Concord conspiracy theory

Thanks for clearing that up Arthur,I bow to your superior knowledge.I’ve obviously heard the same thing as DH Fan,although I can’t remember where I got it from.

So the French engineers went to Toulouse when the FD2 was there, took a lot of pictures from the FD2 with their secret garlic-string-cameras and bouteille-de-vin telelenses, then travelled back in time and started developing the Mirage with the same wing planform? Sorry DHfan, it’s a lovely conspiracy against those perfide French but it’s impossible. The FD2 flew for the first time about half a year before the first MirageI took to the skies, while the whole record-breaking stuff only occured later. The dates just don’t support your theory.

Also, apart from German data by Lippisch obtained by the French, there was also some local experimenting work done on delta wings. French engineer Payen had been experimenting with delta-ish wings (more like very low aspect ratio wings) from the 1920s on.

The FD2 was based at Toulouse for some months as there was no suitable supersonic test route available around the UK.
Suspicious looking chaps, wearing berets, with striped jumpers, onions around their necks and carrying notebooks were seen taking a close interest.
Superimpose drawings of an early Mirage and the FD2 and they’re almost identical.
The Mirage is an FD2 with a French accent.

Ant,
The MD550/Mirage I was a way evolved Mystère with a solid nose and delta wings. While you correctly say that the Fairy FD1 and FD2 flew prior to the Mirage I (the latter only by a few months), this doesn’t mean they were using British research on the delta wings. Just like the US (XF-92) and Brits, the French used German data by Dr. Lippisch. The Mirage does not have British roots.

I too would have loved to take at least a Concorde charter flight, something I thought there would still be time to do. If only BA had announced a longer retirement schedule, let’s say over 3 years.

Does anyone else feel that this whole business has been performed as quickly as possible ?

Just a note about the delta-winged Mirage fighters-they were derived from the Fairey FD.1 and FD.2,so thier roots ARE British I’m afraid!

I seem to remember that the name for the project originally used the British spelling but the French Government kicked up a major fussed until the ‘e’ was added.

To even up the score, a xenophobic rant against the ourselves and possibly one of the worst aviation decisions and that being the closure of the TSR2 programme by the British (labour) Government of the time.

No French involvement there (but maybe a little American assistance) and to continue my xenophobic rant, I notice from the weekend papers, that with the same party in power, the MOD have been instructed to make more reductions in our Armed Forces with proposed cutbacks in JSF, Type 45 destroyers, TA regiments, the mothballing of a number of Challenger II tanks etc…

Originally posted by Red Beast
Hem.
What a load of bilge. Maybe it’s true. I don’t think so, plausible rubbish. Too neat. But it’s like those barrack-room lawyers who’ve an answer to everything but have never tried to make anything.

First conspiracy was between Britain & France. Without that, there would have been no Concorde. For all the little englander remarks above, we have to thank both the French and British movers who got it going. You could also thank those government ministers who signed to lock both counties in to the deal so they couldn’t get out – remember BOTH the UK and France wanted out at various times.

Lets look on the positive side; because of what happened, we got 30 years of Supersonic airliner. Something the Yanks couldn’t do, the Russians failed (though they got further than the USA) and despite a lot of rubbish from both sides of the channel (including the petty remarks above) it happened. And it was the greatest. And it got lots of people interested in aviation who otherwise couldn’t tell a Spitfire from a hole in the ground. It’s sad it’s over, let’s be thankful for getting it at all. It was amazing it did. Best use of tax money I’ve seen in a while.

Oh, also, it’s Concorde – with the ‘e’ – that’s the aircraft’s agreed name. By both governments, the engineering companies involved, the airlines and the crews. So you want to use Concord (a fine English word, but not an aircraft?) Hmm. Pram minus toy. Grow up.

Also, note that Air France loaned an airworthy rudder (Reported in Flypast, ignored by the Xenophobes above) from the machine grounded this summer (flown into the Le Bourget show – thanks AF, that’s how you do it, please note, BA) to BA so that BA could fly more Concorde flights. Someone over there (France) wants to promote Concorde in British hands….

It’s sad. Don’t winge, grow up.

Rant over,
Red

But who did all the research into supersonic flight that made it possible? Britain. If you want the French to do anything for themselves you have to pay them to do it

The other point is that Concorde was a bad choice of name as that is one thing it has not created right from day one it has caused discord

Hem.
What a load of bilge. Maybe it’s true. I don’t think so, plausible rubbish. Too neat. But it’s like those barrack-room lawyers who’ve an answer to everything but have never tried to make anything.

