Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Last Concorde Flight

This is topic Last Concorde Flight in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002629

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-24-2003, 07:41 AM:

The time has finally come... [Frown]

I wonder how much they'll go for on eBay. [Smile]

I'm sure there will be a few air museums bidding.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/24/concorde.final/index.html

quote:
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Concorde, the world's only supersonic airliner, has taken off from New York for its last passenger flight.

The jet, conceived more than 40 years ago when supersonic planes were thought to be the future of flight, climbed away from John F. Kennedy airport heading towards the edge of space, where it would accelerate to twice the speed of sound.

Tens of thousands of enthusiasts are expected to line the roads around London's Heathrow Airport to see the aircraft arrive.

A trio of Concordes will make a special choreographed landing at the airport, signaling the end of commercial supersonic flights.

A list of 100 specially-invited guests will be on the British Airways Concorde making the last journey from New York to London, sipping Champagne, and eating smoked salmon and lobster fishcakes.

Two other Concordes will immediately precede it, one from Edinburgh and the other taking a journey around the Bay of Biscay.

A 1,000-seat grandstand has been constructed at Heathrow for fans of the supersonic jet, but authorities are warning of traffic jams as an estimated 250,000 enthusiasts try to catch a glimpse of the planes as they touch down at about 4 p.m. (1500 GMT).

The plane, with its pointed nose -- and £8,000 ($11,000) a seat price tag -- was the choice of celebrities and businessmen, before ordinary passengers were given the opportunity of claiming a ride during its last months.

Concorde, which travels at twice the speed of sound, made its first commercial flight in January, 1976. A joint Anglo-French enterprise, the aircraft has been lauded for its technical innovation, but condemned for being too expensive to make as well as too noisy and uneconomic to run.

Only a handful were ever made, and only Air France and British Airways flew the planes.

Concorde failed to recover from a series of disasters, beginning with a crash outside Paris in July 2000 when an Air France plane crashed, killing all 109 people on board as well as four people on the ground.

Although Concorde was back up and running after an expensive safety overhaul, the timing coincided with the fall in passengers caused by the September 11 attacks, and a general economic downturn.

British Airways' Concorde never resumed its twice-a-day service between London and New York, and was limited to one daily journey.

Air France had five Concordes remaining after the crash, while BA had seven, although only five flew once services resumed in November 2001.

It is believed the Concordes will be distributed around the world to various museums after their retirement, but one might be kept for air shows and fly-pasts.

British Airways Chairman Lord Marshall said: "The decision to retire Concorde was a tough one, but it is the right thing to do at the right time."

CNN's Richard Quest, a passenger on Friday's flight from New York, said: "This is the first time in history that aviation history is taking a step backwards. Everyone on today's flight is well aware of that fact."

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-24-2003, 10:38 AM:

Not on Ebay, but various Concorde spare parts are for sale by auction, in was on the news a couple of evenings ago. There is a web site somewhere where you can register, and you will be notified when a lot comes up for sale. Among the items shown were: a front wheel, a 'Black Box' recorder and various electronic modules which looked as if they would have been more at home in a '50 military aircraft.

In some ways it was ahead of its time, but in others it was behind them. It was introduced at a time when cheap air travel for the masses was becoming commomplace, but it offered luxury, expensive travel for the few, something which belonged more in the age of the great airships.

Concorde was really the end of an era, as much as the start of one. If they had gone on to develop a larger, cheaper to operate version then it might have stood a chance, but there,s no way most people could afford £8000 one way to New York.

Has anyone here ever flown on Concorde? If so, what did you think of it?

Sadly, the QEII is also ending its London-New York sailings soon.

There is talk of BA retaining one Concorde in flying order, for use at air shows etc. Maybe it will be available for private hire to anybody with enough money.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 10-24-2003, 11:38 AM:

Truly sad to see the Concorde no longer flying. While I understand the business need for ending it's service, I would have liked to have seen some form of Concorde service still going.

