Best solder free electrical connection

[William Sommerwerck]

It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money

to build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that
they weren't able to compete with better planes from multiple
countries.

"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
was expensive from the get-go.

You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.

 

[tony sayer]

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

 

[tony sayer]

"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
was expensive from the get-go.

You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.

The USofA shirley?.

 

[>]

It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and
so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.

Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?

 

[>]

I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
inflation? Might even be a little below.

Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

 

[[email protected]]

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?

You gotta share the credit for that one with the frenchies IIRC

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

wrote:

No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari
and so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.

Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it is today?

The guys who wrote 'Limits to Growth' and were totally ignored?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3551

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

 

[[email protected]]

Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas.
That meant it couldn't actually use its speed to cut route times. i.e.
2hrs coast to coast of USA...

Correction: Super sonic flight was banned

With such a restriction round its neck it was doomed.

The SST was cancelled, seeing the writing on the wall. The Concorde wasn't
built for economic reasons.

 

[[email protected]]

Not that bad really as it was the first one..


What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

 

[[email protected]]

Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

Well, there you have it. You killed the Concorde yourselves.

 

[[email protected]]

No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and
so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.

Because perhaps the boot of the government isn't quite as heavy on this side
of the pond, yet. Perhaps because this is a *big* place and cars are used to
transport more than a couple of people a few km.

Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?

It didn't. Your taxes did.

 

[>]

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

 

[[email protected]]

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
weren't bright enough to figure that out/

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
(snip)

747 ain't supersonic.

That wasn't the issue.

But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,
it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In
recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta
747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack'
status.

It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaper
Concordes flying?

Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.

Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't make
sense from JFL to ALB.

Now
that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are being brought back out
of storage. At one point, they were gonna modernize the 747 fleet, but
it will probably never happen, because Boeing would rather sell new
planes, and Airbus is nipping at their heels. But the long delays in the
Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at least partially blamed on the
airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot of money to keep airplanes with
a lot of lifespan left sitting in the desert. Another air disaster or
major fuel cost spike, and there will be multiple airlines going belly-up.

I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have some
pretty long term fuel contracts sewn up.

Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services. A
lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of course,
with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer executives.
Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.

That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.

Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for
the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on out.

I don't buy that conclusion.

 

[Bob Eager]

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
Kruger effect?

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.


So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
weren't bright enough to figure that out/

It WOULD have made sense. For a limited market of people with money in a
hurry IF they had allowed supersonic flight over land.

As it was, many routes were so restricted it offered no time advantages
at all.

 

[[email protected]]

Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and
a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per
hour.
Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter.
Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many
workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually
twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.

 

[[email protected]]

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
Kruger effect?

Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

 

[[email protected]]

Not in Canada either. In 1969 a gallon of gas sold for about $0.45 and
a reasonably paid worker (like a licenced mechanic) earned $4.50 per
hour.

In the US it's close. The inflation since '69 is 5.79X. I remember paying
about $.30/gallon during a price war and about $.36 normally. So that's $1.74
to $2.08 today. Gasoline is $2.41/gallon here, so yes a little more.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

also:

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

Convert that to Metric and gasoline was about $0.10 a liter.
Today gasoline hovers around the buck a liter range, and not too many
workers earn $22.50 an hour - which would make gasoline virtually
twice as expensive in real dollars as it was in 1969.

OTOH, I'm making well over 25x what I was making in 1970 (I made nothing in
'69).

The difference is easily explained by tax.

 

[Bob Eager]

Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.

MRD.