4 ms·

None of this to address the major problem that plagued and ultimately ended its run though, the exploding tires and subsequent damage.

MBCook 9y ago
I thought they fixed the tire issue? The thing that killed it was runway debris.
- mshook 9y ago
  They did, they got new tires which would be less likely to break into shards and installed liners in wing tanks so shock waves wouldn't pierce the fuselage. http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html
mshook 9y ago
It wasn't really the issue. Yes, that was a major problem but the real issue was the plane was old. The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. Yes, the airframe was aging slowly because high temperatures while flying would prevent humidity from building up but the maintenance on this aircrat was expensive as hell compared to more recent aircrafts. And it was a downward sliding slope. Anything was costlier on this thing because pretty much everything had to be custom built compared to other planes. And in the end, it stopped flying not only because AF and BA decided to retire their Concorde fleet but above all because Airbus retired the aircraft certificate of airworthiness. Is it political? Economical? Honestly, probably both. Airbus probably didn't want to get dragged in the mud again if anything else were to happen.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. By way of comparison, the last BA 747-100 flight was late 1999, on G-AWNO, which had been delivered to BOAC in 1973. The last 747-200 flight was not much later (2001, G-BDXO), despite being a far, far newer airframe (delivered 1987).
  - mshook 9y ago
    Right (I upvoted you actually) but by another way of comparison, it appears BA itself ended up having 19 747-100 altogether. Which is 5 more than the whole Concorde fleet. 167 747-100 were built says wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary Think about economy of scales for parts, training, maintenance, ...
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Also worth noting that BA got rid of all of their aircraft that had flight engineers relatively close together around that time (Concorde was the last to go).
esaym 9y ago
>exploding tires Tires? As in plural? I thought it only happened once and that was due to parts from another plane being left on the runway. Any aircraft with tires mounted under a wing (fuel tank) will have the potential that if a tire blows, a piece with enough force could knock a hole through it.
- gvb 9y ago
  "During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, 7 of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic." Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previous_tyre_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previou...
  - esaym 9y ago
    I see. Ouch!

MBCook 9y ago

I thought they fixed the tire issue? The thing that killed it was runway debris.

mshook 9y ago
They did, they got new tires which would be less likely to break into shards and installed liners in wing tanks so shock waves wouldn't pierce the fuselage. http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html

mshook 9y ago

It wasn't really the issue. Yes, that was a major problem but the real issue was the plane was old. The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. Yes, the airframe was aging slowly because high temperatures while flying would prevent humidity from building up but the maintenance on this aircrat was expensive as hell compared to more recent aircrafts. And it was a downward sliding slope. Anything was costlier on this thing because pretty much everything had to be custom built compared to other planes. And in the end, it stopped flying not only because AF and BA decided to retire their Concorde fleet but above all because Airbus retired the aircraft certificate of airworthiness. Is it political? Economical? Honestly, probably both. Airbus probably didn't want to get dragged in the mud again if anything else were to happen.

gsnedders 9y ago
> The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. By way of comparison, the last BA 747-100 flight was late 1999, on G-AWNO, which had been delivered to BOAC in 1973. The last 747-200 flight was not much later (2001, G-BDXO), despite being a far, far newer airframe (delivered 1987).
- mshook 9y ago
  Right (I upvoted you actually) but by another way of comparison, it appears BA itself ended up having 19 747-100 altogether. Which is 5 more than the whole Concorde fleet. 167 747-100 were built says wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary Think about economy of scales for parts, training, maintenance, ...
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Also worth noting that BA got rid of all of their aircraft that had flight engineers relatively close together around that time (Concorde was the last to go).

esaym 9y ago

>exploding tires Tires? As in plural? I thought it only happened once and that was due to parts from another plane being left on the runway. Any aircraft with tires mounted under a wing (fuel tank) will have the potential that if a tire blows, a piece with enough force could knock a hole through it.

gvb 9y ago
"During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, 7 of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic." Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previous_tyre_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previou...
- esaym 9y ago
  I see. Ouch!