I would have loved to have been able to have at least one flight on the bird before its demise.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-24-2003, 12:33 PM:

My dad worked in France for a couple years in the 70s as a design engineer on the Concorde. I think he worked on the mechanical design of the landing gear. The people who helped bring the Concorde from design to reality were (and are) extremely proud of their magnificent achievement...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2003, 02:35 PM:

I wish the concorde was more mainstream. If it had been, then fairs would have been lower and quick-ass trans-atlantic flights would be the norm. More flights would be introduced like trans-pacific flights. Hell, going supersonic over land should be permitted. You hear some loud thunder, so what? We'll get used to it. It would be worth it to have shorter flights.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-24-2003, 03:19 PM:

I agree. It's odd that society would choose this technology to be the one it abandons. It would seem like the modern attitude to move faster faster faster would have embraced supersonic travel.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-24-2003, 04:45 PM:

A sad but inevitable day for aviation, engineering, and technology. Inevitable in that at some point Concorde would have to be retired. Sad in that we have nothing, and will continue to have nothing for a very long time, that can replace it. The difficult decision to start the Concorde project was made in a very different time, a time when visionaries could still call the important shots. The easy decision to stop Concorde and any R&D on its replacement was made by accountants, i.e. short-sighted, bottom-line-fixated people that are anything but visionary. Such people make only the easy calls, and "progress" gets defined only in terms of what is profitable this fiscal quarter. It's a sad comment on our society today that we deliberately choose such people to define and shape our future.

I never got to go aboard Concorde but did get to see it a few times with my own eyes. It made occasional charter flights to Las Vegas, and was a fixture at the annual Experimental Aircraft Association fly-in in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. I made a photo of its first landing here (British Airways ship G-BOAA), touching down on runway 25 at LAS with the Circus Circus Learjet flying chase. I'll look into getting it scanned and posted if anyone's interested.

One of my old bosses did get to ride on it. At the time he was chief pilot for the corporate flight department at Southwest Gas, and flew to England aboard Concorde in order to ferry SWG's then-new turboprop twin (a Rockwell Turbo Commander 690B) back to here. Quite the contrast in trips--3.5 hours eastbound across the pond--many more hours than that coming home. [Smile]

[ 10-28-2003, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2003, 05:40 PM:

How long, on average, did it take to fly from New York to London and vice-versa? I don't mean "I left London at 6pm and got to New York at 8pm so it was only a two hour flight, tee hee". I mean how long is the plane physically airborne? Why would flying one way take linger than the other?

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 10-24-2003, 06:52 PM:

quote:
How long, on average, did it take to fly from New York to London and vice-versa? I don't mean "I left London at 6pm and got to New York at 8pm so it was only a two hour flight, tee hee". I mean how long is the plane physically airborne? Why would flying one way take linger than the other?

They were saying on NPR yesterday that you could leave London at 9AM on the Concord and get to New York by 8AM. I believe London is 5 hours ahead of New York time, so that would make it a 4 hour flight across the Atlantic.

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 10-24-2003, 07:34 PM:

I think NASA should obtiain one or more Concorde jets for scientific & research purposes.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-24-2003, 09:18 PM:

Average Concorde flight time between JFK and LHR was 3+20. Westbound flights would be a bit longer due to prevailing winds, but Concorde flew so fast that the effect of headwinds was minimal. Record JFK-LHR time was 2+53.

Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 10-24-2003, 10:43 PM:

I had heard that NASA did have a US built SST sim. I think it was at Langley. Although never planned for production. What altitude did the Concorde generally reach?
lance

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-25-2003, 03:52 AM:

One report I read said 60,000 feet, 15,000 more than conventional aircraft. 45,000 sounds rather high for a conventional plane though. When I flew last year, Boeing 777-200, I think we reached about 36,000, and back in the '60s when I flew in a Vickers Viscount I seem to remember that it was only about 20,000.

Posted by Elena N. Solovyova (Member # 1636) on 10-25-2003, 04:03 AM:

In 1977 I had a trip to Alma-Atah by Tupolev-144, a Soviet plane very simular in concept to Concorde. It was really an impressive "bird".

I think one Tupolev-144 is still in service for scientific purposes.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-25-2003, 05:10 AM:

Concorde very nearly didn't happen, and at least once came very close to cancellation. It was conceived during a warm period in the relations between Britain and France; those relations go through fairly frequent rather cooler periods, during which there were many people who saw it as something those 'nasty French' were involved in, and therefore Britain shouldn't be.

