NationStates Jolt Archive

With it's sleek needle nose design
The Concorde soars through the skies
An aircraft so beautiful, it turns head before it's trip begins
No matter where this bird flies, it is recognized by everyone
As the bird that flies at Mach 2, and streaks through the skies soon after it's airborne.
It is a sad thought though, that such a work of art, was slain
but by one fatal accident, since then it has not been the same.
She's been gutted, her wings are now clipped
Even though from the skies she's been ripped
She still maintains her elegance, her beauty
She truly is a one of a kind, a gem truly
She'll always live in my memory, as the bird that makes dream possible.

http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/jet_aircraft/aerospatiale/concorde/concorde-concorde1.jpg

her crappy design causes her to squawk
her hugely expensive flights from London to New York
her trail of flames over Parie

so thank fuck she never flew near me

yes I am a massive dick :p

her crappy design causes her to squawk
her hugely expensive flights from London to New York
her trail of flames over Parie

so thank fuck she never flew near me

yes I am a massive dick :p

You're just mad because you never got the money to fly her. I never did either, but still.

She's dead, Jim.

You're just mad because you never got the money to fly her. I never did either, but still.

I went inside one though :p

She's dead, Jim.

It's amazing though. A Boeing 737 has had more accidents than the Concorde, and it's still flying. The Concorde has had one fatal accident, and that killed it. Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird? :( :confused:

She's dead, Jim.
Which is sad. Aerospace seems to be one technological group where we've not made significant strides in the last thirty years, assuming we haven't regressed. We didn't improve on the SST--we canned it. Hell, even in space exploration, if we do this moonbase thing, we'll be doing it using Saturn V rockets, which is what we used in the 60's. We've made some forward progress, sure, but not what you should have expected. I mean, even the private groups are only diddling around with low earth orbit. Weren't we supposed to have flying cars and vacations on Mars by now?

Which is sad. Aerospace seems to be one technological group where we've not made significant strides in the last thirty years, assuming we haven't regressed. We didn't improve on the SST--we canned it. Hell, even in space exploration, if we do this moonbase thing, we'll be doing it using Saturn V rockets, which is what we used in the 60's. We've made some forward progress, sure, but not what you should have expected. I mean, even the private groups are only diddling around with low earth orbit. Weren't we supposed to have flying cars and vacations on Mars by now?

I think the problem is that politics got involved in Aerospace and space exploration.

Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird?

the expensive cost and noise trouble are what killed it the accidents just nailed the coffin

A brilliant plane
A Supersonic marvel
A lost monument

Forgive my shitty haiku :p

the expensive cost and noise trouble are what killed it the accidents just nailed the coffin

True, it never was a cheap bird, but comon it had afterburners, of course it wasn't going to be cheap. It was also the first SST. As for the noise trouble, well that what you get for living close to an airport.

I think the problem is that politics got involved in Aerospace and space exploration.
Without politics, space exploration wouldn't have happened in the first place, so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

A brilliant plane
A Supersonic marvel
A lost monument

Forgive my shitty haiku :p

I like it. :)

Without politics, space exploration wouldn't have happened in the first place, so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Yea, but look at it now. Congress is responsible for cutting NASA fundings.

True, it never was a cheap bird, but comon it had afterburners, of course it wasn't going to be cheap. It was also the first SST. As for the noise trouble, well that what you get for living close to an airport.

actually Concorde had to fly at normal speeds over land (it was a tad dangerous to have it overhead as it did anything above a normal airline speed) so unless your going to New York (where you would lose maybe 2 hours off the flight) it was a waste

Yea, but look at it now. Congress is responsible for cutting NASA fundings.

the bad guys won the space race sadly :(

actually Concorde had to fly at normal speeds over land (it was a tad dangerous to have it overhead as it did anything above a normal airline speed) so unless your going to New York (where you would lose maybe 2 hours off the flight) it was a waste.

The average Concorde flight between London and New York was 3 hours.

The Average Boeing 747 flight between London and New York was 7 hours.

So it was more than just 2 hours.



the bad guys won the space race sadly :([/QUOTE]

I like it. :)

Much appreciated :)

So it was more than just 2 hours.

still not worth it though, I was just exaggerating...yes that’s the ticket..:D

Yea, but look at it now. Congress is responsible for cutting NASA fundings.

Very true. I'm no fan of cutting their budget, but I have to admit that it has resulted in a sleeker NASA, at least in terms of their unmanned exploration. Now that they've proven they can do a good amount with a little, maybe it's time to give them some more money and see what they can come up with.

Problem is, that's a hard sell when you're faced with rising deficits, a war that's being conducted off budget, and significant social problems including, but not limited to, the rising costs of health care.

