/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1169361

[82 / 22 / ?]

251KiB, 1024x687, British_Airways_Concorde_G-BOAC_03.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 01:14:35 No.1169361 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1169369 >>1169377 >>1169414 >>1169439 >>1169474 >>1169477 >>1169486 >>1169489 >>1169662 >>1171285

Do you miss me, /n/?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO concorde-flying-at-mach-2.jpg, 381KiB, 1363x1600

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 01:17:31 No.1169362 Report

Quoted By: >>1169643

yea

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lockheed L-2000.jpg, 111KiB, 1493x453

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 01:33:21 No.1169369 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
kind of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 01:48:12 No.1169377 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
I've missed you for 17 years. I remember being a little boy playing MSFS 2000 and lamenting that the Concorde would fly no more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 02:23:45 No.1169384 Report

Quoted By: >>1169474

The British military once though about making the Concorde into a long range high speed cruise missile truck. Launch from Scotland and fly over Norway. Release nuclear cruise missiles into the Soviet union, and boogey on home.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 02:25:03 No.1169386 Report

Quoted By: >>1169443

The one thing I'm happy Concorde did was be the progenitor of Airbus. Every single Airbus aircraft from the A300 to the A350 shares the same basic hydraulic system, electrical system, air conditioning and pressurisation system and even fly by wire system which Concorde pioneered.

Next time you fly on an Airbus, just remember that the plane you're on can boast Concorde as an ancestor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 03:47:39 No.1169414 Report

Quoted By: >>1169417

>>1169361
Yep. I was too broke when the Concorde was still running to make use of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:04:46 No.1169417 Report

Quoted By: >>1169421

>>1169414
What job do you do

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:10:53 No.1169421 Report

Quoted By: >>1169423

>>1169417
Embedded software developer. I never had an urgent need to be in London, Paris or other destinations while it was in the air.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:18:49 No.1169423 Report

Quoted By: >>1169431

>>1169421
Salary and experience?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO anatomy-concorde-merl.jpg, 342KiB, 1200x675

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:20:04 No.1169425 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:32:18 No.1169431 Report

Quoted By: >>1169433

>>1169423
In 2003? I'd been working in the field for 9 years, was making about 80K USD, and had no time for non-work-related travel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:33:14 No.1169433 Report

Quoted By: >>1169436

>>1169431
How about now? I'm a CS student but don't enjoy it and I'm wondering if the money makes it worth it in the end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 04:47:00 No.1169436 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169433
Semi retired, with a few consulting gigs still active. I peaked at about 160K a year. CS is a major that doesn't set you up for long term work any more, since code-monkeys, not designers or analysts, are what's in demand. If you can, look at moving to CE.
Honestly, If you aren't willing or able to either work on classified projects, or in academia, you're competing with cheap labor from outside the US.
Personally, I work for money, not for self-actualization, so enjoying it took a back seat to getting paid well to do it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO C1.jpg, 1MiB, 3042x1711

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 05:06:38 No.1169439 Report

Quoted By: >>1169442

>>1169361
Every day of the week, including weekends and holidays

What a giant step backwards for the industry

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 05:27:44 No.1169442 Report

Quoted By: >>1169480

>>1169439
the Concorde, while technologically impressive, wasnt actually a big step forward in the industry, at least not as much as people think. it was far to inefficient and costly for it to make much of a large impact with the airline industry both at the time and today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 05:34:41 No.1169443 Report

Quoted By: >>1169594

>>1169386
>this commitment to shilling for Airbus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 05:36:01 No.1169444 Report

Quoted By: >>1169481

Anyone who doesnt miss Concorde has no soul.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 08:22:13 No.1169474 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
So much
>>1169384
Would've been glorious. Beat the B-58, XB-70, etc. at their own game

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 08:43:12 No.1169476 Report

Quoted By:

When I was a child, I lived in Brooklyn near JFK airport and would see them fly overhead while at the park every time I was there. I used to think they were space shuttles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 09:03:00 No.1169477 Report

Quoted By: >>1169490

>>1169361
>yfw see 9/11 clip
>"was that the concorde?"
it feels like yesterday, why couldn't have they made the concorde B it was only a matter of manufacturing

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO concorde_et_nez_autre_concorde_01.jpg, 657KiB, 3010x2200

