What went so horribly wrong?

time is money but not so much money

>a DC-10
Fuck the mutts in this case and especially McDonnell Douglas in creating this dangerous piece of shite, with falling doors and deranged maintenance practices etc.

Attached: Letsfuckupthepylonbecausemoney.jpg (421x237, 14K)

Too expensive.

You're right, the DC-10 safety record is abysmal even for its time

>the greatest plane was killed by the ogro de las americas aircraft
It still hurts.

Didn't two Eurofighters crashed today?

Death Cruiser 10 (DC-10) killed it.

Attached: DC-10.jpg (1280x853, 1.21M)

French engineering

Yes. 1 dead

F

too dangerous

Fucking Boeing killed Lockheed's SST due to jealously.

Attached: Lockheed L-2000 SST.jpg (1493x453, 111K)

Name a single italian commercial plane

Attached: Lockheed L-2000.jpg (400x233, 15K)

There's a whole video about why it failed somewhere but essentially...
>Would shatter windows, damage property, and cause hearing damage to people below when flown overland, so only overseas flights were feasible
>Small and cramped planes made it so only a small amount of passengers could be on each flight. Each passenger had to be charged thousands of dollars to recuperate costs of flight

Basically it was a gimmick

Now they're paying the price tho.
Airbus is the sole leader now.

This thing. The first 100 seat passenger plane. It flew for a few seconds before bursting into flames and sinking.

It had 9 wings and 8 engines.

Truly a marvel of engineering.

Attached: CaproniCa.60.jpg (600x291, 38K)

Aside from fuel costs and that one accident, literally nothing

>displayed on Paris Air Show twice
>no sales

Pls buy ;_:

Attached: file.png (750x500, 396K)

Best plane ever made.

Attached: porco_rosso_movie_image_01.jpg (1600x1096, 167K)

Impressive prototype piece of wood built in one exemplary, destroyed during the second flight. Genuinely think it's still an great Italian avhievement.

This. Because of noise annoyance and property damage risks on the ground due to its sonic boom, the concord was restricted from flying at supersonic speeds over continental airspace.

The plane was already fairly inefficient at supersonic speeds, operating it at subsonic speeds would be prohibitively expensive. Especially with the oil crisis of the 1970s and increasing costs in the 90s.

This limited the concord to only transatlantic routes, and thus concord sales. Without production volumes, even the plane itself also became too expensive to buy, spare parts were rare, and repairs were costly.

Ultimately, it just wasn’t economically viable to keep them going.

>It flew for a few seconds before bursting into flames and sinking.
Italian Engineering

Ironically, the DC-10 is the plane that killed McDonald Douglass. Eventually, the plane had a great safety rating, but early on it went through a similar crisis as the 737 MAX is going through now.

MD never fully recovered from the loss in sales and damages paid due to that incident.

The Concord by comparison had one of the best safety ratings ever recorded, until the 2000 incident. At that time the Concord was already too expensive to operate, with the fickle public, the airlines just figured by the time it’s reputation recovered it wouldn’t be economically viable anymore.

Watch the episode of Air Disaster.

Make me, nerd

youtube.com/watch?v=CKu47Rh7IXM

Okay then...

Attached: 1476463316010s.jpg (250x200, 6K)

Basically, fuel price & first class on regular plane attracting rich more.

Plus add the noise and the impossibility to be on ultrasonic speed above inhabited zones.

youtu.be/i1ShTUVIzCI?t=38

My Uncle was in Rio when the first Concorde flight came.

It technically had a competitor, Tu-144

Good looking af.

Attached: file.png (950x445, 562K)

Good looking but extremely unsafe
It was rushed to production while the franco-british was thoroughly tested

Too expensive for what it was worth.

The investment alone kept the european aerospace sector alive
It's likely we wouldn't have had an Airbus without it

Yeah, still based af.

Funny how small jets nowadays are the ones selling like hotcakes.

The French

Too bad Aircraft manufacturers doesn't try to make supersonic commercial jets anymore.

>French engineering

French maintenance and health & safety

Main problem was expenses, it was affordable when oil was low, but still it had it's complications since it could only hit Mach 2 on the ocean, so it was always target of regulations, when 9/11 happened it was a death sentence. hehe, get it ?

S

I’m a Sovietboo and it sicked

Here's one of the designs of the Boeing SST.

Attached: Boeing 2707 SST art.jpg (1280x640, 66K)

Attached: Boeing 2707 SST.jpg (1024x739, 227K)

Attached: Boeing 2707 SST Full size mock up.jpg (1600x900, 189K)

bbc.com/future/story/20160321-the-american-concordes-that-never-flew

Short article about the American SSTs.

Smaller medium range jets are profitable

Vile

The swing wing design was really cool and unique.
A shame it became too complicated to go for with 1960s technology and they had to settle for the delta wing

Wendover Productions has a pretty good video on it. Long story short, Concorde exposed that most people would rather spend 8 hours on a flight where they can board in London, sleep and wake up in New York than spend 3 hours flying to New York in less luxurious circumstances.

Concorde was more time efficient, but it wasn't cost efficient.

>(poorfags couldn't afford them in the first place
This. The big money for airlines is in Business Class tickets. If they could, they'd fill every airplane with Business Class seats. The problem is that there isn't a single airroute where the demand for Business Class is high enough to justify filling an entire plane with them. Economy Class seats are sold purely because there happens to be space left in the plane.

No, it was killed because there was no demand for it.

Flying 3 hours from London to New York with a commercial liner was a revolutionary feat, just not a revolutionary feat that was commercially viable.

It was your fault and you know it.
Without the crash they could maybe have squeezed through the post 9/11 years, instead they had to pour millions into upgrading the entire fleet and still end up with a plane that was statistically the most dangerous to fly on.

Hypersonic jets when?

Attached: p032j6vw.jpg (1600x900, 81K)

The death carriage 10 was so awful it not only destroyed itself, it destroyed the concord as well.

The DC-10 has the highest kill count of any plane outside of wartime. That the executives of McDonnell-Douglas weren't prosecuted for the thousands of deaths caused by the DC-10 makes my blood boil.

Soviet Union died so there wasn't a need to subsidize an aeronautical dick measuring contest

>the plane had a great safety rating
It didn't, even after numerous safety upgrades it still crashed all the time.

Everyone seems to forget that Concorde was the first plane that was able to supercruise. Not just go supersonic, supercruise. Other planes had to burn half their fuel just to go supersonic for a few seconds, and the pilots wore flight suits and oxygen masks. Concorde took the revolutionary and made it mundane, and did it first, and did it 30 years before the military did. It's as if the first moon landing was made by hippie tourists and not a dedicated space organization.

Yeah for all the "hurr durr French engineering" memes it was an absolute marvel. The fact that it didn't turn the air travel industry on its head just proves that it was quite literally ahead of its time. This won't become a viable mode of air travel unless a significantly cheaper fuel source than kerosine is found.

France's aero-engineering is a pretty big deal, both commercially and militarily. This is part of what allowed France to pull out of the Eurofighter project in the first place: unlike the other countries involved, it knew that it could always opt out if the design didn't turn out the way they wanted ot (Eurofighters emphasize air superiority, making it perfect for countries with no foreign ambitions like Germany. France wanted an airplane that could both depart from a carrier and perform to a certain standard in air support/bombing missions).

Such a shame the Charles de Gaulle is such an outdated and malfunctioning piece of shit. At least there's plans to replace it by 2025 though, probably with something based on the Queen Elizabeth (though by then Britain will also have produced its sister ship the Prince of Wales, meaning France will need at least two carriers to catch up).

bbc.com/future/story/20171018-the-soviet-unions-flawed-rival-to-concorde

>its loud
>its pricy
>its not fuel efficient
>its very expensive
>it blew up on the runway

speed is important but not as important as comfort.

same reason vhs won against betamax despite being technically inferior

Any plane would blow up on the runway if a huge piece of fod is sucked up into the engine

Yanks got too jealous because their own SSTs were crap.

you are looking for reasons why it failed. im saying there was a very public accident involving the concorde that ruined its image as a luxury liner. no the concorde won't be coming back. yes it was an over-engineered piece of shit. yes you need to have sex instead of living in the past.

Tu-160

Attached: 707406521.jpg (4764x2908, 2.62M)

You're retarded if you think that was a factor in its retirement. And it's absolutely laughable to call a plane that was in service for 27 years a failure.

porn?

>over-engineered
Nice buzzword.

>Such a shame the Charles de Gaulle is such an outdated and malfunctioning piece of shit.
>something based on the Queen Elizabeth (though by then Britain will also have produced its sister ship the Prince of Wales, meaning France will need at least two carriers to catch up).
There is nothing correct about either of these statements