It's amazing though. A Boeing 737 has had more accidents than the Concorde, and it's still flying. The Concorde has had one fatal accident, and that killed it. Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird? :( :confused:

Accident ratio per amount of flight hours. 737 has flown vastly more miles then the beloved concord. Never flew on one but did go into the one a the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Was alot smaller inside then I imagined. Anyway if any of you get a chance to come through Seattle you have to go to the Museum of Flight. Next to the Smithsonian it is top rate.

It's amazing though. A Boeing 737 has had more accidents than the Concorde, and it's still flying. The Concorde has had one fatal accident, and that killed it. Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird? :( :confused:

Ratio or absolute?

Pfft. The Americans killed Concorde a long time before one ever crashed. Not as spectacularly as the French killed the TU-144, and it took over 25 years, but that's what did it.

If you can't use something as expensive as Concorde it'll die.

It's amazing though. A Boeing 737 has had more accidents than the Concorde, and it's still flying. The Concorde has had one fatal accident, and that killed it. Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird? :( :confused:
It was also losing a lot of money, and as an environmentalist, I don't like the way it burned up all that extra fuel.

It was also losing a lot of money, and as an environmentalist, I don't like the way it burned up all that extra fuel.

It only burned extra fuel on take off and when it goes from sub-sonic speeds to super-sonic speeds.

Cheer up, you still have these. They're more awesome since they can drop bombs.

http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/btu160_p_03_l.jpg

http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/jet_aircraft/aerospatiale/concorde/concorde-concorde1.jpg

Keep your day job. :rolleyes:

An aircraft so beautiful,

Here is a real aircraft, and the most beautiful of all; it is http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/AirOps/Images/ArcLight/B52D_ArcLightMission.jpg

A B-52D.

Here is a real aircraft, an the most beautiful of all; it is http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/AirOps/Images/ArcLight/B52D_ArcLightMission.jpg

A B-52D.

ugh. that thing's hideous.

Which is sad. Aerospace seems to be one technological group where we've not made significant strides in the last thirty years, assuming we haven't regressed. We didn't improve on the SST--we canned it. Hell, even in space exploration, if we do this moonbase thing, we'll be doing it using Saturn V rockets, which is what we used in the 60's. We've made some forward progress, sure, but not what you should have expected. I mean, even the private groups are only diddling around with low earth orbit. Weren't we supposed to have flying cars and vacations on Mars by now?

That's a big misconception. Aerospace has made huge strides in the past thirty years. Engine technology, flight control systems, materials engineering have all made massive improvements. Take the 777, a smooth flying and fuel efficient aircraft which has set endurance records which would have been unimaginable for a passenger jet 30 years ago.

Or the A340, which sets a new standard in luxury. Or the 787 which is one of the 'greenest' aircraft. Or the A380 which required the development of a whole new materials technology to manufacture its wings.

Also, there have been huge improvements in safety systems. Things like egpws for example.

Speed is not everything and is certianly not the only measure of improvement. A 1986 buick grand national is much faster than a 2006 Saab 9-3, but you wouldn't say that the SAAB was not a whole number of generations more advanced as far as technological improvements are concerned. Also, most countries prohibit supersonic overflight of jetliners, so there is not much point in persuing it. (And there are a whole bunch of technical boring reasons why supersonic flight is not cool also).

Even then, dassault of france and lockheed are both developing supersonic business jets. So maybe the supersonic jetliner will return.

On the down side, miniskirts are out for the cabin crew.

She's dead, Jim.

Concord http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/rip.gif

Which is sad. Aerospace seems to be one technological group where we've not made significant strides in the last thirty years,

You have no idea how much progress we have made over the last 30 years. Avionics systems, improved aircraft design, more efficient engines, and a lot more. Just because we are not on the moon, Mars, or flying around in supersonic aircraft and jetcars doesn't mean we haven't made progress. :mad:

ugh. that thing's [B-52] hideous.

It's called Big Ugly Fat Fella for a reason.

It's amazing though. A Boeing 737 has had more accidents than the Concorde, and it's still flying. The Concorde has had one fatal accident, and that killed it. Why should one accident kill such a beautiful bird? :( :confused:

What killed Concorde was 9/11. Most of Concorde's regular passengers worked in the twin towers.

It's called Big Ugly Fat Fella for a reason.

Wrong. BUFF - Big Ugly Friendly Fu____. That's what the military called it.

Either way, it's Ugly.

Either way, it's Ugly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe I think they are beautiful because I worked on them for over 20 years. I worked on the B-52D, B-52E, B-52G, and B-52H. Great airplanes and the H models are still flying. :)