possible. Until then dream on
It won't go away until flights take place near outer space, unaffected by atmospheric forces - that's pretty high and a great deal of fuel to get there. Meanwhile what was gained from the quick crossing times? Not much.
Nice
Fact 11. Once Concorde got going, nothing could catch her!
Being a Concorde geek, I have to note two errors - it was a joint project between BOAC and their French counterparts rather than a merger, and it is the fastest commercial aircraft over the Atlantic, but not the fastest aircraft as the video notes - that record sits with the SR-71. And yes, the white bird should still be flying! Given the taxpayer funded the project to the tune of £2Bn back in the sixties, the aircraft sold to BA for just £1. They made huge profits from it over the years, and one of the airframes (AF) only had a third of its lifespan used when retired. One should have been kept flying, but BA dug their heels in and refused to discuss it. Worse still, those that are sat at Museums are only on loan from BA, so the museum couldn’t work with a return to flight project even if they wanted to. Rumour has it the French have kept one with its engines running at Le Bourget.
yes my dad was on the last flight and he said it was amazing
I'm slightly jealous! - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews Please do a video on the fastest subsonic airliner the: Convair 990A Coronado.
Maybe after a little bit of upgrades to instruments and some fatigue checks, it should be completely ok to fly if people are willing to pay that price.
I think it was also the first commercial aircraft with a fly-by-wire control system too.
Beautiful aircraft. Way ahead of it's time. Wish I got the opportunity to fly in one before they were decommissioned.
The Convair 990A Coronado was another attempt to get there quicker that also failed because of high fuel consumption in the long run.
Yes I believe the Concorde concept should have been completely halted at the time..and fully and thoroughly gone through and re engineered to eliminate all of its design flaws..The design of this passenger Aircraft was decades ahead of its time with its technology..even today..over 50 years later.
Another unknown fact about the Concorde: You can rearrange 4 letters in "Concorde" and still end up with "Concorde"
*flies away into a wall*
There are many words where you can rearrange 4 letters (as long as they are two of the same) to get the same word: racecar, cucumber, limitless, vivisect, opponent, imitation, hippopotamus, likelihood, silverware ... ?
Nice video ! But please next time don't forget to show some Air France Concorde as well in your video, or it looks like only british was operating it
The insane fuel burn during taxi-ing - would it have been more economical to tow the concorde to the runway, line it up and then start it's engines?
Yes,Concorde should have at least stayed in operations until at least around 2007 or 08 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Hell yes, Concorde should've continued & still be flying everyday. It wasn't that aircraft's fault that the other aircraft lost that piece of metal on the runway.
It should have kept flying. I read somewhere Virgin wanted to buy the BA Concordes,but BA refused and just have them sitting in Heathrow.
yes
In fact the fastest trans Atlantic flight was in 1974 by an SR-71 at 1 hour 55 minutes. You did not differentiate commercial from military in your commentary.
my guess is no one knew about the SR-71 and the USAF wouldn't publish the fact for years after...
The Concorde is the best aircraft in my heart after the 747
Number 5 is incorrect
1974: On a flight to the Farnborough Air Show outside London, Maj. James Sullivan and Maj. Noel Widdifield fly the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird from New York to London in 1 hour, 54 minutes, 56.4 seconds. The 1,806-mph flight still holds the transatlantic speed record between the two cities.
Mmh nothing about the Pepsi livery strange I mean no much people knows about that and that also caused problems.
true
The moment they stopped flying we have Devolved technologically many years back in time
Why does no one or country just take a supersonic bomber and turn it into a passanger plane?
It wouldn't make much profit, and those planes are so specialised it wouldn't make a good airliner anyway
TU-160 could be, but Putin doesn’t want to sell them.
If Concorde isn't commercially viable, why would a conversion job have a greater likelihood? If not for viability, Concorde was an excellent aircraft and would still be flying today.
