Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
As many of you know I work at a pilot supply store close to LAX. I have meet some very cool people in there ranging from Harrison Ford, to a Russain Cosmonaut. But yesterday I had an Air France capt come in, and he flew the Concorde for 9 years! He told me that it was a great plane to fly. He said it flew like a fighter Jet! He claims taking Concorde into Kai Tak was much easier then a 744. He also was telling me if you do not lower your nose your gear will not come down. Also that when the Concorde takes off it climbs as fast as 10,500 feet per minute intially! But he also told me he doubts the concorde will fly again, but hopes it does!
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
I have more doubts about Air France getting their Concordes flying again as they were less profitable than BA's (as far as I know) and they were planning to retire them in about 6 years anyway. But I'm confident BA are doing everything they can. Before the accident they had planned a major refurbishment and another 15-odd years of profitable service. And don't forget the prestige factor, even if the new costs cancel out future profit.
It's good to hear the myth about Concorde being a nightmare to fly at low speed. In many ways it outperforms conventional jetliners at low speed.
OA269 From Greece, joined Nov 1999, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
I personally like it as the fastest civil aircraft.I consider it safe still despite the accident happened.If you deal with aviation you will have heard that the specific accident happened because a metallic piece was droped from a previous aircraft to the runaway.That piece came to the wheels of the Concorde which threw it to one of the engines and because engines in Concorde are in pairs both started a fire.So it hasn't to do with maintenance.I'm sorry for people lost because for me it was a very unlucky occation:none saw the metallic piece,both engines caught fire,plus the pilot couldn't keep the plane due to taking off=max power so the aircraft turned over.
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1040 times:
You have the fects around the wrong way a bit. The metal bit from another aircraft peiced the tire causing it to blow. When the tire blew and some of the rubber (and maybe the metal) pieced the fuel tank, which caught fire, not the engines!