one (1) fucking accident and they were gone, I don't get it
>>2040378Airbus would rather support and manufacture parts for thousands of aircraft, not 20.
>thing X can do a task well>make thing Y that can do the task better, in some respects>thing Y also costs way more and makes you less money>"wtf why don't people want thing Y"
>>2040378It was throttled by legislation banning supersonic flights over land, which restricted it to transoceanic routes. It didn’t have the performance for transpacific flights to/from the US mainland, so transatlantic routes were kinda it. A major accident and 9/11 pushed a plane with a razor thin operating margin too far in the red. Here’s what it could’ve been:http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html
>>2040378It was a combination of 9/11, and the internet/computers. It wasn't just that one of them crashed.
Why did Aerion fail?
>>2040378the accident finally uncovered how unsafe the design was thoughhow many planes have you heard about that were brought down by an exploding tire?maybe overture will ever fly and we will see something like this again (it 100% won't)
>>2040424Do you have any idea the energy contained in one of those tires on takeoff? The rotation speed of Concorde is like 200+ kts; if one of them shreds because of debris on the runway it’s not going to be pretty. The proximity of the gear to the engines/fuel tanks made it a bigger hazard comparatively, but it was resolved before Concorde returned to flight. Here’s a link to some other accidents caused by high speed tire failures. https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/handling-high-speed-tire-failure-part-2
>>2040378shid was just a poor copy of the superior russian tupulev tu-144
>>2040378it was caused by a piece of a DC-10 on the runwayalways the FUCKING DC-10
>>2040420Boeing backed them and then pulled out because they had their own issues.>t. Lives by where their would-be factory was going to be built.
>>2040424>the accident finally uncovered how unsafe the design was thoughI agree, Death Crasher-10s should have been globally banned
this reminds me of the dali painting luguborious pl𝘢n𝘢ri𝘢n
>>2040381It didn't make money it lost money. The Concorde was a prestige project run on state subsidies.It was never profitable.
>>2040378Too expensiveToo loud
>>2041057their googly eyes are cute
>>2041057>dali painting luguborious pl𝘢n𝘢ri𝘢nwow I knew this was a schizo painting before looking it up. Gives me goosebumps thinking about it.>>2041495Not to be insulting but is that really how normies react to this?
>>2042293not him but my first reaction was "I could do that"there's probably some context here I'm missing that makes this remarkable but without it it's like a nice lighting exercise with some googly eyed dudes
>>2040381>Makes less moneyDidn't it run (fly) at a loss, just as a "prestige" operation?>>2041064This lol
>>2041064I will point out that the technological development was not profitable for the state but Concorde was profitable for the airlines it flew for.
>>2042293desu you sound like an impressionable fag
>>2042980BA and Air France pretty much got them for free and charged 2000 or so a seat.In the latter years you could get a flight which took you far enough over water to lay down a boom and return home. They were fun.
OP is a sheltered retard that has never experienced a real sonic boom in his entire life, and no, the F-16s flying around at your local air show may be loud but they do not produce sonic booms. Imagine being forced to hear an explosion every single day just because a plane that's 40,000 ft above sea level happens to be flying within a 10 mile radius of your house. It wasn't just accidents that caused supersonic flights to be banned anon, these planes had the potential to make entire cities less liveable than they already are
>>2043004One could argue that commercial aviation was a product of wartime engineering, and that the transition to the jet age was pioneered by military research investment. Pre-WWII commercial air travel existed, but it never would have made the technological advancement without the government flooding money into defense R&D. Same principle with Concorde except for some reason money invested into defense is an easier pill to swallow for the general public than commercial aerospace advancement.
>>2043030The Interwar Period was the peak of Commercial aviation
>>2040378Towards the end it was barely making any money, and the airframes were wearing out so required more and more maintenance per flight hour, so the crash was the perfect pretext to shut the concorde down.
>>2043034I’d argue for the 50s with bigger quad engined aircraft that was faster and more comfortable than what was available in the interwar years, but the glory days were just about over by the time the jet age came around.
>>2040379how about thousands of supersonic aircraft?
atc here, apparently these guys were a huge pain in the ass to vector in tracon airspace
>>2046200They had their own special tracks in the atlantic, because they flew at 50-60k feet above the jetstream and all other traffic
>>2040378Supersonic commercial aviation is a meme, was always a meme and will continue to be a meme forever.
>>2040378It was costing the airlines absurd amounts of money and turning over barely any profit or often made a loss.>>2040381The vast majority of people are literally unable to comprehend the concept of opportunity costs.
beep beep , the winner takes it all !DC-10 1954-2025
>>2043017Don't worry it's legal again to make a lot of people miserable so that a few billionaires can have fun, so zoomies will experience it firsthand.
>>2046214Those were en route tracks. For TRACON, yeah they were a pain because they had a narrow window of too heavy to land and oh shit fuel emergency. They also needed to do 250 kts to final. Everyone else had to drag flap and slow down to get the separation needed for the Concorde to come in to land.
>>2040378Super fucking inefficient, small payload, loud and expensive af.Cattle doesnt need to be transported fast and thanks to the internet not even bussinesspeople need to travel around that much.
>>2048528>turning over barely any profit or often made a lossNot true, by the way.>How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways?>On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
>>2040378>no (0) fucking accidents and they were gone, I don't get it>international passenger scamjet .jpeg
>>2052812It's pretty amazing how profitable an airline service can be when the manufacturer sells an aircraft for £1 each and the government swallows all of the R&D costs
>>2048526Especially since passengers tend to care more about fares and comfort nowadays than speed.
>>2052969I mean I care about both, I'll pay 30% more for a slightly more comfortable seat, I'll pay 50% more for a nonstop flight, but there are limits. I'm not paying 10000% more to save 3 hours
>>2040378Should have made a military version. The ability to transport elite troops and light equipment at supersonic speeds could be very useful for certain shock operations. It would need to be altered for paratroopers.
