Video Flagged Dead
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
6 Comments
Farhad2000says...I would love if the Concorde still flew. It's shocking how fearful we are, that a entire class of air travel goes the way of the dodo, after a single crash. It's like getting rid of your car after one car crash.
HistNerdsays...It sucks that it no longer flies, but I think the crash showed what was just a terrible design flaw in the construction of the airplane. That is, having the fueltanks so close to the opening and the landing gear. Plus, I think it was also costing more money to run than it was making. Either way, it was a really cool plane.
Gervaisesays...Yeah, very cool plane, but horribly fuel inneficient. It was designed pre 1970s oil crisis. I think the price of oil has more to do with it being retired than the crash. (Admitedly, the crash was over hyped.)
About fuel efficiency from wiki:
Concorde travelled, per passenger, 17 miles for each gallon of fuel (mpg)(an efficiency of 20 litres per hundred kilometres (l/100km)). This is comparable to a Gulfstream G550 business jet (~16 mpg or 18 l/100km per passenger), but much larger than, say a Boeing 747-400 (~91 mpg or 3.1 l/100km per passenger)
antsays...I wanted to fly it one of those days, but nope it won't happen.
bareboards2says...*dead
*length=5:37
siftbotsays...This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by bareboards2.
The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 5:37 - length declared by bareboards2.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.