This plane could cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours. Why did it fail?

Yorum Sayısı: 15498

  • King Neptune
    King Neptune 1 saat önce

    It wasn't made by computers they used math 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Vincent McGrath
    Vincent McGrath 1 saat önce

    USA jealousy

  • Troy Booker
    Troy Booker 2 saat önce

    I hardly call close to 30yrs service a failure.. A very unique joint venture aircraft encompassing the best talent from France & Great Britain

  • Alex Gaming
    Alex Gaming 3 saat önce

    Concorde

  • Earl Driskill
    Earl Driskill 3 saat önce

    The Air Force used Oklahoma City as super sonic guinea pigs? Hope they got sued.

  • Din ful of sin
    Din ful of sin 3 saat önce

    now you have to wait 3 and a half hours to get threw airport security. we are going backwards. cant go to the moon anymore either.WTF?!?!?!

  • AA TT
    AA TT 5 saat önce

    It didn't fail. It served a niche market successfully and safely for many decades. One or two accidents caused over thirty years doesn't count as unsafe. That's saying a jet isn't safe because of one issue that caused one accident. Serving a niche market for many years, and being the only success in its class is not a failure. That's like saying Filet Minot is a culinary failure because not everyone eats it every month.

  • Leo Mark Saruda
    Leo Mark Saruda 5 saat önce

    Well I found free $6425a money making system that is really working:(just go to)
    greatworks.club/?XghTR Great work...

  • Edwin Riley
    Edwin Riley 6 saat önce

    Poor Sting....I don't think he enjoyed the concord at all!

  • David Edwards
    David Edwards 10 saat önce

    American telling us that flying so high causes damage to the ozone layer. And yer the American Air Force have spy planes that fly that high for 10 hours at a time. Perhaps the problem for America was that the Concord was Anglo-French. If they believe the damage to the ozone bit, they would stop their spy planes too.

  • Charlie Brandwood
    Charlie Brandwood 10 saat önce

    It wasn’t down to the concord tires, it was a piece off the gear from the aircraft which landed before it, the piece on this plane before was labelled as scrap but the engineer put it on the plane anyway. This piece obviously failed and stayed on the runway where the concord then went to take off when the wheel hit this piece it punctured the tire and sent the scrap metal up into the wing puncturing the fuel tank and the fuel ignited and exploded. Nothing down to the plane at fault

  • Larry Farr
    Larry Farr 10 saat önce

    Ppl

  • ruger51995
    ruger51995 11 saat önce

    God id love that could go to Europe all the time 😍

  • EOS Related
    EOS Related 11 saat önce

    It failed because if it was around today, flat earthers would have another victory on their hands being able to show that even from the concord at almost double the height you cant see or be able to record any curvature.

  • eyewit
    eyewit 11 saat önce

    This kind of plane would be perfect for London to have an NFL team -- cutting down on travel time by many hours. But the old concorde had too few seats to be economically viable, so next time the designers would need to increase the seats to over 200.

  • doctoristina
    doctoristina 12 saat önce

    it DID NOT fail, there was debris on the runway which the engines injested and the debris damaged the engines, the pilot who took-off before the Concorde even contacted the control-tower on his radio to inform them that he saw debris on the runway as he was taking-off, they didn't think it was that bad and told the Concorde pilot it was OK to take-off....BIG MISTAKE !

  • Rana Vickram Singh
    Rana Vickram Singh 13 saat önce

    CONCORDE, the best looking and best named Aircraft Ever..The Name Concored says it all

  • Jon Gover
    Jon Gover 14 saat önce

    I don't believe it only took one sum to design concord

  • Billy Rubin
    Billy Rubin 14 saat önce

    The reason Concord (forget the superflouous 'e' added to appease the French) 'failed' is very simple. Heathrow runways are inspected -- from memory -- at least six times a day. Why? Very simple; if an aircraft taking off runs over something that fell off another aifcraft taking off it often gets picked up and flung into the aircraft's wing. Exactly as happened to the French plane. How often were the French inspecting the runways of Charles De Gaulle?? Answer; a lot less -- and a lot less thoroughly -- than Heathrow does. The only reason why Cocord 'failed' was because the French did not treat it seriously. They NEVER flew their Concord's as intensively as British Concord's. This is NOT fable and hubris. I knew someone well who worked in Concord support who dealt with sourcing parts for the aircraft which, as time went by, needed remanufacturing. And as the British Concord's were worked hard, it meant the support teams were faced with having to remanufacture parts as they became out of stock and no longer manufactured. The British logistic's team used to have meetings with their French counterpartes at which they would say; we are intending to get part 'X' remanufactured; are you -- the French -- willing to contribute? To which the French would respond; we do not 'ave a problem wizz ziss part'; but eef you are going to get ziss part remanufactured we weel 'ave one od zees.Pardon the pseudo 'froglatere' speak, but I am quoting exactly what the French used to say. Were they willing to part fund ANY parts needing to be re-manufactured??About as much as President De Gaulle was willing to learn English. With good reason the man I have mentoned utterly detested the French. As an example of what the French were like, he told me the question of how long we would fly Concord and how long the French would fly it came up in conversation (related to the need to remanufacture parts).The Answer?? We weel fly Concorr one day more zan you! It is not generally known that the five British Concord's produced 25% of British Airways TOTAL profits from less than 10% of its total aircraft. I recall reading an article in the National Geographic magazine. It was all about how they -- the Americans -- were going to build a REAL supersonic passenger aircraft to carry 250 (from memory) people and fly at 1300 mph+. The article was dripping with ego and sneering, treating Concord like something unmentionable sticking to their shoes. What happened?? Lockheed's wonder plane -- with its massive swing-wing hinges that got bigger and bigger -- till they were having to talk about using Beryllium -- an extremely light metal but is nigh on impossible -- of not actually -- to machine. At which point they gave up. And similarly; the Boeing 2707 which won the contest to build a supersonic transport had EXACTLY the same problem. The wing hinges got bigger and bigger as the model of it got fatter and fatter till the project died. I don't recall seeing another National Geographic article sneering at Concord ! ! Oh yes! Just one more thing: what are the Anericans doing now to build a 'hypersonic' 'Concord'??? Answer: Use the failed death trap the Russian Tu144 to find out how to build their new 'wonder plane.' Question: Why don't they talk to BAe Systems about how to make one and sell then a Concord to practice on??? They could fill it with National Geographic magazines to test what loads it could carry.