I am bored are you are not posting video but when you post a new video IM GONNA WATCH IT
Yes the Concorde should still be flying. Especially for time sensitive business people and time sensitive valuable cargo. Concorde hire business would be much more viable than traditional flights. AND even it was the bestest plane of AVATION
Another 2 facts is that the blue Pepsi livery caused problems for the concorde and that Singapore airlines operated it on lease from BA
Not really problems, it was limited to Mach 1.2, I think, while painted Pepsi blue. This was to prevent the air-frame overheating. The BA/Singapore Concorde G-BOAD was painted in Singapore Airlines livery on the left side and British Airways livery on the right hand side, the only Concorde to carry a colour scheme that was not either Air France or British Airways, with the sole exception of the temporary painted 'Pepsi' Concorde. Braniff Airlines flew Concorde on internal USA routes subsonic for a while. The Braniff aircraft bore USA registrations but were always in Air France and British Airways colours even though they were flown by fully qualified Braniff pilots and cabin crew. The pilots were trained and licenced to fly Concorde at Mach 2 plus though they never did. There are many photos on the Internet showing Concorde in Braniff colours but, unfortunately, they are all Photoshopped. Singapore did not lease Concorde, its operation was a joint venture between BA and Singapore Airlines. The video here is also incorrect when it states that the British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatile merged. They did not. Concorde was a joint venture between the two companies supported by the governments of both Britain and France. Today Aerospatiale is better known as Airbus and BAC is now a sub-contractor to Airbus and is known as British Aerospace.
Concorde fly again ? Yes..its a must. I believe with advanced technology, the engines should be created fastest in WARP speed to MACH 3 ...silence, and safe.....
I wish those richest man shown at Forbes mag would like to challenge in support this aircraft to fly again ..with new designed body....Fly Concorde fly...!
yes i Thank that the concorde should continued flying Because it was a piece of British history
Absolutely it should be flying
You forgot about mail they also carried mail.
I know that this is about Concorde and despite never making it to commercial production, I think that the Boeing 2707 would have been worth mentioning.
Also noteworthy is the alleged+obvious state-sponsored industrial espionage surrounding the Tu-144.
Pretty sure it holds the record for fastest transatlantic passenger aircraft but SR71 holds the record for fastest transatlantic crossing
Who else thinks on the Russian version of the Concorde they served VODKA?
yes
Don't they serve alcohol on most commercial airlines where it is not banned by the origin country's laws/religion? Certainly luxury aircraft...
@@dmhendricks Yea but normal airlines don't serve VODKA
@@rafiahaspagi1165 *False.* I don't know what you consider a "normal" airline, but I know that in the United States (the country with the second largest commercial aviation market in the world, after China), Delta, United Airlines, Southwest and American *do* serve vodka (and most common alcoholic beverages). I imagine that others do as well (airlines are generally are in favor of making money).
Like I said, it probably varies by country of origin and religion (for example, consumption of alcohol is banned in many/most Middle Eastern countries).
Fact no. 11. You as an Englishman should know that it was never "THE Concorde" but simply "Concorde".
True fact: one of the crashes wasn’t Concorde at fault. Runway had issues
Virgin Atlantic offered BA £5 million for each Concorde. As Concorde was a gift to BA from the UK government they should have agreed!
Wait a second does airbus own the rights to the Concorde now if they ever tried to come back to it maybe if there will be a market for that in the future.
Concorde was not commercially viable (for anyone who disagrees: why was it cancelled?). It would be far less viable today (for similar reasons that airlines are retiring 747 and A380). A next-gen supersonic commercial airliner will need to be a complete redesign to meet modern industry and passenger requirements, which have changed _significantly_ over the decades. There is also the sonic boom that is hard to address, making viability even more difficult (though not impossible, certainly as technology progresses). That said, Concorde was an engineering marvel and is greatly missed.
@@dmhendricks dude he probally ment if thet have the rights to the name of it not if it was a scsucses or not
@@dmhendricks Yea pretty much what I was saying
Boom Aerospace is building another supersonic.
Come to barbAdos we have one in barbados
Alright try to surprise me
(Edit) 1. I knew that
(Edit) 2. I do not think I knew that
(Edit) 3. I knew that
(Edit) 4. I sort of knew that
(Edit) 5. I knew that
(Edit) 6. I doubt that, but yes it was very luxurious
(Edit) 7. I did not know that
(Edit) 8. I didn’t know that
(Edit) 9. I knew that
(Edit) 10. I did not know that
Flew Concorde to and from NYC.......it was really small inside. No TV.......didn’t have time to watch anything anyway
Yes he should to be develop again super sonic plane.. Becouse the technology of airplanes today are most advance before.. They could make it more better and safe to ride it by the manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus industry if they develop it again...
Yes, the Concorde should still be flying, I'm sure with today's technology there could be a more fuel efficient version allowing to be more environmentally friendly.
Modern technology made airplane engines more efficient by making bigger and bigger turbofans. But that won't do for dupersonic jets.
It could have fly for some air show or for military
I don't know about Air France's or the situation with Concordes in the hands of other entities, but I imagine that it's similar to BA: "All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn."