On a more serious level, there were many who, correctly, saw it as a financial black hole. There never was any commercial justification for Concorde as it was built. It could, perhaps have been justified as a prototype to bigger and better things, but this never happened. The very large, low cost per seat passenger aircraft which were all sub-sonic proved to be the future of aviation. Things were made even worse by the '70s oil crisis, and the subsequent almost overnight tripling (I think, it's a long time to think back now) of oil prices in Europe. At that time Britain had very little home produced oil, and I don't know if France had any.

The main reason for building Concorde was political, To show that Europe could be the first to get such a plane into commercial service. The expected competion, from America, never appeared, and I believe the TU-144, mentioned by Elena, was the only similar plane ever developed. The TU-144 was not well known in the West, and few people here had even heard of it before the sad events, after which I don't think it ever made a comeback. The TU-144 was almost certainly built for the same reasons as the Concorde, political prestige, something which is not seen as being so important today as it was then.

There were reports some years ago of one of the large American aircraft builders developing a much larger 'super Concorde' which would be commercially viable, but nothing came of it.

Today it is much quicker and cheaper to send information around the world than to send people of course, so, while it might be a nice thing to have, a very fast air service is probably less necessary today than it was in the '70s. How many people really need to pop over to New York for a quick meeting today?

The only country which I think might do something similar in the future would be China. They would certainly like the prestige that comes with it, though they would have to outdo Concorde in some way, faster, bigger, further. They almost certainly have the technology to be able to do it, and with a very rapidly growing economy they could probably afford to do it. I think their recent launching of a manned spacecraft shows they have all three requirements. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.

I would like to be able to fly over to New York in three and a half hours, at an affordable price, but I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-25-2003, 05:10 AM:

I am extremely fortunate to have flown on Concorde, if only subsonically ,back in June 2000.

My better half bought me a flight from London Heathrow to my local airport Leeds Bradford as a combined late xmas /Fathers day present.

British Airways used to run these short familiarisation flights to /from regional UK airports on summer weekends when the fleet wasn't as busy on transatlantic schedules.

I think the ticket price was around £300 ,$500US.
For somewhere between £880-£1000 you could get a short supersonic flight out in a loop from LBA to LHR,still way out of my price league.

Some interesting facts about my flight was that the cruising altitude between London and LBA was only about 24,000ft substantially less than the scheduled British Midland 737 flights on the same route. the flight time of about 48 minutes was also about the same as the 737.

The most memorable moments included the roar of the 4 Olympus engines going into reheat just before the pilots released the brakes and then the sudden silence as they cut off after a rapid climb out from Heathrow.

The sudden silence made some of the more nervous passengers scream out despite the pilot telling them what would happen in the preflight briefing [Roll Eyes]

Just goes to prove that most people don't really listen whatever you tell them.

I will really miss this fantastic aircraft and hope that at least one is kept flying to show future generations what the British and French aerospace companies were able to achieve.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-25-2003, 06:34 AM:

Dick, I should be able to get from London to Bradford in about ten minutes; maybe I could pop up in my lunch hour!

Sad to see it go, but I think it was bound to happen soon.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-25-2003, 09:04 PM:

To answer Lance's question, 60,000' was about the max for Concorde cruising altitude. On warm days (more than ISA+5degC) the max altitude would be lower.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-27-2003, 02:30 AM:

Dick: BMI have obviously gone upmarket since I last flew from LBA to LHR - they usually use cold and cramped Fokker 100s. On one occasion the passenger in front of me in the queue asked which of three parked aircraft we were supposed to board: 'That big blue Fokker at the end', was the airport official's reply, delivered in an Ian Paisley-like Northern Irish accent. She nearly got the wrong idea!

One thing which the report that started this thread didn't mention was that Richard Branson's Virgin group offered to buy the remaining Concordes from BA and keep them running. BA has refused, saying that it will give them to museums instead. Another politically motivated decision, I think. I don't think Rod Eddington liked the idea of Virgin - which isn't saddled with BA's huge level of debt and isn't trying to compete with the budget airlines for short distance routes - rubbing BA's nose in it by running the Concordes as a loss-leading publicity vehicle.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-27-2003, 12:03 PM:

Leo
Back in '98-2000 BMI used 737's on the LBA-LHR route and occasionally since then Airbus 321.

