Connect with us

Best solder free electrical connection

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by john hamilton, Aug 16, 2010.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. It was a fast plane, but a poor design. They spent wads of money
    "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.
  2. tony sayer

    tony sayer Guest

    Not that bad really as it was the first one..
    What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
  3. tony sayer

    tony sayer Guest

    The USofA shirley?.
  4. >

    > Guest

    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?
  5. >

    > Guest

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

    You gotta share the credit for that one with the frenchies IIRC
  7. wrote:
    The guys who wrote 'Limits to Growth' and were totally ignored?
  8. Guest

    Correction: Super sonic flight was banned
    The SST was cancelled, seeing the writing on the wall. The Concorde wasn't
    built for economic reasons.
  9. Guest

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

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

    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.
    It didn't. Your taxes did.
  12. >

    > Guest

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

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

    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/
  14. Guest

    That wasn't the issue.
    It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaper
    Concordes flying?
    Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't make
    sense from JFL to ALB.
    I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have some
    pretty long term fuel contracts sewn up.
    That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.
    I don't buy that conclusion.
  15. Bob Eager

    Bob Eager Guest

    Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
    Kruger effect?
  16. 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.
  17. Guest

    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
    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.
  18. Guest

    Apologists, no. Bashers, certainly.
  19. Guest

    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.

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

    The difference is easily explained by tax.
  20. Bob Eager

    Bob Eager Guest

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day