Why did it fail?

>>That's what they had to do. Meaning supersonic only over sea. Excluding west coast Us and pan European flight, greatly reducing the purpose the air frame was build for.
I'm going to assume it didn't reduce time by enough, else people would of dealt with the inefficient portions of the flight.

nose couldn't get it up.

LA/SF/Seattle to Tokyo would be based if on a super sonic plane.

Sonic booms.

Even subsonic it was LOUD. Autist in love with airplanes so I loved seeing the triangle plane fly over but others complain about that stuff.

>France

old outdated airframes that needed to be binned long before they were, not profitable enough to warrant new airframes.

autists hate sounds like that you are just an incel

Autists love trains and they're loud as well.

Mutts refused to let the Concorde flying over the US because (((sonic boom))) also boeing protectionism.

Why not use motherships?
I think humanity had to babysit jews and niggers and waste time finding a way to hide the frontal camera in smartphones.
We also needed to make piles of money to mentally ill drug addicts too.
Humans have their priorities straight.

Autists like loud sounds if they're from machinery. I can't stand hearing a baby cry, but the whistle of an American steam locomotive or the thunder of a fighter jet is music. I can even stand a tornado siren, but someone clearing their throat is unbearable.

Boeing's 2707 got axed.

I like how a piece falling off some other shitty jet is what helped get this one grounded.

Look at it's nose

Attached: 1549239624220.gif (200x200, 382K)

there is always something jewish when the uk and france get together on something

Attached: 15 - 1.png (318x318, 57K)

Wrong

Corporations killed it- governor of New York had great deals with airlines that it was killing off. Do you really think paid lobbyists were egging to take it down for “the good of the people” and “noise complaints”?

It also had plenty of business with large amounts of projected cash flow. The sound was the excuse to keep other airlines in business.

It featured a droop snoot

Noise restrictions meant Concorde could only go supersonic once it was well out to sea. That significantly decreased any flight time advantage vs conventional aircraft. Given Concorde already demanded quite a premium over conventional airframes - both in money and in comfort, Concorde was cramped - Concorde never came close to paying for itself.

As Britain and France became Muslim vassal states Concorde was finally retired, a relic of empires fallen.

That is what they did. See my post.

See this post

It was a compromise aircraft to work with existing runways lengths.
The usual suspects agitated for the prohibition of supersonic flight over land in the US by civil aviation.

This doomed it to servicing basically one air route, and thus a niche clientele.

Also- in regards to quite a premium, regular people did not take concord. It was exclusively business people who did not care about price but rather speed (you put business travel cost under capital expenditures and your firm pay for it, while you get the miles). It made business deals between London and NYC incredibly easy to do

Again, wrong, please see here

capitalism

Square windows

Death Cage 10 left some metal on the runway cos it wanted to branch out and try killing people on another plane

eurotrash engineering
absolutely tiny passenger capacity
explodes when it runs over a piece of trash

jew nose, antisemetic.

Attached: das netz-lutz dammbeck.jpg (1680x1050, 230K)

nose is crooked maybe thats why

also internet means you don't actually have to be in New York to work with people who are in New York

Air jews

Literally the French government and their cover up (offered bribe to stop victim families investigating the most notable incident) for an French hangar mechanic who forgot to fit a piece into the landing gear.

Long story short said fucked up landing gear (with missing piece) came off and shredded the plane which then went boom at take off.
That was the main plane explosion that caused the plane to be retired eventually despite attempts to make the plane safer, etc.
Literally took quite a bit of time for that to be discovered and confirmed.

Likewise being a fairly advance plane design from the 70s and other factors regarding ticket costs, maintenance, require take off and landing conditions made it hard to continue.
That said it was one of the best plane ever that an civilian could ride on in terms of speed.

Certainly there were pax who enjoyed flying Concorde. But there weren't enough of them, and there could never be enough of them, to pay for the incredibly expensive fleet maintenance.

There's no way to support a supersonic airline (thinking of Concorde as its own cost center) with only a few flights a day.

A piece of trash coming from a plane built by the mutts (DC10) AND operated by the same parasites (Continental).

because murica can t stand some shit EU fags beat them at something

Not just mutts, European and many Asian countries wouldn't allow it either.

This is now a sound porn thread
youtube.com/watch?v=kjVxnbmtmCk

None of what I posted contradicts anything that you posted, you fucking sperg.

too fast

To be complete, we should add that the other thing that doomed Concorde was its limited range. Concorde's range was 4500 miles, meaning *it couldn't fly transpacific routes*, where its speed would have completely changed the market.

Concorde was one of those pretty planes that started from "whoa, look what we can do!" but ran into the reality of "yeah, but we don't want to do that all that much."

This. The fucking French did it.

The majority of customers valued affordability over speed.

Planes run over trash every day. Difference is Concorde was a flimsy piece of Euroengineered trash. Literally fell apart and then burst into flames. baka

Fucking this.

France is very innovative. I wish the italian government was as efficient...

It was mostly cost. Maintenance was high and seating was limited. Most Concorde flights flew at capacity, but it was significantly fewer passengers than on 747s (which dominated trans Atlantic routes). Environmentalists sunk any chance the US had in regards to supersonic passenger service. DC 10 got a bad wrap for some early issues, but it was ultimately one of the safest planes in service. In fact a DC 10 was the first passenger jet to actually go supersonic.

Poorly designed fuel tanks in the wings were a massive fire hazard.

Hahahahaha maybe 5% got that one

I do love the imagery of Concorde crashing to earth in a plane-ending fireball as symbolic of the ending of both Britain and France.