Haven't flown that route in a while using the train unfortunately for London trips nowadays.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 10-27-2003, 04:28 PM:

Here's a bit of good news regards the last concorde flights,
All the landings of the last three comercial flights ariving at Heathrow were captured in 5 perf 70mm. Using the Mitchell camera and lenses that shot 2001.
The footage is to be used for the ultimate picture quality bench mark in film and D-cinema tests.
Ill let you know what it looks like when i get to see it in the near future, and hope to screen it here at City Screen in York (U.K) next year during some 70mm event. Sound was also recorded on the day.
Darren

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2003, 11:06 AM:

Darren Briggs wrote:

quote:
All the landings of the last three comercial flights ariving at Heathrow were captured in 5 perf 70mm. Using the Mitchell camera and lenses that shot 2001.

Minor correction: 65mm film would have been used in the camera:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorNeg.pdf

70mm is still used for the prints:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorPrint.pdf

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-28-2003, 01:35 PM:

I am suprised that none of our FT English friends have mentioned the Concorde on display at Duxford Air Museum, which is part of the famous Imperial War Museum.

I need to drag my pics out, but if memory serves me correctly, this was the first Concorde built and is loaded down with all types of test equipment.

Duxford is one great museum. It is an authentic WWII RAF Base that has been preserved as a musuem. Just about everything has been restored to flying condition. A must see for anyone visiting England. Compatable museums in the US are the "Planes of Fame" museum in Chino/Ontario California, as well as the Commerative(Confederate) Air Force.

Back to the Concorde: I have some decent pics of this plane and its cockpit.

Also, a few years ago, there was a highly publicized chartered Concorde flight, with the Concorde comming to Tucson International Airport. I have pics from this.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-28-2003, 01:52 PM:

I have never been to Duxford, it's not the easiest of places to get to, but there is a cinema on the site, the Astra. As far as I know it no longer gives public shows, but is still fully equipped, and is looked after by the Projected Picture Trust, who previously operated it when it was open to the public as part of the museum.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-28-2003, 02:18 PM:

Will
the first prototype Concorde 001 was assembled in France.
The first British assembled aircraft Concorde 002 registered G-BSST is now housed at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton ,Somerset. http://www.fleetairarm.com

This aircraft is actually part of the Science Museum's collection(our parent museum) but when it was retired from testing in 1978 we lacked a suitable airfield of our own so it was flown to Yeovilton whre it is displayed alongside other aircraft used in the devlopment of high speed flight.

The aircraft at Duxford is a a pre-production model Concorde 01 G-AXDN.

For a detailed history of Concordes testing and service history take a look at http://www.concordesst.com

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2003, 03:29 PM:

Concorde came to Rochester NY carrying the 1995 European Ryder Cup golf team:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4496228-110989,00.html

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sports/pga/story15.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/1995/95golf2.htm

And Boston for the 1999 Ryder Cup match:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airline/message/27379?source=1

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-28-2003, 06:33 PM:

I saw the Concorde land at JFK airport in NYC about ten years ago. It was the only time that I saw the aircraft in flight and it was quite impressive.

At the time, I was waiting to board a TWA L-1011, another great aircraft (and airline) which is no longer flown by the major passenger airlines [Frown]

It's rather sad that there has been so little progress in commercial aviation in the last thirty or so years. The only real improvements seem to have been in economy and noise reduction, not in aircraft size or speed.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-29-2003, 02:02 AM:

Two of the retired British Airways aircraft are supposed to be heading to the States for preservation so there will be a final chance to see one fly on the ferry flights.
One is due to go to the Seattle Museum of Flight http://www.museumofflight.org ,the other to the Intrepid carrier museum in NYC http://www.intrepidmuseum.org
An Air France example has already been donated to NASM's new facilty at Dulles http://www.metwashairports.com/authority/pr/pr061203.htm

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 10-30-2003, 02:25 PM:

A few years ago, some of the chartered round-the-world flights made stops in Kona. Lots of folks parked along the highway above the airport to watch the landings and takeoffs. I was fortunate enough to see one of the takeoff runs. It looked like it was going almost straight up!