Whose tax money should pay to undo all of that for an airshow? Yours? (not to mention safety checks and other likely maintenance required for an airliner that has atrophied in storage for almost 2 decades)
wow !! take it ease there friend... it was just a comment...
Wait another second the Concorde is not grounded right its just retired?
yeah, it was retired, not grounded
There were some pilots that were keeping one in flight condition but i do not now if if they are still doing it
It wasnt grounded, it was retured, but no-one was allowed to buy them and put them back in the air, brandson wanted one, you will ever see one in the air again at any cost unfortunately
A beautiful aircraft. The French struggled to make profit, and when they had the chance, did not help to get her back to flight, withdrawing support. The sad crash was caused by lack of maintenance on another aircraft. Sad, sad day when withdrawn from service, but she was expensive to run and maintain.
I wonder if they could just install electric motors in the gears for taxi... Yes thats extra weight but might be worth saving 2tons of fuel
I imagine that they would have done anything that was feasible to prevent it burning 2 tons of fuel while taxiing. The engineers that worked on it were at the top of their field. Evidently, they couldn't come up with an alternative, and electric motors are not a recent invention.
a shame that it does not anymore
Because this channel is called simple flying, I am going to start like this:
,,Thinking simply I think that the (Concord-)e is the best airplane that humankind has ever made. Rich in elegance, and flying in such speeds I think that an aircraft like this will never be built again. (If it will, it surely won't be as nice as the Concorde. Some of people that will read this will think that is good that Concorde is not longer in service due to the fatal crash in the year of 2000. OK, I understand... ...may God rest their souls. But still I think that shutting down the production, and grounding it is not the right idea. Let's think for a moment... Boeing 737 (300,600,800,MAX) had so many crashes... ...only one type let's say Boeing 737-300."
Conclusion: Concorde should fly.
For ones that think that Concorde started the era of supersonic flight, I think that they are wrong... ...as seen unfortunately the Concorde was the start, and the end of the supersonic era of flying."
> "But still I think that shutting down the production, and grounding it is not the right idea. Conclusion: Concorde should fly."
It was cancelled because it is not commercially viable. Whose tax monies do you think should subsidize renewed production? Yours?
A new design that meets modern commercial and passenger requirements (which have changed _significantly_ over the decades) combined with technological advancements that would presumably reduce the cost gives supersonic travel a future, but it will _still_ need to be redesigned.
Airlines and manufacturers generally want to make money. If it's profitable, it will be popular with the airlines. If it's not, it will be cancelled.
It wasn't cancelled due to the accident. It was just too inefficient to be profitable.
The trend is for passenger airplanes to be more fuel efficient, with bigger and bigger turbofans, and usually lower cruise speeds, not faster.
Maybe supersonic provate jets might have a chance, but not passenger airplanes, unless some - unlikely - major breakthrough in propulsion makes them viable again.
There was another airplane that tried the idea that faster is better the Convair 990A Coronado. It was the fastest subsonic airliner of its time. It failed as well, it seems that when a certain speed is exceeded fuel consumption because of increased drag makes an airliner uneconomical. I'm not saying this problem can't be solved, but when one considers the bottom line, the number of passengers that can be flown per mile expending the least amount of fuel, that is a goal that most airlines are striving to achieve.
I remember where I was when Concord crashed .....flying over Paris
ConcordE
Of course it should, if there were people willing to fly and the aircraft was making a profit. A sad day to see it’s end
And why wasn’t Virgin allowed to to buy it. Crazy and very annoying.....
Second view second comment
Never understood that at the time and still don’t. It was a chance to possibly help clear the development cost. I think BA didn’t want the shame of Virgin making a go of it. Politics.....
You did not mention the several lower-rudder panel loss incidents on BA Concordes.
Fact 12. Concorde always landed with technical issues.
Put it back into service to carry organs.
"Droop snoot"
Inefficient at low speeds..
Pilot: Let’s land at 200knots
And taxi as fast
my uncle was on the flight with the oldest woman.
Concorde Neo: least afichent Neo jet
Fact 1 .....it's known as concorde not the concorde.
Dude this stuff is comman things every av geek knows about.
If you want to see a better way to make a supersonic airliner watch the video "supersonic airliner concept"
Would i like to have seen Concorde remain in service ? Absolutely!
Do i think it should have continued flying ? Probably not no, it was elitist, it was inefficient, it was polluting, it was impractical due to its extremely limited routes & when it was retired it was unnecessary.
As for plans to replace it ? I don't think so for all of the above reasons.
It's should not. Because of fuel efetianty
First!