Talk:Concorde

Museums

Is there a list somewhere where the airframes currently are ? --Jor70 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article, under the See also-section: Concorde aircraft histories Paaln (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice!, thks --Jor70 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On February 5, 2010, it was announced that the aircraft at Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace was to undergo a restoration program to return two of its engines to operating condition to enable the aircraft to taxi under its own power. Additionally, the aircraft's engines and systems are to be inspected and repaired. The effort will be undertaken by a group of volunteers, largely made up of a group of Air France technicians who worked on Concorde's before their retirement

I suggest to remove this text for the moment. It's only a press announcement (it has not its place in an encyclopedia), no serious study has been issued at this time. During the past, similar announcements have been done (example : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article605760.ece in "The Times" in 2006)... and the final result was : nothing at all!!! The same actors: we can suspect it's not more serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.70.120 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can give several reasons describing why this project is NOT SERIOUS. See my comments on Flight Global forums http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/forums/air-france-concorde-to-taxi-again-under-own-power-46134.aspx

I have just removed again this pollution, no propaganda and uncertain news/project on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.255.12 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the information is cited from reliable sources, you have no clear consensus to remove this info. It's been restored, again. Please do no not remeove again without a clear consesnus to do so. Thanks. (It took me a bit to find the discussion, since it's not under a heading that descibes it correctly.) - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you don't have results yet to believe it, it would not be the first time that the medias (and BBC of course) will be wrong, see in 2006. If tommorow the BBC say that a group will go to the moon, do you believe it without enough proofs ? It's the problem here, all the sources show a fact without enough details ....

"A group of French volunteer engineers is keeping one of the youngest Concordes (F-BTSD) in near-airworthy condition at the Le Bourget Air and Space Museum in Paris. In February 2010, it was announced that they intend to restore F-BTSD's engines so it can taxi."

It's 100% wrong, only a part of SD is kept "alive" => mainly cockpit, electronics systems, nose, and one hydraulic circuit on the three, so no engines, fuel and all the important things you need to say "near-airworthy condition".

The taxi project is not the project of the team who take car of SD since 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.255.12 (talk • contribs)

Small Windows

At Concorde’s altitude, the air density is very low; a breach of cabin integrity would result in a loss of pressure severe enough so that the plastic emergency oxygen masks installed on other passenger jets would not be effective, and passengers would quickly suffer from hypoxia despite quickly donning them. Concorde, therefore, was equipped with smaller windows to reduce the rate of loss in the event of a breach, a reserve air supply system to augment cabin air pressure, and a rapid descent procedure to bring the aircraft to a safe altitude.{ citation needed}

I think this is wrong, the windows were small to reduce the radiation in-flow as the glass was typically more transparent to cosmic radiation than the metal fuselage skin and reflective insulation. A secondary affect would be reduced air outflow in event of a window failure, but I don't believe that this was the design reason for them.Petebutt (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Most cosmic radiation is so high energy it goes right through the hull/passengers/everything without even breathing hard, never mind the windows. Shielding is more or less impossible. It's not a remote consideration; actually net cosmic radiation was lower for Concorde- the intensity was higher due to altitude, but they got to the destination twice as fast, so the overall effect was lower- a complete non issue. (They did have a radiation counter in case there was a solar storm, but AFAIK they never decreased altitude due to it.)- Wolfkeeper 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in some books, but I can't find a good online reference right now. Check out the second hit here though: [1] Nunn's applied respiratory physiology (1993): "Concorde, however, operates above the altitude at which oxygen would be ... Precautions include the small size of the windows, reserve capacity for ..."- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref has now been installed beside the relivant section. Nice find! Kyteto (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen masks have the primary purpose of keeping people in their seats to avoid overbalancing the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.54.26 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of Concord

A while ago I added a bit to the lede about the English/French meaning of 'Concord/e', but it's dissappeared, and I don't feel like checking the million and one edit summaries of 'trim/cleanup' to figure out the who's/what's/wherefore's, but I just wanted to ask here if I am the only person who believes that it is not unreasonable to think that a) readers won't necessarily know what the word means when they arrive here (it's hardly in common use outside of meaning a plane), and b), that being the name of the plane, it deserves to be mentioned in the lede. This is after all a huge article even after trimming, and even though there is an explanatoin in main test, there is no obvious 'name' section. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems bothered either way. On reflection, I went one further and introduced a name section to incorporate the 'e' info that doesn't quite make sense being in the development section. [2]. I presume someone will immediately object and revert, but you can't say I haven't waited long enough for feedback here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MPH/KPH

1350MPH is 2170KPH. NOT 2270KPH WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY STATED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.177.139 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed The conversions have been corrected (not by me). -84user (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

transatlantic record need to be changed

It should state fastest commercial transatlantic flight. SR71 holds the fastest transatlantic record,1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 sec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Came by...

