klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) (01/19/89)
In article <209@s5.Morgan.COM> frank@Morgan.COM (Frank Wortner) writes: >In article <kXoVNsy00Xc-46vEU2@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >>[Concorde] was killed by the refusal of the US to let it land >>in NY. (Tell me about protectionism....). > >I *do*, however, remember seeing the Concorde at JFK when I was passing >near the airport. Landing rights were eventually secured. The Concord also makes weekly visits to Northern Virginia's Dullas International Airport. That droopy nosed approach looks really strange coming over the trees. I still have memories (and pictures) of the Concord doing a high-speed (subsonic), low altitude wing-waggle salute over the mated Space Shuttle Enterprise and 747 transporter, when it visted IAD a few years ago.
parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) (01/19/89)
In article <9572@ut-emx.UUCP> tmca@emx.UUCP (The Anarch) writes: >What gets me though is that neither Great Britain nor the U.S.A. will >allow them >to fly supersonic over land (last I heard, anyhow) and yet both these nations >allow their military junk to make as much noise as it feels like. This just isn't true. Military jets rarely (never?) fly supersonic of US land, except on the ranges out in the deserts where there aren't any people and buildings. When was the last time you heard a sonic boom over a US city?
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (01/20/89)
In article <8XpBody00XomQ0fFNY@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason... >American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to >get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded ! The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. Suppose you tell us what US manufacturers did to kill it. I think what killed it were high fuel consumption and limited range. No subsonic jet would be successful if its usefulness were limited to the North Atlantic run (London/Paris to NY/Washington).* And its fuel reserves on arrival to New York would be considered impermissibly low on another plane. >Fortumately they couldn't do that with Airbus Industrie. I'm surprised you're not moaning about the resistance La Guardia put up to letting Airbuses land. It seems that Airbus Industrie didn't consult much with airports over their landing restrictions. They built their plane (A300/A310) with the main gear legs too close together, violating La Guardia's preexisting rules on weight concentration (which were intended to safeguard the runways, which were built over soft landfill). "Fortumately", a little friendly gov't-to-gov't arm twisting got La Guardia to relent. * OK, so they fly to Bahrain. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) (01/20/89)
Sometime around 1960, USAF experimented with civilian tolerance for sonic booms by regularly flying supersonic over Oklahoma City. They discovered that the public doesn't put up with it. You _can't_ fly supersonic over populated areas of democracies, whether in military or civilian aircraft. It is only political in that any government that allows it will get voted out of office. The Pacific cries for hypersonic civil aviation. It isn't easy, though. -- Don Varvel
crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US (Charles Cain) (01/22/89)
> people and buildings. When was the last time you heard a sonic boom > over a US city? The last time I heard a sonic boom over a US city was 2 years ago while in the USAF and was home on leave in Meridian MS and heard a sonic boom from an F-4 Phantom over the house. Nearly broke all the windows out of our house and some others around us. Found out later that the pilot was at an altitude of 250 feet when he went supersonic. Oh yes, he was grounded for 2 weeks and that's all that happened to him. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- DOMAIN: crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US | The Hacker Ethic *IS* Alive... PHONE: (615-459-9449) | inside of ME!!!!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The words are Websters'... The way they are used is solely MY FAULT!!!!!!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) (01/23/89)
>>The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason... >>American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to >>get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded ! >The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more capacities to handle high level of noise ? No. >Suppose you tell us >what US manufacturers did to kill it. I think what killed it were high >fuel consumption and limited range. The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.) Autonomie is not an issues I beleive. Concorde has a range long enough to cover 10000 Km. in one shot. Jean-Marc Debaud Carnegie-Mellon University jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
wyle@solaris.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) (01/24/89)
In the tradition of WWI, WWII, Vietnam, mid-east oil drilling, and "fraternite/," the US bailed the French out of yet another blunder. ;-) Having three proposed US designs from manufacturers, 2 of which were better than Concorde, the US congress canceled all SST projects but the French built their own (financially doomed) system anyway. ;-) Concorde is too noisy to take off out of JFK, *but* if you turn very sharply after takeoff, you can avoid the noise-detector, and pump all the noise into Brooklyn!! Guess what happens each time Concorde takes off? Vive la France! :-) [tounge out of cheek] I'm just jealous cuz I can't afford a ticket in that gorgous mach 2.2 bird. A parisian can work til noon, hop a concorde and arrive 3 hours before he left, work 9-5 in NY, then fly back home. Is Concorde gonna fly non-stop Paris -> Vancouver again? What about Vancouver -> Tokyo? Seems to me the longer routes would be more worthwhile. -- -Mitchell F. Wyle wyle@ethz.uucp Institut fuer Informationsysteme wyle@inf.ethz.ch ETH Zentrum / 8092 Zurich, Switzerland +41 1 256 5237
stu@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Stuart Harvey on ndcheg) (01/24/89)
The Concorde was built for the specific purpose to fly across the Atlantic. Boeing on the other hand built the 747 SP for a long haul passenger aircraft, and claims that it is the fastest plane available for flights over 8,000 miles (non-stop from New York to Hong Kong). Of course that's still a 13+ hour flight : ) stu@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (01/27/89)
In article <0XqZasy00VA9QRp10p@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. > True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more >capacities to handle high level of noise ? No. Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system. >>Suppose you tell us >>what US manufacturers did to kill it. I think what killed it were high >>fuel consumption and limited range. >The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through >lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.) What kind of laws? More specifics, please. >Autonomie is not an issues I beleive. Concorde has a range long enough to >cover 10000 Km. in one shot. Baloney. If it did, we would be seeng Concorde nonstop routes from Paris (or London) to Hong Kong, Capetown, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero, and Tokyo. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) (01/28/89)