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 09:24:25 No.1169480 Report

Quoted By: >>1169707

>>1169442
When the automobile first came out people said the same about it being inefficient, costly, and inferior to existing technology. I'm amazed it was successful at all considering it was literally the first of its kind. It required radical engineering to develop technology that didn't exist yet, required a tremendous amount of money for development and testing, and market prospect to ensure commercial success. It was killed not because it was inefficient (which, for the flight regime it really wasn't), it was killed because of route regulation and a DC-10 shitting all over the runway. British Airways and Air France held route dominance over the few routes it was able to fly. If you can't operate a specific aircraft on your airline's routes you wouldn't buy the plane. Because of this, total sales were low, and because of the limited production, maintenance costs were exaggerated (although they were higher than other aircraft due to the aerodynamic and thermal stresses experienced). Sure it may not have been perfect but you gotta start somewhere with the technology, and as evidenced by the QSST, Boom, and other supersonic airliner prospects the concept isn't dead, but it certainly is delayed because of Concorde's early retirement.

As usual, stiff regulation and the DC-10 ruin everything again.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wallpaper-aeroplane-concorde-wal (...).jpg, 289KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 09:25:35 No.1169481 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169444
Trips of truth right here

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 10:03:58 No.1169486 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
I've never flown you. I've never even seen you.
So no, I don't miss you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 10:20:15 No.1169489 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
>Used to live in Bristol
>Concorde used to land & take off at BAE Filton

You could hear the rumble of the engines at take off for 5 minutes or more, especially if it came over low. I was in a pub garden during summer once when it came over, and everybody had to stop talking because it was so loud they couldn't hear each other: so then the entire pub just sat there and watched it fly over.

Fucking beautiful machine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 10:22:43 No.1169490 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169477
>why couldn't have they made the concorde B it was only a matter of manufacturing

There were no serious chance of any orders, at the time. It was a shame, Concorde B would have solved a lot of the problems of the original.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 17:11:56 No.1169594 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169443
I buy Airbus merchandise and I try to fly as often as I can on any Airbus that I can. I'm a huge Airbus fan, and the fact that Concorde is origin of Airbus makes things all the better.
I mean, why aren't you happy that the systems Concorde pioneered are still in use today?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wTKq6.jpg, 719KiB, 1638x2012

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 17:35:52 No.1169599 Report

Quoted By: >>1169600

boi

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 17:37:31 No.1169600 Report

Quoted By: >>1169602

>>1169599
Now that's a sight that won't happen again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 17:41:07 No.1169602 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169600
We can only hope. Some day, some how

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1499855184893.jpg, 139KiB, 818x960

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 17:42:12 No.1169603 Report

Quoted By: >>1169643 >>1169647

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1519945554340.png, 169KiB, 400x416

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 18:22:51 No.1169617 Report

Quoted By: >>1169708

DEATH TO AMERICA

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 19:10:19 No.1169643 Report

Quoted By: >>1169647

>>1169362
>>1169603

Redditors...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 19:19:07 No.1169647 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169643
>>1169603
fug didn't realise it was already there, screw me over

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 19:58:31 No.1169662 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169361
>Do you miss me
no

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 21:44:59 No.1169707 Report

Quoted By: >>1169724

>>1169480
the DC-10 dindu nuffin, it was the high maintenance cost and old age of the air-frames that did her in. remember that most concordes were build in the 60s and 70s, so they were near the end of life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 21:46:26 No.1169708 Report

Quoted By: >>1169722

>>1169617
>design a shit ,inefficient fuel guzzler with no regard for practicality
>"HURRR IT WAS AMERIGURS FAULT"
glad its gone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 22:35:09 No.1169722 Report

Quoted By: >>1169733 >>1169764

>>1169708
Wow, everything you said was false. Nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 22:42:47 No.1169724 Report

Quoted By: >>1169765 >>1169766 >>1172196

>>1169707
The DC-10 left FOD on the runway which caused the Air France Concorde accident. The accident halted all Concorde flights, an extensive investigation ensued, people didn’t wait for the conclusion so they assumed it wasn’t safe and it’s reputation was permanently tarnished. After they got the OK to continue flights Concorde had suffered such a hit that it directly contributed to its failure. Not only that but Concorde was redesigned with different tires, Kevlar-protected fuel tanks, protected electrical wiring, and a few other modifications but it was too little too late.