Hi again folks, I just came by in the middle of the night and tidied a few layout and article-flow things that grabbed my eye, all documented in the edit summary. Hope all are acceptable. Things I didn't or couldn't do were (1) move one or more of the rank of right-thumbnail images in the article sections up into the space below the infobox, hogged by the Contents box – they would need to be able to flow down if the contents were hidden; and (2) make the specifications table 2-column. Template looked too bewildering to me without looking deeper.

Always an inspiring article to come back and read. Best to you here, Trev M  ~  02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone didn't like the use of the table rather than the "that's what we use" aircraft see-also box. If this does nothing else than what it appears to do on the page - act as a kind of crib sheet - then it may be one of those templates that really doesn't need to exist: plenty of other articles use just raw lists of links. The alternative is pasted below, for comparison.

Extended content
See also Related development Bristol 223 Sud Aviation Super-Caravelle Comparable aircraft Boeing 2707 Lockheed L-2000 Tupolev Tu-144 North American XB-70 Valkyrie Related lists List of airliners Other related articles Concorde aircraft histories BAC 221 Handley Page HP.115 LAPCAT

• Trev M  ~  02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need to be insulting. I didn't disparage your table, or call it names. When you've apologized, we can discuss this further. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, BilCat, sincere apologies, I didn't mean to be rude – the history is a debate I was witness to a while back on template proliferation and attempts to limit it; it's also well past the time I should be asleep here. The layout's also parked here so I can find it easily if I come back to it to try to make it part of the template, if that's more appropriate. I think you would agree, whatever the solution, an even spread of info is preferable to a trickle down the margin. Best to you, Trev M  ~  02:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and my apologies for being short. I do think the table is a good idea for the template, though, and worth discussing at least. By using the template, we can change the layout in thousands of articles, rather than one by one. I'll see what I can do about getting the discussion started. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Trev M, your layout looks alright to me. It would be a good option for {{Aircontent}}. Maybe specify a column width like {{reflist}} does. -fnlayson (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't sleep now! I used percentages to divide up the table width, so that whatever width the page, the column width remains proportional, and 4 columns remain. Even if they are very long article names, they just get wrapped if the page is very narrow (experiment above). If wrapping became an issue, a piped link like [[extremely long aircraft and manufacturer's name|shorter name]] (shorter name) could be advised in the template. Even if awake, brain not up to template fixing now. Best, Trev M  ~  05:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a big problem with the idea Trev M but it may be better to bring it up at Template talk:Aircontent with a note informing the project of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, by using a column template within the Aircontent template, a few days ago; glad this is acceptable. Now adding another section:

Popular culture

The section Popular culture contains no content other than the template linking to a tiny section of a very large Main article. The page it links to is not by any means the main page for the section, as the link implies.

Can the link be added to the first column of the following "See also" section, where it really belongs?

Is this more about the heading's accompanying edit comment to deter unsuitable aditions to the whole article in General? If so, could this be accomplished in another way? Best, Trev M  ~  20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If some text is added to the section, some users will take that as an invitation to add unreferenced and usually minor appearances. -fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So how about the link be added to the first column of the following "See also" section? Trev M  ~  23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see a possibility that a user might then see that we 'don't have' a popular culture section, and thus create one and litter it with smatterings of both relivant information and highly obscure entries. Technically speaking, it'd be a good idea to put it in the See Also section, but from a working editing point of view it'd only encourage "creation in absense" as I choose to call it. Kyteto (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I share slightly the concern that a few lines in the section is likely to be the thin end of a wedge of inadmissable material, so looking for a way to essentially leave it as it is but fix the semantics issue: (2) This use of template Main is actually flawed: it refers a user to a small section of a page that is not a "child" of this one; if I understand the Main template's correct use, it should be to the top of a page whose contents is a child of this article, and the contents of this section a summary of it. (3) I couldn't find a suitable template to do explicitly what this one is intended to do, which could be simply switched over. It would say See section "Concorde" of article Aircraft in fiction. It would not say See **also** anything, because there is not also anything else except the template in the section, and I think we agree that this is the best way for it to stay. (4) But Aircraft in fiction is a massive, unweildy page, that personally I would rather not want to load if using my slow connection to look at just the tiny relevant section.

So I propose transcluding the small section of Aircraft in fiction to the Concorde "section" Popular culture. I've done enough of such transclusions to know the pitfalls to avoid. Template Main can then say just Aircraft in fiction, without the section #, for if people wanted to read about other aircraft. This is the only authentic solution, as all templates for referral to pages (that are not diambiguations) assume there is already some information in the section, as per, I guess, WP guidelines, which there is not here because of the above content creep issue. Hopefully the html comment and transclusion "template" rather than the section contents will dissuade novice editors from adding trivial content, as well as furnishing the few lines at the fiction page. Trev M  ~  12:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

why did the concorde fail to fly in 2000 and how did it crash

don't you thuink it is kinda weird how no one talks about how the concorde crashed?????