First conspiracy was between Britain & France. Without that, there would have been no Concorde. For all the little englander remarks above, we have to thank both the French and British movers who got it going. You could also thank those government ministers who signed to lock both counties in to the deal so they couldn’t get out – remember BOTH the UK and France wanted out at various times.

Lets look on the positive side; because of what happened, we got 30 years of Supersonic airliner. Something the Yanks couldn’t do, the Russians failed (though they got further than the USA) and despite a lot of rubbish from both sides of the channel (including the petty remarks above) it happened. And it was the greatest. And it got lots of people interested in aviation who otherwise couldn’t tell a Spitfire from a hole in the ground. It’s sad it’s over, let’s be thankful for getting it at all. It was amazing it did. Best use of tax money I’ve seen in a while.

Oh, also, it’s Concorde – with the ‘e’ – that’s the aircraft’s agreed name. By both governments, the engineering companies involved, the airlines and the crews. So you want to use Concord (a fine English word, but not an aircraft?) Hmm. Pram minus toy. Grow up.

Also, note that Air France loaned an airworthy rudder (Reported in Flypast, ignored by the Xenophobes above) from the machine grounded this summer (flown into the Le Bourget show – thanks AF, that’s how you do it, please note, BA) to BA so that BA could fly more Concorde flights. Someone over there (France) wants to promote Concorde in British hands….

It’s sad. Don’t winge, grow up.

Rant over,
Red

Strange to think that Concorde is now on the same footing as things like the Sopwith Camel and the Spitfire

Well it does not surprise me that Moggy’s e-friend came out with that lot. Meaning no disrespect to anyone but none of that is really new, a lot of us have been speculating along those lines for some time

oh well suppose I’ll have my 3 pennoth worth on the subject..

firstly take away the emotion of it all.. yes I totally agree that its a fabulous looking a/c a great technological achievement that was ‘invented’ 30 years ago.. a great British/French achievment etc etc..

1) why hasn’t anyone built a replacement.. not because they can’t but because its not viable.

2) why has it been taken out of service? because its a pain in the a**se for the support agencies and the airlines to support and operate. From a spares perspective you have a handful of unique a/c which are technologicaly a little bit ‘old hat’… basic maths shows that the more of an item you produce, the lower the cost and vice-versa… so supporting spares for the a small number of a/c isn’t viable for the suppliers,, and thats not just Airbus/Bae, and paying for them even less so for the operator.

3) reliability/maintenance.. the a/c requires a huge amount of maintenance compared to modern aircraft.. I dont have the figures but I’m sure that the ratio of engineers and support staff to a/c would be horrendous compared to a 777 or Airbus… and that just adds to the operating cost

4) due to the age of the a/c and the technolgy involved, they aren’t that reliable.. you could not run a single a/c operation with any sort of regularity… again look at the number of standby a/c on a modern a/c fleet… BA is seen as being over generous having 1 737 ‘spare’ to cover 30 a/c operating..most of the budget airlines run with no ‘stand-by’… Concorde normally had to have at least 1 back-up for every flight… you’d have 1 a/c in maint and then operate 3 services with 6 a/c… I know at times they may’ve upped the flying a bit but that was the general rule…. another prob with keeping one a/c is that it would spend a lot of time just parked-up which is the worst thing to do if you’re trying to keep an a/c, or any machine servicable.. seals dry out etc etc..

5) despite the public statements about how long they planned to operate the a/c, the a/c has been a bit of a thorn in the side of the airlines and the decision by the manufacturers not to support the a/c gave AF/BA an easy way out…

6) Branson to operate them? he’d face the same probs as above ref spares, costs, reliability etc plus the addit cost of setting up a support structure from scratch…. also following the way that he loves to court publicity, would you sell him one?? can’t you imagine the headlines the first time that he had a problem with it.. something along the lines of “BA stitched me up” I suspect..

Please don’t think that I’m some sort of anti-Concorde bod.. I’ve flown on her, love the a/c, love the idea of it all, but the reality of it all isn’t so good…

Neil.

Originally posted by Morley
Its a pity to see such a beautiful aeroplane grounded. However I’m not sad to see it leave commercial service. How many of us have flown on Concord? Its just for those with more money than sense a sad day for aviation prehaps but not really world changing!