London to Vancouver? On a Condord? The extreme range of a Condord is Paris to Washington, DC. This is so close to the absolute maximum range that during the summer it arrives without normal fuel reserves and requires special handling from ATC. And makes that only because it flys without a full passenger load. ++PLS
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) (01/31/89)
>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. > True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more >capacities to handle high level of noise ? No. *Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system. So we are undercivilised ? Are we ? Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop we can't have it stoped ? Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries. But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean... >>Suppose you tell us >>what US manufacturers did to kill it. I think what killed it were high >>fuel consumption and limited range. >The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through >lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.) *What kind of laws? More specifics, please. Sorry I don't have the reference numbers... but, Instead of allocating money to the development of passenger railroads, congress, under heavy lobbying, passed many laws to develop highway construction. Even forcing states by law or by cutting its subsidies to maintenance. Where was that lobby from: Detroit... And this is only one example. >Autonomie is not an issues I beleive. Concorde has a range long enough to >cover 10000 Km. in one shot. *Baloney. If it did, we would be seeng Concorde nonstop routes from Paris *(or London) to Hong Kong, Capetown, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero, and *Tokyo. Thnaks to treat me as a liar. Besides Honk-Kong is much farther than 10000Kmfrom Paris. Just Paris-JFK is 6500km apart and I know that for instance Pres. F Mitterant visited Venezuela 2 years ago and flew straight from Paris. If a Paris Brasilia or else wasn't done it might be because there weren't enough pleople ready to pay the high price of a ticket. Jean-Marc. jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/31/89)
In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. >> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more >>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No. > > *Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system. > > So we are undercivilised ? Are we ? > Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to > the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop > we can't have it stoped ? > > Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries. > But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean... Calm down a bit, Jean-Marc. Note the quotes around 'developed' in the other writers' comment. If you hung around the US (or most any American) that would have been a tip-off that he was referring to the somewhat...um...enthusiastic lawyers dealing in product liability suits. Which has led to horrendously-expensive small aircraft, or *no* production of such aircraft, or no import of the very nice european private aircraft into the US. (SOCATA, for example, abandoned plans to sell their single-engined aircraft in the US mostly on the high cost of product liability. Too bad, the Tobago and Trinidad look like nice birds.)
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/31/89)
In article <87596@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > > Calm down a bit, Jean-Marc. Note the quotes around 'developed' in the > other writers' comment. If you hung around the US (or most any > American) that would have been a tip-off that he was referring to the > somewhat...um...enthusiastic lawyers dealing in product liability > suits. Oops...I should have said "If you were to hang around the US a bit longer..." Since Jean-Marc's message was posted from Carnegie-Mellon, and all.
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (02/01/89)
In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: > *Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system. > So we are undercivilised ? Are we ? > Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries. I think you are too busy being a feisty Frenchman to recognize that as a jest. Throwing in "uh," and quoting "developed" was intended as a swipe at the litigious American legal atmosphere, not as a slur on the French. Please calm down and accept my apology for not having appended a smiley. > >>Suppose you tell us what US manufacturers did to kill it. > >The same way automakers killed the passenger railroad industries. (Through > >lobbying in congress to get laws favoring them even indirectly.) > > *What kind of laws? More specifics, please. > > Sorry I don't have the reference numbers... but, [general stuff about > intra-American highway-rail skullduggery] I expected you to give specifics on what laws were passed by the US Congress to thwart the Concorde. > Concorde has a range long enough to cover 10000 Km. in one shot. > *Baloney. If it did, we would be seeng Concorde nonstop routes from Paris > *(or London) to Hong Kong, Capetown, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero, and > *Tokyo. > > Thnaks to treat me as a liar. If the shoe fits... > Besides Honk-Kong is much farther than 10000Kmfrom Paris. 9640 km, according to The World Almanac. > Just Paris-JFK is 6500km apart and I know that for instance Pres. > F Mitterant visited Venezuela 2 years ago and flew straight from Paris. Neither of these proves your assertion of 10000 km range. As a matter of fact, Paris-JFK flights don't prove that the range exceeds the Paris-JFK distance, which is where the argument started. If Concorde carried "Pres. F Mitterant" (I presume you mean Mitterand) nonstop from Paris to Venezuela, it didn't have a full load of passengers. > If a Paris Brasilia or else wasn't done it might be because there weren't > enough pleople ready to pay the high price of a ticket. Actually, there was talk of service from Paris to Rio de Janiero -- with a refuelling stop in Dakar. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (02/08/89)
In article <wXtB9Ny00VA9Q810hj@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. >> True. But it wasn't really a problem. Does the Europeans have more >>capacities to handle high level of noise ? No. > >*Just a less, uh, "developed" legal system. > >So we are undercivilised ? Are we ? >Do you really believe that if the plane makes a lot of noise to >the point that it is untolerable, just because we are underdevelop >we can't have it stoped ? > >Just typical of a certain attitude about foreign countries. >But just wait a while. If you can see what I mean... I lived under the approach to an airport for a while. ANYTHING that threatened to increase the amplitude or duration of the noise would be staunchly fought by the local residents. No political agenda. No nationalism. No need for the noise to be 'untolerable'. No particular bias about machines. A VERY LARGE desire for INCREASED PEACE AND QUIET rather than decreased. Concord was just moving the sound profile in the wrong direction no matter what airport it wanted to land at. People want less noise, not more, from newer aircraft; regardless of national origin. -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)