25 years ago there seemed to be more variety 3 engine, some turbo jets, turbo prop, turbofan, Concorde. Now almost all 2 engine turbofan with a few 747 and a 380 mixed in. I still look up at every single plane but they are more boring now.

This is the correct answer

>DC 10 got a bad wrap for some early issues
Yeah, flying into the ground on the national evening news (UA232) will do that.

It didnt. It was just expensive to run and had a very limited scope of use. As in only overseas flights and mostly well paid business executives wanted to pay for the convenience of going between new york and london in a handful of hours. As far as the jet itself it didnt fail. It did exactly what it was designed to do and was in service for a decent stretch

To elaborate, an SST requires, to be successful, a lot of passengers and a lot of flights.
This necessitates a few important things, things that were prevented from happening, by various interest groups, both before, leading to the Concorde's design, and in the aftermath of the Concorde's creation.

The first thing that everyone involved with SST design knew, was that they would require much bigger runways than subsonic aircraft required, this would require building a new class of airports, effectively, and relegating the existing top tier airports to regional hubs.

There was a shortcut solution to this, though, make the SST smaller, and so the Concorde was born.
The catch is that it's range is now too short for most international routes, and the existing airports are too close to population centers so noise becomes a concern, so you only go supersonic over the ocean.

Now, you have a plane literally forced at every level, to operate at inefficiency, both technologically and economically.

But you need a "peace victory" propaganda trophy, so you shovel money into it, at a loss, for 40 years.

1. This isn't really a political issue

2. It just wasn't economically viable

Similar reasons to Tu-144 - sound and maintenance cost. Do not despair though, there is a new plane underway - airlineratings.com/news/russian-supersonic-airliner-2022/

Politics forced its economic inviability

TU-144 was a cheap Concorde rip-off that the Soviets seriously fucked up. It was so loud in the cabin you couldn't have conversations with the person sitting next to you. They even reached out to the US for help getting it working properly.

>But you need a "peace victory" propaganda trophy, so you shovel money into it, at a loss, for 40 years
Agreed, Concorde was a shiny trinket thrown to the public to pretend the trillions dumped into the Cold War defense budgets weren't a total waste.

(Waste to the public, obviously the businesses on the receiving end of every defense boondoggle think the money is very well spent.)

Is supersonic boom really that unbearable for people? Would it really be that bad if the plane was travelling over ground, say in USA? From California to New York in less then an 2 hours probably.

you're thinking about near-retarded autists who have to wear headphones.

The crash, or whatever, it had made it really sour in peoples' minds.

It failed due to public misconception, really.

It's purpose was to solve a problem that almost nobody had. By time they finally got the thing off the ground, technology was already supplanting the need for transatlantic flights on a large scale anyway. It was nearly obsolete by its maiden voyage and it's primary use was to demonstrate status and as a lark for wealthy people. Not a sustainable business model given the staggering O&M costs of this beast.

Lmao. Tu-144 barely made a single travel. Concorde operated for 27 years...

>Is supersonic boom really that unbearable for people?

It's not, the USAF has been doing it since the late 1950s.
However, in the US, we have interest groups which exist to sabotage technological development, specifically technological development that would threaten established industries, and or certain political ideologies, said interest groups are most often cloaked as champions of environmental concerns.

What about today?

the anti sonic boomers killed off the American SST also

The secret Trans-Atlantic underground railway is twice as fast.

Attached: Pneumatic Railway.jpg (699x736, 457K)

Cmon, at least it was built and could be used as flight demonstrator or laboratory, not like Boeing 2707 or Lockheed SST, which were never materialised.

>why did it fail?
Because the snoot drooped youtube.com/watch?v=YuedQFH8wZI

Brits suck at aerospace. They don't even have aircraft carriers anymore, because they are that bad.

I do wonder OP...

Attached: kike.jpg (800x600, 189K)

hm...

Attached: kike2.jpg (800x600, 153K)

What the fuck are you talking about Hans?

sonic booms

saved

It could not carry weapons.

Attached: B1.jpg (276x183, 10K)

Cheers. Saw some user post a meme I made for another board 5 or 6 years ago the other day, feels good man.

Way too expensive to operate. Same reason the F-18 Hornet replaced the F-14 Tomcat.

unterrated

Wroing. The Concorde was a psyop stealth bomber that used the excuse of having a few passengers to mask true mission: an instant ability to bomb russia with nukes through in-air repurposing. Simply change course on the daily intercontinental commute, and hey-boom-shanka, Moscow obliterated in under 3 minutes.

Because it was too loud and tickets were too expensive. Basically both air companies weren't making any profit with it and the DC-10 incident literally killed it.

Thing is small regional jets are what's selling, that's why Airbus bought Bombardier's projects and Boeing bought Embraer's commercial division.

Attached: file.png (670x400, 316K)

Saved

iktf.
>mfw someone saves my OC

Attached: 1396851961592.jpg (255x358, 12K)

>8k$ tickets

Attached: 1563977798736.jpg (1500x1001, 599K)

it also increased the relative fuel consumption.. ie.. aircraft not operating at optimum conditions.

It didn't.
It was successful and profitable for its entire run.
It was replaced with ordinary planes because they have higher profit margins for the business-class seats.

BA and AF coordinated to retire it at the same time for mutual gain (neither wanted to go first alone, since they would lose passengers to the other).

In fact, the Concorde is STILL economically viable, which is why airlines have put in dozens of pre-orders for a new copy of it:
boomsupersonic.com/
ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2019-06-15/boom-unveils-more-details-supersonic-airliner

Too loud. Communities banded together to ban it from airports.

I dunno, it just nosedived.

typical french arrogance
the ny to london route was profitable, but the ny to paris route was not. so the french made the ny to london route unprofitable