The DC-10 ruined more reputations than its own. McDonnell Douglas shouldn’t have rushed its design to compete with the L-1011; a lot of people would still be alive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Mar 2018 23:29:02 No.1169733 Report

Quoted By: >>1169783

>>1169722
It was extremely inefficient . That's an indisputable fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 02:33:51 No.1169764 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169722
>this level of denial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 02:34:50 No.1169765 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169724
the Concorde was doomed long before the DC-10 incident. most of the airframes were near their end of life and hardly anyone was buying tickets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 02:40:59 No.1169766 Report

Quoted By: >>1169775

>>1169724
The DC-10 even caused McDonnell Douglas to cease its existence, at least through being bought by Boeing.

It's pretty hard to imagine how much of an issue the DC-10 was. It killed itself, it killed the improved MD-11, it killed the L-1011 (through competition) and it killed Concorde. I'm more concerned with how the DC-10 managed to survive the A300 being a much better product with the addition of it being a twinjet. 60 minute rules and the lack of ETOPS then must have been the reason behind that, but it's still worth looking at in aviation history.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MD-11 ETOPS.jpg, 87KiB, 1575x1181

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 03:25:33 No.1169775 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169766
McDonnell Douglas was killed by poor management and not making the MD-11 an ETOPS.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Concorde_Ramp.jpg, 2MiB, 2592x1944

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:00:52 No.1169783 Report

Quoted By: >>1169787 >>1169798 >>1169899

>>1169733
No. It was inefficient compared to a high-bypass turbofan, but it was efficient for the flight regime it operated in. A pure turbojet is the most efficient engine configuration for high-speed operation (in excess of Mach 1). I'll give you, it did use a lot of gas, but for sustained operation at Mach 2.0 it used that fuel efficiently. It burned a lot of gas on takeoff and acceleration when the afterburners were lit, but when the afterburners were deselected during the latter segment of the acceleration/climb, it used ram effect to provide the additional thrust necessary, allowing it to supercruise.

I don't mean to play a game of semantics, but it operated in a completely different flight regime than other airliners, and for the flight regime it certainly was efficient. It wasn't economical from a fuel burn standpoint compared to a conventional airliner, but fuel economy =/= fuel efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:10:24 No.1169787 Report

Quoted By: >>1169804

>>1169783
>its efficient if you change the rules!
durrrr

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO boom SST.png, 550KiB, 1077x630

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:12:31 No.1169789 Report

Quoted By: >>1169795

so what does everyone think about this?
will it "take off"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:32:00 No.1169795 Report

Quoted By: >>1169799 >>1169800

>>1169789
They're silicon valley techbros.

They've had a greater than 1-day-per-day schedule slip on the timeline for the two-seat technology demonstrater.

Pure vaporware.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:36:14 No.1169798 Report

Quoted By: >>1169804

>>1169783
It used way the fuck more fuel per passenger-mile than contemporary jets, let alone modern commercial planes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:37:06 No.1169799 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169795
theyve been making good progress on their prototype.
theyre going to be flying it next year at the paris airshow. i have some good hopes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 04:43:13 No.1169800 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169795
The tech demonstrator is under construction in Colorado.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2502.jpg, 2MiB, 2599x3300

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:03:25 No.1169804 Report

Quoted By: >>1169806 >>1171232

>>1169787
>>1169798
Well stop comparing apples and oranges. Conventional airliners get from point A to point B using less gas but a hell of a lot slower. The turbofan is the most efficient engine configuration in this scenario. Sustained long-distance flight at Mach 2 requires a completely different airframe and powerplant combination. You can't accurately compare the two from an efficiency standpoint; they are two different classes of aircraft. You can compare them from an economic standpoint, because that is where the two types of airliners actually compete.

