>>1040924this is comparing apples to oranges.
the shuttle was terribly engineered and was responsible for many casualties. the shuttle also was never ment to bring money in either.
the concorde on the other hand worked fine and even brought in money, until a DC-10 decided to drop a piece of its engine. after that, the fleet got grounded (without any logical reason) and they were forced to do structural changes on every single plane, which would have prevented such an accident in the future. these changes were so expensive that BA ad AF decided to only change a very small number of the AC.
also, i cant even tell how how stupid that statement is.
>total hours worked + cost of materialswhat the hell does that even mean? it doesnt show superiority or anything like this.
>>1040926yes, its real, the concorde used an afterburner.
also, check out the video on youtube. the car alarms go off when the concorde climbs above the neighborhood.