I disagree, don’t forget many peoples chance of flying Concorde was via the charter flights, especially the supersonic trips around the bay of biscay, I know a few ‘ordinary folk’ who did these trips, they were at an affordable cost compared to the scheduled trans-atlantic ticket costs.

My personal lasting regret was I had made enquiries about doing one of these myself, then put it on hold for a few months because of a redundancy situation…….this was June 2000…:mad:

I don’t know why these were not resurected once Concorde resummed flying……?:mad:

Originally posted by Morley
It’s a pity to see such a beautiful aeroplane grounded. However I’m not sad to see it leave commercial service. How many of us have flown on Concord? It’s just for those with more money than sense a sad day for aviation perhaps but not really world changing!

I can understand your opinion but don’t necessarily agree…

1. A beautiful aircraft – YES without doubt and even now, in civilian terms, still years ahead of its time.

2. Not sad to see it leave commercial service – Well I am and a little angry considering that after the rework carried out, following the Paris crash, the airframes still have enough life for about another 10 years of operation.

3. How many have flown in Concord – More than have flown in space but it doesn’t stop people from being passionate about space flight.

4. Its just for those with more money than sense – I fully expect that people like David Frost have infinitely more sense than most of us and if someone has the means to buy a ticket for Concord, why should we deny them this right or denigrate them, it is their money after all, which they have earnt and paid taxes against and are free to spend it as they wish. If anyone of us were multi-millionaires, I guess that most would chose Concord over a 747 any day.
Also, I would also say that Richard Branson has more sense than most and he seemed to think that Concord has a viable future.

5. A sad day for aviation perhaps but not really world changing! – True, it was a sad day and as for world changing, I would say that with the demise of Concord, the World has become that little bit larger – until the next SST or Hypersonic aircraft, that is.

Its a pity to see such a beautiful aeroplane grounded. However I’m not sad to see it leave commercial service. How many of us have flown on Concord? Its just for those with more money than sense a sad day for aviation prehaps but not really world changing!

Originally posted by sconnor

Perfect solution for the French to save face

And why, pray, would we want them to?

Moggy

I’ve just been editing a Concorde DVD and in some of the archive footage of the early days, there was film of a tour by Concorde, where one half of the aircraft was in Air France livery and the other in BA.

Perfect solution for the French to save face and for the world to have at least one flying Concorde.

The story I heard is that she would not be on a Public Transport C of A, but on a one year Permit to Fly. This would preclude passenger ops, but would allow an airframe to appear for special events. I’m not sure how that gets around the Design Authority, but from what I’ve heard the CAA are expected to make a decision this week.

Originally posted by SteveYoung
As for future type support, I heard a very interesting snippet on Friday from two seperate sources, which, if true, will see one airframe kept airworthy a bit longer than we think. The who’s, why’s, and wherefore’s are a bit grey at the moment, but the general gist is never say never.

I have also heard the suggestions that one Concord will be kept airworthy but have also heard reports saying the opposite.

I would love to see one kept live for special events but is this really possible?

I don’t think so, because if Aerospatiale continue to hold the Design Authority which I assume means that they would have to carry out all servicing of the airworthy airframe, would not want to allow BA to fly because if maybe seen in the eyes of the world, as a slight against French prestige!

Had Air France decided to keep one for similar purposes, things maybe different but if, as I feel, AF instigated the shutting down of SST operations, this wouldn’t be an acceptable proposition to the management.

Now if the the Design Authority were transferred in its entirity to BAe, maybe the future would look brighter but I doubt this would ever happen because of opposition from the managemnet at Air France and Aerospatiale so once the fleet has been delivered to the various sites around the UK, sadly I do not think that we will see Concord fly again, under her own power but hope to be proved wrong.

Makes sense to me. Points 1 to 8 are exactly as I’ve heard them, and everything after that fits as well.

Sounds also that Tony C has heard the same thing I had; that AF were quietly looking at getting shot of Concorde a few years before the Paris crash, but I must point out that that in no way implies that the tragedy came about as a result of that viewpoint. I would suggest however that the crash and the rectification costs incurred afterwards quickly became a convenient reason for AF to accelerate the retirement process.

As for future type support, I heard a very interesting snippet on Friday from two seperate sources, which, if true, will see one airframe kept airworthy a bit longer than we think. The who’s, why’s, and wherefore’s are a bit grey at the moment, but the general gist is never say never.