You wouldn't compare an Ameriflight B1900 or Metro III with a FedEx MD-11 because the two operate in completely different flight regimes regardless if it is still delivering mail and packages.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:05:34 No.1169806 Report

Quoted By: >>1169809

>>1169804
You can when you're trying to run a business. That's exactly why it was a commercial failure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:23:20 No.1169809 Report

Quoted By: >>1169810 >>1169816

>>1169806
>you can compare apples and oranges so long as it proves my point
If you want to argue it was an economic failure that's a fair point, but calling it inefficient is like pointing at the 5000 lb/hr fuel burn of an A319 and calling it inefficient compared to a 190 lb/hr fuel burn of a Baron 58.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:27:44 No.1169810 Report

Quoted By: >>1169819

>>1169809
It's not though. The cost per passenger mile wasn't sustainable for airlines. And that was primarily a function of the fuel costs and the low capacity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:28:59 No.1169812 Report

Quoted By:

[spoiler:lit]it wasnt that impressive. it was pretty much just a supersonic bomber with a cabin instead of a bomb-bay[/spoiler:lit]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:39:04 No.1169816 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169809
>what is a passenger-mile
Get good son.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO c93818dfa568683f187fe5cd1dcf1746.jpg, 1MiB, 3048x2180

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 05:46:18 No.1169819 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169810
>strict route regulation
>high fuel burn
>high maintenance costs
>overestimated market
>low production numbers
>high development costs
>relatively limited range*
>impact of 9/11 on the commercial airline industry
Look I may be a Concorde fanboi but I understand it's economic shortcomings. On top of all those listed was the Air France accident, which tarnished the reputation of Concorde (irrespective of the actual cause of the accident). I understand the cost per passenger mile was high, but this was because of the market the plane was tailored to: the businessman/upper class that was willing to pay for a luxury flight experience coupled with a flight time half of a standard airliner. At a time that the Concorde was suffering from the fallout of the AF accident 9/11 happened and caused a huge downturn in the commercial airline industry. This economic downturn sealed it's fate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 11:08:54 No.1169877 Report

Quoted By:

Droop
the
snoot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Mar 2018 13:53:15 No.1169899 Report

Quoted By:

>>1169783
It's worth pointing out that the Olympus 610 + 25% engines proposed for the Concorde B wouldn't have had any reheat. Concorde B would have used significantly less fuel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Mar 2018 22:50:32 No.1171232 Report

Quoted By: >>1171254

>>1169804
>Conventional airliners get from point A to point B using less gas but a hell of a lot slower.

This.
Consider that the economics of the Concorde were designed around flying the wealthy around. Plebes didn't fly. After deregulation, the average customer became a redneck wearing shorts, a wife-beater and flop-flops. Not the Concorde target demographic.

If you want to succeed in the supersonic market, you will need an airline with management that has the guts to tell economy class to fuck off and fly something else.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO emirates.jpg, 36KiB, 510x190

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 00:34:06 No.1171254 Report

Quoted By: >>1171275

>>1171232
>If you want to succeed in the supersonic market, you will need an airline with management that has the guts to tell economy class to fuck off and fly something else.
ohai

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 02:14:59 No.1171275 Report

Quoted By: >>1171283

>>1171254
81.6%-90.6% of seats on Emirates A380s are economy seats, depending on the layout version. Not to mention that the airline is operationally propped up by direct infusions of government cash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 02:35:08 No.1171283 Report

Quoted By: >>1171286

>>1171275
So you make those A380s 100% economy. Cram them in like cattle on their way to the Haj. And then you have a fleet of business jet sized supersonics. Different schedules, different airport gates (keep the goat-herders out of my side of the terminal).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO arrow5-superJumbo.jpg, 421KiB, 2048x1318

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 02:36:23 No.1171285 Report

Quoted By: >>1171314 >>1172218

>>1169361
I have a soft spot for delta wings. I wish you were both still around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 02:36:30 No.1171286 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171283
Yeah, good luck with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 05:13:13 No.1171314 Report

Quoted By: >>1171533 >>1172272

>>1171285
why do people keep memeing about this thing? it was a shit interceptor, hence why it failed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 21:09:56 No.1171533 Report

Quoted By: >>1172201 >>1172206 >>1172208 >>1172272

>>1171314
Prob to expose trolls like you. Please stop commenting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F-BVFC_Dulles[1].jpg, 85KiB, 748x316

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:23:15 No.1172196 Report

Quoted By: >>1172209

>>1169724
As much as I like Concorde, the Gonesse crash was gonna happen sooner or later.

It was the 7th time a main landing gear tire blew up leading to fuel tank damage.

F-BTSC was one ton over MTOW.

It tried to take off in an 8 kt nearly full downwind condition.

