Why did the concorde fail?

Too loud for most international airports and didn’t bring enough profit for the airlines. Had a high maintenance bill too. The crash was the nail in the coffin.

makes a nice decoration when queuing for takeoff at LHR T5

To expensive

Flew too high. Exposed that the earth was flat to normies.

Was never real.

It failed because the CIA needed to start the flat-earth psyop and you could see the curvature of the earth from Concorde.

t. flew on Concordes when I was a kid and saw the curvature.

It was loud so it couldn't fly over continental US. It was also limited in range. So with these two factors you have limited flight paths to take, and even more limited by demand.So you had a plane that could basically only fly from NY to England, and it was very expensive.

New Supersonic commercial jets should have greater range and better noise output which will make it more accessible for flyers.

Although the idea of supersonic commercial air travel was a great idea it was not very good for certain reasons. reason one was the fact for the market was a very small one. there was a law put in place in mainland countries such as the united states that put a band on supersonic commercial jets being able to fly over the us. it was for the fact that the gov saw that a sonic boom over ones house all the time would piss off and disrupt regular americans lives, note that this excluded military aircraft for clear reasons. so the market was cornered to flights over the so called pond. even then prices where quite expensive to travel from jfk to heathrow now add an aircraft that was very expensive to maintain and you get a clear answer. another large factor was the fact that normal non supersonic aircraft become far more efficient to maintain ie cheaper tickets. people shifted from shelling out a shiton of money for 3 hours of flight time and just settled for a longer flight. and no it was not the fect that it wasnt safe, the concord was a safe but complex plane to fly and maintain and the demand was not good enough to carry . im sure in the years to come we will see these kinds of commercial aircraft once again but it will take time and money. nuff said

Attached: 1518476531741.gif (270x188, 1.78M)

FPBP

>why did the concorde fail?

Higher maintenance costs for high preforming engines, larger fuel costs for the same flight distance, most governments banned sonic booms in their airspace so it could only make trans-oceanic trips at high speed, most people were not willing to shell out ticket prices that high just to arrive at their destination a few hours earlier.

tl;dr, it was unnecessary, too expensive, and it's benefits were quickly outpaced by it's drawbacks.

bad timing.
the first refit test flight after the crash was LHR-JFK on the morning of 9/11, flight had to return.
Then all airlines tanked after 9/11, and used that excuse to dump old, expensive equipment.
Airlines then focused on large pax count/size (A380) AC and that eventually failed. The A380 is a white elephant, the 747 is gone.

TL;DR
Concorde was too expensive to maintain.

Because high paying customers preferred more comfortable, slower planes instead of faster and more cramped ones. That and maintenance costs, thef act that the concord was super inefficient at low speeds (it burned most of its fuel taxing to the runway), and sonic books in residential areas it was doomed. The crash was just the last straw. I do wish i got to ride in one...

kike airplane

Hard to get along with, being half French meant it was a bit of a lazy cunt

Birds

The cavier dispensers and velvet toilet paper combined with the fact that it ran on liquefied homeless people eventually made the company go bankrupt.

youtube.com/watch?v=jlxc6e956lU

holy fuck it sounds like sex

Fish eyed window panes you absolute faggot

Hollow

If you really want a good sounding aircraft, look no further than the Avro Vulcan

Wrong. It happened, but the incident wasn't the downfall.

Correct, essentially they constantly required a bunch of custom parts and special maintenance, which became too expensive at some point.

But why did concord fail?

Attached: 1129-concorde.jpg (900x600, 174K)

I hard them flying into IAD and when they fucker landed it would rattle my windows

I remember back in the 80's and 90's when concorde used to fly right over my house every year at less than a couple af thousand feet alt for the yearly horse races, it was a kind of tradition, was fun to see as a kid

>If you really want a good sounding aircraft, look no further than the Avro Vulcan

I think concorde used the same engines as the vulcan bomber

youtube.com/watch?v=24AvYhaOP6A
I saw a B1B at an airshow once, it was easily the loudest noise I've ever heard.

youtube.com/watch?v=-iixia4zaAg

The Hunter sounds amazing

This is the truth

metal strip from a CO widebody fell off on runway as it was taking off, the FOD hit the tire at takeoff speed and tire and debris cut the fuel tanks...

youtube.com/watch?v=S-00E8AnX5Q

better version of Hunter sound

not really. The demand wasn’t high enough to match the high price point for the flights and maintenance was too much headache and too costly.

haha the Rockwell is another favourite of mine, especially with the afterburners jesus christ

Only time I ever saw one was driving home from IAD. It was taking off. One of the coolest looking take off I've seen with that droop nose for a high angle of attack. It's a fantastic plane that blew the Tuplov out of the water. Branson actually tried to buy the fleet.. but the plan was quickly shot down.

DELET THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW, the pain is still here after all these years

Attached: B95B8C03-3F36-454D-9E86-D62B29A8030D.png (600x583, 340K)

It needed extra protection over the tires, so that molten hot pieces wouldn't break off and ignite the fuel spewing out the back.
By the time they came up with the solution of adding a layer of kevlar to the tires, it was too late.
So, bad optics, mostly- plus it was really loud and expensive.

It was more or less a first class plane only.

It was French, and we know the French fail at everything.

Full after burner bad idea.

How does a plane that ones for over 25 years with one incident (caused by a burger death chamber 10 and shitty burger maintenance, not by the plane itself) count as a failure?

*that runs for over 25 years

You mean the Tu-144? Mostly because of too much noise in passenger seating, brother.

Niche market that the rest of technology was able to progress around and then outweigh in benefits to make it obsolete.

t. Engineer