  • Bartek Pełka
    Bartek Pełka 18 saat önce

    Because DC-10 exists.
    That's why.

  • Cadillac Kingdom
    Cadillac Kingdom 21 saat önce

    The problem with Concorde, is that it was far too small. It needed to have a 300 passenger capacity, so a much wider and a much longer fuselage was needed. I am sure that now in 2018, we would have the technology to build engines that could perform as well as the old Rolls Royce Olympus engines, but use only 60% of the fuel, and be much quieter.
    It seems that manufacturers are showing off the 787 dream liner, etc but what they are showing us is a plane that looks like a pre Concorde aircraft, and they expect us all to say WOW. sorry that will not cut it, we need a super Concorde now, with 300+ passengers, to fly at Mach 2, be reliable and efficient. it can be done, but no one will come up with the cash.

  • Ken Clark
    Ken Clark 22 saat önce

    This plane was way ahead of its time. Should still be flying

  • ACE OF SPADES
    ACE OF SPADES 22 saat önce

    ISupersonic flight was no safe and after the accident that killed over a hundred passangers, people stopped flying with concorde

  • Adi
    Adi 23 saat önce

    I feel like in the future, they're gonna offer a choice between a normal commercial plane and a supersonic commercial plane and the supersonic plane is gonna be more expensive. They would just turn it into a marketing strategy and keep the normal ones well after supersonic air travel had been established.

  • Ben Collins
    Ben Collins 23 saat önce

    I support any airline, as long as they are eco friendly / don't destroy the ozone....

  • Piccadilly
    Piccadilly 1 gün önce

    THE DC !) IS WHY CONCORDE FAILED IT KILLEd AIR FRANCE

  • tectorama
    tectorama 1 gün önce

    It was 60's technology, and uneconomical to operate. Production costs were written off by the government, so effectively they didn't
    cost BA anything to purchase.

  • Evan Heit
    Evan Heit 1 gün önce

    THE SNOOT DROOPED

  • 7thSmurf
    7thSmurf 1 gün önce

    NOT ALL VOX videos are total GARBAGE:. this one was good..

  • Daniel Wise
    Daniel Wise 1 gün önce

    Hate to say it, but I fly regularly and there is no curvature just a straight horizon... There are Pilot testimonies... This is more programming...

  • Dora Garza
    Dora Garza 1 gün önce

    Its a gorgeous plane 💯%

  • Chips O'Toole
    Chips O'Toole 1 gün önce

    From the evidence presented, it seems highly likely that deficiencies were apparent due to proboscis flaccidity. Otherwise known as a Drooping Snoot.

  • Jeremy Marsh
    Jeremy Marsh 1 gün önce

    I have witnessed fighter jets flying by at mach 2. They fly right by and almost disappear from the horizon before the earth shaking sound comes.

  • Joe Ceonnia
    Joe Ceonnia 1 gün önce

    this plane did not fail it just got old and was retired and they just didn't build any more I'm sure there's a good reason I just can't think of any reason why they wouldn't build anymore, except maybe the cost didn't justify the means

  • Niall Dillon
    Niall Dillon 1 gün önce

    Has it not taken the titanic 106 years and counting to cross the Atlantic? 🤔

  • GooglR Ratings
    GooglR Ratings 1 gün önce

    Airbus is the Alpha airliner manufacturer now.

  • Boxhawk
    Boxhawk 1 gün önce

    Its not rocket science. Cutting off three hours of flight time was not worth thousands of dollars in the cost of a ticket. Case closed.

  • LumberTycoon
    LumberTycoon 1 gün önce

    Can it cross the PaCIFic Ocean ?

  • Milwaukee Brewers
    Milwaukee Brewers 1 gün önce

    Droop the snoot, so the snoot was drooped.... is this what inspired kanye?

    [Verse: Kanye West]
    Poopy-di scoop
    Scoop-diddy-whoop
    Whoop-di-scoop-di-poop
    Poop-di-scoopty
    Scoopty-whoop
    Whoopity-scoop, whoop-poop
    Poop-diddy, whoop-scoop
    Poop, poop
    Scoop-diddy-whoop
    Whoop-diddy-scoop
    Whoop-diddy-scoop, poop

  • Alex Hutchinson
    Alex Hutchinson 1 gün önce

    Because a piece of a Boeing fell off and got picked up by Concorde's wheels on take-off and it got sent through the wing skins and into the fuel tanks.