Its damaged landing gear was missing a strut leading to up to 5° of free rotational movement (maintenance forgot to put it back on after swapping the bogie a couple days earlier).

pic related, 1979 Concorde incident in Washington, F-BVFC loosing fuel after take off.

The DC-10 caused the crash this time, but it's far from being the only culprit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:27:39 No.1172201 Report

Quoted By: >>1172272

>>1171533
but it was. it was practically obsolete the moment it was built. it failed for a fucking reason.
only retards ignore this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:31:28 No.1172206 Report

Quoted By: >>1172272

>>1171533
It was a fucking failure you retarded cumstain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:34:29 No.1172208 Report

Quoted By: >>1172266 >>1172272

>>1171533
How is it "trolling" to point out the fact that the plane was nowhere near a success by any measure? The F-4 had its first flight the same year. That should tell you how woefully outmoded the Arrow was from the beginning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:35:38 No.1172209 Report

Quoted By:

>>1172196
>As much as I like Concorde, the Gonesse crash was gonna happen sooner or later.
this.
on literally any other aircraft a blown tire wouldnt be much cause for concern. but on the concorde, each time they blew one they had to worry about the fuel tank being punctured or damaged. couple that with no reinforcement of the tires and wing tanks, and this was bound to happen eventually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 20:01:37 No.1172218 Report

Quoted By: >>1172272

>>1171285

A-e-s-t-h-e-t-i-c

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 22:45:59 No.1172266 Report

Quoted By: >>1172271 >>1172272

>>1172208
Boeing didn't pay anyone off to shut down the F-4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 23:03:25 No.1172271 Report

Quoted By: >>1173483

>>1172266
>this meme again
you deluded fucking leaf.
the project wasnt cancelled because anyone payed them to do so, it was cancelled because it was obsolete from the moment it rolled off the production line, so there was zero reason to keep it.

pic related is tu-28.. hundreds built and much more range than the arrow

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 235-1024x490.jpg, 85KiB, 1024x490

pic related is tu-28.. hundreds built and much more range than the arrow Fri 30 Mar 2018 23:03:34 No.1172272 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171533
>>1172201
>>1172206
>>1172208
>>1172218
>>1172266
>>1172208
>>1171314
100 percent agree

The tsr-2 also, i think people just like these planes for aesthetic reasons, but at least the tsr-2 had semi impressive range. The avro arrow fucking only had a 360NM combat radius. A fuckign F-18 has better range than that and can use drop tanks. I don't fucking get it either man.

And btw the F-111 came out the same year as the TSR-2, 1964, SIX YEARS after the Arrow and the fucking Aardvark btfo of both them. Not to mention, the A-12 Blackbird came out the same time. Even the Russian interceptors of the time like the Tu-28 were way more impressive performance-wise. The Tu-28 is actually the longest interceptor of all time and they fucking built hundreds of them! It came out in 1963 for reference sake.. only 5 years after the arrow.

BUT CHECK THIS. THE SAAB DRAKEN CAME OUT IN 1960 AND HAD LITERALLY 4 TIMES THE RANGE OF THE ARROW AND WAYYYYY BETTER MANEUVERABILITY. I saw a Draken at an air show recently and the fucking thing can pull high alpha turns that give hornets a fucking run for their money.

Just face it nerds. The fucking Arrow and Tsr-2 were LEMONS. That's why no one wanted them. Piss poor performance, even though the Tsr is kinda cute because it reminds me of a birb.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Up diddly up up.jpg, 64KiB, 1400x873

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 23:49:35 No.1172289 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO what could have been.jpg, 72KiB, 837x1000

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 05:25:46 No.1172376 Report

Quoted By:

i hope you brits and frogs appreciate her. you got lucky. us burgers were too late and didnt get one flying in time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 05:38:53 No.1172384 Report

Quoted By:

I don't miss Concorde. I was on one this afternoon and I'll probably be on one again tomorrow, added to the 2000 or so hours I've already spent on Concorde. It loses its appeal after a while.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO barbecorde.jpg, 35KiB, 480x360

Anonymous Sun 01 Apr 2018 11:34:10 No.1172804 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Apr 2018 23:40:34 No.1173483 Report

Quoted By:

>>1172271
>you deluded fucking leaf.
No. ex Boeing engineer. Who worked with some of the old-timers that were around when Boeing got Arrow shut down in exchange for that king-sized joke called the Bomarc.

They still laugh today.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches