This article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5195964.stm

claims that concorde spent 2 tonnes of fuel taxiing to the runway? Is that right?WolfKeeper 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Orlebar's book (6th ed, P84) mentions loading 1.4 tonnes for taxiing at Heathrow on a 'typical' flight. TimS00 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the claim Benn replied "E stands also for Ecosse", the French name for Scotland., more precisely "Dogfight: The Transatlantic Battle over Airbus" by Ian McIntyre states (page 20):

Benn also, inevitably, had a disgruntled letter form a man living north of the border. "I live in Scotland, and you talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." This small-minded son of Caledonia got an accommodating reply, but Benn let off stream in his diary—"I wrote back and said that it was also 'E' for 'Ecosse'—and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation as well!"

The book is also nice enough to give reference to the original source: Tony Benn, Diaries, Vol. 1: Out of the Wilderness, 1963-1967 (London: Osprey Publishing Company, 1988), ISBN 0091706602 I believe. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that book, but it would be awesome if someone had (if your local library has it, you can just do a quick check of the quote) so we can cite original sources.

-- Woseph 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the 1988 paperback published by Arrow. This quote is given on page 514. Drutt (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Quote "Both were largely funded by their respective governments as a way of gaining some foothold in the aircraft market that was until then dominated by the United States." It's actually wrong, since the comet had a pretty big "foothold" being the only jet airliner of the time. I can only imagine the original writer doesn't know much about the time.

I've modified the statement. Both companies had more than a foothold in commercial and jet aviation at that time. The Comet, the VC10 and other British airliners are evidence enough. --Jumbo 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from article:

"...producing a noticeable temperature gradient along the length of the cabin"

In the cabin part of the fuselage, outside temperature had a gradient from 94C in front, to 90C at the very back. It would surprise me if this small gradient was noticable directly on the inside. Rather, I think what was felt was possibly just a gradient caused by the airco, having nothing to do with the outside fuselage gradient.

If this is a case of semantics, than it should be made clear that "noticable" does not mean "noticable for the passengers".

link for gradient: http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/jet_aircraft/aerospatiale/concorde/

Nicolas Herdwick 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could definitely feel how the windows warmed up if you touched them. The heating was most noticeable in the lavatory. It was quite warm in there and the heat would be rather uncomfortable if one had to sit for any length of time. But in terms of noticing a difference from front to back, no, it wasn't noticeable as a passenger. 1995hoo 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be nice to add a picture of the earth's curvature as seen from Concorde in the trivia, such as this one?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39489000/jpg/_39489257_barbaracurvature203.jpg

I was wondering whether the windows were flat or gave an increased sense of curvature due to being curved themselves?

Now that I think about it, the "livery limits" trivia should mention the problems with the blue Pepsi livery, and also link to a picture of that unique livery.

Nicolas Herdwick 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the article doesn't mention any of the senior designers and engineers behind Concorde. Those watching this page may be interested to know that I've added an article on Sir George Edwards who, besides his many other achievements, led the British Concorde team.

JH 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a lot of external links. Ideally these should be included in the article.

But I'm not clear we have the rights to use the videos that are linked to (they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.)

I'm also not clear that we should go into as much detail as some of the linked to websites do; in some cases they seem to be more or less unique references; and we don't have copyright for much of the material.

What does everyone else think?WolfKeeper 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that neither facts nor links impinge copyright.
--64.31.159.157 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though perhaps I should log in before saying so.  :-)
--Baylink (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement, and no citations over the ozone layer destruction/seeding claim, so I've hidden that section (not deleted it) for the time being. Does anyone have any citations one way or the other? --BadWolf42 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have a good cite that Concorde does indeed increase ozone depletion at cruise alitudes, so the last sentence in the original text was correct. Therefore the suggestion the (uncited) dissent was misplaced is contradicted in the very next sentence. It's therefore just hearsay.

It's also not exactly neutral, is it? It claims it's a myth that an anti-SST scientist used to ironcially quash her production. Perhaps the skin cancer quote was unfair, but was it this scientist that said this? Citation?

WolfKeeper: if you want the skin cancer comment in there, please cite it and rewrite the paragraph to be NPOV. I feel my rephrasing is both NPOV and covers the environmental opposition. --BadWolf42 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have several major disagreements with your edits:

• your edits imply or can be read to imply that Concorde damaged or would greatly damage the Ozone layer to a significant degree, whereas the cite states that the smaller fleet of Concorde and the lower level that it flew than the planned Boeing aeroplanes it would not have done so.
• the cited source (that I added after only a couple of minutes looking) said that different studies came to different conclusions, including some that said that the ozone level would increase, others that said a decrease, and stated that one of the effect of nitrous oxide was to remove chlorine atoms from the upper atmosphere (hint: CFC = *Chlorinated* FluoroCarbons, which are *currently* forming ozone holes).
• you removed the history where claims were made that SSTs including Concorde would destroy the ozone layer, and you did so without actually using google or doing any other checking. In other words, you deleted information you didn't like the sound of.
• your understanding of NPOV is utterly flawed. NPOV is about *capturing* POVs not removing POVs. It couldn't be, because everything ever written is *somebodies* POV, so the wikipedia would be empty. You have just deleted POVs with your edit, without any research, repeatedly. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV: "Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias."
• you didn't try adding cite tags for information that you claim was unsupported (but you didn't even try to check)...

In short. Stop. Stop doing this. Your work is bad. Please stop. You are damaging the article this way.WolfKeeper 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have several major disagreements with the way you work too.

Retaining a seriously point of view and uncited paragraph that then contradicts itself a sentence later is one of these.

Failing to address these concerns even after rejecting an attempt to be neutral is another.

This article is a mess. It's full of unsubstantiated claims, lists, poor English and bias. Let's try to make it better, not keep it in it's current state.

• My edits do not imply there was serious damage, they state clearly there would be some damage (the cite says this). The paragraph was not comparing levels of damage with the 2707, it said the destruction was a myth. False.

• You did indeed provide the cite, after I invited the two diametrically opposite points of view in the paragraph to do so. The cite substantiated the non-encyclopedic dissent added by User:61.68.178.83. Disagree? At no point in either of the long nor short conclusions is there any indication that ozone will increase (as the poor version I cut claims), all models suggest a decrease, by varying amounts.

• I deleted an allegation that a particular scientist, labelled 'anti-SST', gave that specific quote and that it had been a major factor. This is because it's uncited, non-NPOV and wrapped up in a palpable rant about irony and myths. If it's a genuine quote, the scientist can be named or his staunchly anti-SST viewsa are on record, then by all means put them back. With a cite. Otherwise it's simply unsubstantiated, wooly, inflamatory commentary. I'm not saying the information shouldn't be there, I'm simply saying it shouldn't be there in the form it's in. That's why initially I simply commented it out instead of deleting it wholesale.

• I'm familiar with the requirements of NPOV and it does not say that all points of view shall be allowed their own bias, nor that one biased piece appended by a diametrically opposite statement qualifies as NPOV. All views are to be represented without bias.

For example, compare the paragraph as it was:

One great irony in the quashing of Concorde's mass production was the myth of an ozone threat. An anti-SST scientist suggested that the jet would produce exhaust which would cause the destruction of the earth's ozone layer, causing "a massive outbreak of skin cancer" and other effects, and this quickly became an accepted view, contributing greatly to the movement against the SST. But, when actual science was applied to the question, it was found that Concorde exhaust emissions, containing NOx, at some altitudes would actually increase the ozone layer to a tiny degree. This is true for tropospheric flight, where ozone is a pollutant, but incorrect for stratospheric flight, where the increase in NOx depletes ozone. The different outcomes are a result of pressure and pollutant concentration differences. But whilst arguments were made over whether the aggregate effects were slight increases or decreases, the science agreed that Concorde really would have made no significant large scale changes, unlike CFCs.

I think it's fair to say there's a considerable level of POV to the second. It's an irony, it's a myth, an anti-SST scientist (surely just a scientist?), actual science. Then a totally contrary POV section before finally a sentence that seeks to present the facts neutrally. Unfortunately that belies its bias with unneccessary emphasis (really would) and a passing throw-away about CFCs instead of reasoning that the effect could perhaps be written off as negligable compared to them.

with the one that now stands:

Concorde produces nitrogen oxides in her exhaust, which are damaging to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes she cruises. It has been pointed out that other, lower-flying, airliners actually produce ozone during their flights in the troposphere, but vertical transit of gases between the two is highly restricted[9]. There have been accusations that the anti-SST lobby overstated the case for ozone degredation to suit their political ends.

I agree it's not perfect, I don't have the skin cancer quote for sure, but it states both cases: Concorde produces NOx, we know that damages ozone at altitude, lower-flying airliners produce ozone, but they don't mix. Sure if you want to mention the competing factors, go ahead, but none actually increase the concentration of ozone, unlike as claimed above. Then there's a comment about a distinctly identifable lobby against Concorde and other SSTs talked it up to their advantage. No bias one way or ther other, both views address with your excellent cite.

Wherefore the problem here?

• Yes, I don't have time to check the large number of uncited claims in this article, but to flag the ones that need doing is a step in the right direction so we can identify them for later targeting. I can put an uncited article banner in too, if you prefer?

Thank you for your opinion of my work, I disagree and find the current article shoddy. The feature article application seems to agree with me. I intend to work to improve it. Reverting to blatently non-NPOV paragraphs with no coherant structure (quote above) does not help this, and is in my opinion, bad work. If you disagree with an edit, please change it, but don't revert to a worse state. And I don't think many would agree the paragraph I excised is acceptable. --BadWolf42 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly true of individual aircraft, but to refer to the whole class of Concord aircraft is rediculous.

Concorde is a bit of a weird case really. It's always singular for example. Given that it's definitely feminine in the singular, and given that Concorde is always singular, then I argue that the class of Concorde must be feminine also.WolfKeeper 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be one or two places where it it's a bit arguable, but in most places it should be 'her'. In the collective plural you could consider 'they' I suppose.WolfKeeper 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't true, and there's no requirement to call an aircraft or a ship "she", just a stylistic preference. There's nothing wrong with "it". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is crazy! Calling a ship "she" is NOT a stylistic preference, but rather, a justified rule of the English language. There is deep history behind this. One of these roots is in the Latin language, the source of lots of things in English (other rules come from German or Danish), where the word for "ship" is feminine.

Interestingly, in Russian, a ship is masculine, and in German it is neuter.

As a matter of practive in the USA, a ship is supposed to be feminine (though lots of people don't follow this rule, either), but an airplane, being a much newer form of technology, is neuter. Therefore, it is correct to call an aircraft "it", but ships are supposed to be "she". You can learn a lot from finding out about the historical background behind things, rather than just thinking that they are arbitrary choices. ('A matter of style'.)

Interestingly, small spacecraft are called "it", but hypothetical large spacecraft of the future (e.g. the starship "Enterprise"), being more like ships, of course, are called "her".

Concorde is pretty consistently referred to as she by BA[1]WolfKeeper 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC seems to skirt the issue by avoiding it or she.WolfKeeper 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That first word is always spelled "definite" in English, so you have misspelled it.

Furthermore, the word "Concorde" is never a pronoun (where did you get that crazy idea from?), but rather "Concorde" is always a noun. Let me give you a list of the ordinary pronouns in English: {I, you, he, she, it, him, her, we, they, them}.

In addition, there are the possessive pronouns, the interrogative pronouns, and the relative pronouns, that have other grammatical uses.

DAW72.146.8.51 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See the extensive history on this topic. It apparently is a aberrant but accepted nomenclature for this iconic technology. FWIW Bzuk 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm of the opinion the first line of the article should start "The Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde was...", not simply "Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde was...".

The objection to this is that Concorde is a pronoun and doesn't take the definate article.

I think this misses a subtlety of the English language, that of Concorde acting both as a pronoun and as type designator. In this sense it's acting as a type designator, in the same way that "Boeing 747" does. The qualifying of it with the manufacturers is what effects this change in voice. "Concorde was..." but "The BAC Concorde was..."

I'm not that concerned about it, but as it's the first line, it's a little nigglesome. Is this just me? The opening sentence doesn't seem to parse at all well otherwise.

Perhaps we don't need the manufacturers here at all? Then it would scan. --BadWolf42 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really tricky.WolfKeeper 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Concorde needs to be refered to as a concept rather than as a physical instantiation wherever possible; that seems to be the clear convention. And I suppose you can refer to Concorde as a concept as her, so it's female.WolfKeeper 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And since there is only one concept of Concorde, putting a 'The' in front of it gives you an instance (example) of Concorde, rather than the concept; otherwise it would be too confusing. So if particular Concorde aircraft(s) did something that Concorde wouldn't normally do, (like crash or lose part of the tail) then it's just about acceptable to add a definite article; the, her.WolfKeeper 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is in the first sentence we're referring to Concorde the type rather than Concorde the concept. See, for example, the first line of Boeing 747. Concorde itself is subject to a few strange language exceptions, one is the application of simply 'Concorde' to each occurance of one, no matter that they number more than one. In referring to her history, it's therefore correct to call her simply 'Concorde' or 'she', but her type designator doesn't get subject to this.

For example, you won't have ever heard 'And here comes Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde'. 'And here comes an Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde', would be used. --BadWolf42 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this article is lists, duplicated information and uncited material, and some text reads from a fan's eye view, not NPOV.

A few lists are OK, but we should try to put as much into prose as possible, I think. A reference storming session would be good, too. I'd encourage anyone editing a section to flag with {{fact}} any hard fact, or contentious assertation that ought to be cited, so we can readily spot what needs work.

I see this article had a short-lived featured nomination, the criticisms seem the same, let's try to fix them.

Cheers. --BadWolf42 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that there are NO policies stating that an article about a british plane does not require that article be written in british english, nor does it prevent anyone from changing it. Certainly an article about the Italian government is not required to be written in italian, and if it were, wikipedia offers no regulations to changing it to english.Aspensti 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Wp:mos#National varieties of English, that is. Please don't continue to change it. --Guinnog 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that someone put a note in the "Paris crash" section of the article about using the British spelling "tyres" as to a British aircraft. I believe it was a French aircraft that went down, not a British one. :-) 1995hoo 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

True. In France they speak French though, not English, and certainly not American English. Which is why we have "tyres" and not "tires". --Guinnog 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with it overall, I just found that comment funny. The article should be consistent throughout, which to me is a stronger rationale than the "British aircraft" pooint in that comment. 1995hoo 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the British aircraft angle, people would attempt to change the whole article in one edit. If they were successful then it would still be self-consistent (except with the MOS).WolfKeeper 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Have you seen this and this? --Guinnog 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to inform you that the words "English", "British", etc., are ALWAYS to be capitalized. And I am an American, myself, too, but we love the word "English" and the English language & people. Please do not be ignorant about capitalization. I have gone through this section and capitalized the words that need to be capitalized, but weren't before. The following paragraph also contained a "double-negative", which inverted the whole meaning of what he was trying to say. I have corrected that. The Wilipedia is also always capitalized, and so is the word "Internet", as I am continually pointing out. In English (yes, English), there is a big difference between a common noun and a proper noun.

DAW 72.146.8.51 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A point that was entirely missing in the above, is that in France, when they are learning/speaking English, they generally speak British English, and use its peculiar spellings, etc.! So, if you demand consistency in spelling, go ahead and use the British spelling, because in France, when they are using English, they use British English.

I also agree that consistency within the article is a far more important point than rather the airliner involved was a "French" one or a "British" one. I also think that making that distinction is a silly one: a Concorde is a "British-French" one.

Equally silly would be arguing whether a particular F-16 fighter plane was a Dutch one, a Belgian one, a Danish one, a Norwegian one, a Japanese one, or an American one, depending on which country that that plane was manufactured in! It is helpful that all of them are all from an American design, so we just call it "American", anyway.

More difficult is the "Tornado" fighter plane, which was designed and manufactured by all three of the European countries of the U.K., Germany, and Italy. Once again, deciding on whether to call it British, German, or Italian, depending upon where it was manufactured, is rather silly. The Tornado is British-German-Italian, for Pete's sake. DAW 72.146.8.51 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a discussion page, not an article. It is customary to not edit the comments of other posters, even to correct spelling and grammar. In addition, some people use double negatives for emphasis in informal settings (such as talk pages), while others do not accept the "mathametizing" of the English language by some grammarians. - BillCJ 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding of the general en.WP policy on this is that AE/BE spelling choices should be consistant within any one article, and that in general, they should probably be AE unless the topic of the article itself is something British. IOW: edits to make spelling/usages choices consistent are acceptable, but some judgement should be exercised in choosing your target. I, personally, would have no problems with this article choosing BE, but I'm not Jimbo.  :-)
--Baylink (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a warning not to use American English. As both the UK and France use day-month-year International Dating, I'd like to add a warning not to use American Dating. I assume that this is non-controversial, but I'd like to check first. --Jumbo 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article had far too much trivial nonsense regarding the details of the final flights of the Concorde, celebrations involving it's retirement, and even an arduous list of who all was on the final flight. This is a textbook example of article bloat with trivial details, and as much as a teary-eyed diehard Concorde fanboy must have enjoyed reading it, it simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I've cut out quite a bit. --Junky 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was forced to revert your changes. You removed a picture of the chief Concorde pilot, you removed details about whether Concorde could ever fly again (the answer is maybe...). I do not feel these aspects that you have removed reach consensus, at the very least.WolfKeeper 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information about final flight celebrations is completely fascinating!

Also, the information on the final resting places for all of the surviving Concordes.
DAW 72.146.8.51 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I, too, am a fanboi, Junky, but I have to agree with Wolfkeeper and DAW... maybe a complete list of passengers isn't called for, but the categorisation I see now (that one flight was all BA employees, for example) seems pertinent.
--Baylink (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article lists the following:

1. Empty weight: 173,500 lb (78,700 kg)
2. Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
3. Maximum fuel load: 210,940 lb (95,680 kg)
4. Max takeoff weight: 408,000 lb (185,070 kg)

The first three should add up to the last, no? Or is part of the "empty weight" (for example, seats) considered "useful load"?

It seems not, judging by this:

"The 1120 pounds of Useful Load is the total amount of weight that can be loaded onto the aircraft through a combination of fuel, pilot, passengers and baggage." [2] Seats are explicitly not included.

They do not normally add up for aircraft, it's useful and desirable that they don't. It's very acceptable to reduce fuel load in aircraft for short distances, and this permits extra load to be carried. Or you can reduce the load and increase the fuel and go longer distances. So you can trade off load for fuel without exceeding any maximum and the aircraft makes more money.WolfKeeper 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to agree with earlier editors in questioning the use of articles in the article, if you know what I mean. The argument given in the article that British observers typically described the Concorde as "Concorde" is fallacious; merely because it was a commonly mistaken useage does not relegate an important article such as this to the use of poor grammar and sentence structure.

Well, in these kinds of things I usually bow to the BBC. The BBC try hard to get this kind of thing right. The BBC often, (but not absolutely always) uses simply 'Concorde'. I therefore believe that this usage is correct.WolfKeeper 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The equally erroneous and inflammatory declaration: "THIS ARTICLE USES BRITISH ENGLISH AS IT COVERS AN ANGLO-FRENCH AIRCRAFT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKI POLICY (Wp:mos#National_varieties_of_English) PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THIS TO AMERICAN ENGLISH;IT WILL ONLY GET REVERTED AND IN ANY CASE IT IS CONSIDERED VANDALISM" does not allow for knowledgable editors to employ conventional editing protocols that transcend boundaries. Canadian editors, for example, are well aware of British and American spellings and the slight variances in grammar and useage. Before anyone dumps on the latest edit, read it first. Say it out loud in the cadence of a speaking voice and you will notice that the edits are made in relation to context and syntax and not in an arbitary fashion. Imagine if someone was writing about another famous British aircraft, say, the Hawker Hurricane, and referred to it as "Hurricane became a famous Battle of Britain participant." Read the next passage, "the Hurricane fighter became a famous Battle of Britain participant." I am an editor by profession and not a Wikipedia vandal who would be delighted to debate the edits I have made (which did not challenge any factual or content submissions although I was sorely tempted to do so, considering some of the more dubious comments I encountered in the article). Bzuk 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not the way this word is used in the UK; see the policy.WolfKeeper 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For example see: British Airways tribute to Concorde and BBC concorde page.WolfKeeper 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the sensitivities of a UK-based editor, I will endeavour, when I have time, to edit only the other aspects of this article. IMHO, it is not well-written although it does provide adequate technical details and references. My edits can be reviewed by other editors but note that I am utilizing conventional style and form. Bzuk 11:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Solving this will be difficult, but I have figured out your problem (very interesting problem indeed, you'll see).

"Concorde," in the UK, embodies a sense of national pride. It is a British specific "homophore" and doesn't translate very well to those outside the UK. To put a little more simply, it is like British kind of slang and most people in Britain don't think twice about it.

It's not a slang, the BBC rarely if ever uses slang. It's a convention.WolfKeeper 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like how the US uses "Space Shuttle Challenger" instead of "the Space Shuttle Challenger". The Challenger is a source of US national pride so is referred to in the US as just "Challenger." Here's two more examples on BBC and CNN: BBCCNN. Try reading the one from your home country first, then reading the other one.

Except I don't how to solve this problem :d. -- 24.57.157.81 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy. Learn English, rather than some mongrel 'American' masquerading as English. :p WolfKeeper 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be no national pride, so "The Concorde" over "Concorde." There's no harm in national pride, and one can be perfectly neutral and still write proudly, but it is not worldly as the national pride inherent in the usage of "Concorde" does not translate. It's very tough to make that decision though. -- 24.57.157.81 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the editor above. The Concorde article firstly should not be "British-specific" nor should poor semantics or grammar be used mainly because it is quaint or acceptable- see: "ain't" and "way cool" as examples. I cringe each time I read the Concorde article because it is intended to be written for an international audience. In refuting the other point; reread the Space Shuttle article on Wikipedia. When you refer to one of the shuttles, you can use "Challenger" but when you speak of a series of aircraft as "Concorde;" it just doesn't work properly. However, I bow to the vociferous defense of the site by editors such as WolfKeeper. Bzuk 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame me, take it up with the BBC or British Airways.WolfKeeper 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I mislead you both. I was not in any way trying to impugn upon the BBC by suggesting they use slang, I was using slang as an example of words only understandable within a culture so you could compare the linguistic nature of the word "Concorde." This is not an issue of grammar or of "proper" or "improper" English, and if you keep thinking it is you will never solve the problem. The grammar changes because the word Concorde means something totally different in the UK. When it comes to grammar, using "Concorde" makes it look, to non-Brits, like the grammar is screwed up because they automatically read a different definition. This is an issue of cultural definition. The definition of "Concorde" in the UK is simply different--not bad, not worse, no value judgement, just different. Also, I see my Challenger example was misleading too. The Concorde being a series of aircraft complicates the real issue, which is cultural differences in usage. Woodpeckers, for instance, are a "series" of birds but in the abstract are referred to as "The Woodpecker" not "Woodpecker."

I believe in the UK they are more usually refered to as Woodpeckers because there is more than one species. In fact putting 'the' in front is considered archaic, and whilst I'm not an English expert it is probably actually incorrect English.WolfKeeper 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, "Concorde" means something like "Project Concorde." Only British people use it this way. Outside of the UK, Concorde means the plane and that is all it means. Using the word Concorde without the definite article causes those that are not exposed to this usage to interpret "Concorde" as "The Concorde Company" and, then, since that does not exist (AeroSpatiale/BAC is the company) they default to "The Concorde Plane."

That is slang. Your American slang is none of my concern.WolfKeeper 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside of the UK "Concorde" does not mean "The Concorde Project" and you cannot get around this because people outside the UK will never default to this meaning. People and media inside the UK do default to this meaning because "Concorde" was a national project. People outside the UK default to a less-rich and more literal interpretation.

My suggestion to UK editors is that wherever the use of the UK "Concorde" would be appropriate, you substitute "The Concorde Project" if that's what you are really talking about. --24.57.157.81 22:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How about: no.WolfKeeper 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, keep in mind the mottos:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• No personal attacks
• Don't bite the newcomers!

The fact that the argument is being turned on a "British" theme, is disquieting, I believe that most observers would consider "the Concorde Project" or "Concorde" to be a iconic story that transends nationalistic sentiment. Bzuk 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the fact that you seem to be trying to imply that this isn't a subject of British nationalistic pride to be verging on the racist. Don't the British people get to make that call not you? If and when your government spends £1+ billion (in ~1970 money) and 20,000 people work on a project for years, then it seems to me that your people get to name it. In the meantime, it's an iconic Anglo-French project and so the British people get to determine the English vernacular used here and the French in the French language section under the Wikipedia rules and policies.WolfKeeper 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you have misunderstood the concept of an encyclopedia, it's not sufficient or necessary for an encyclopedia to sound right, it must actually be right. Changing the encyclopedia merely because it 'sounds better', is unacceptable. The usage 'the Concorde' except when Concorde is used as an adjective is incorrect in this article, and that is as much part of the history of the aircraft as anything else here. End of story.WolfKeeper 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again: * No personal attacks "...verging on the racist..." PLEASE * Be polite, * Assume good faith (and not be condescending) No one is disputing that Concorde is not a British product or an example of British innovation or a source of pride for those that designed, developed and flew the magnificent airliners; I already had mentioned that due to vociferous defense of the article, I bow to the UK editors, but: * Don't bite the newcomers! These words of wisdom are stated at the outset of this discussion; they appear to be good advice. Bzuk 25:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Whoops I read this note in edit format and did not mean to change your comment, I started editing it out of habit, e.g. commas go inside quotes. Bzuk 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I (sadly) reverted this splendid photo out (which I uploaded) because its fair use justification only allows its use on the one article specifically on the crash. I am awfully sorry, wish that it were otherwise, and would welcome a way round this but don't see what that would be. Sorry. --Guinnog 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How much, approximately, was a ticket on the Concorde?

It varied with market demand, and whether you just wanted to fly, or *had* to fly. :-)WolfKeeper 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[3]"By 1980, the price was $1 a gallon. With a Concorde burning as much fuel as a 747, while carrying far fewer passengers, the effects were catastrophic. By 1982 a round-trip Concorde ticket between New York and Paris cost $3,900. In 2000, it came to $8,148.".WolfKeeper 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that that was a round trip. It was often far cheaper flying west than east. The east bound flight cost maybe 3-5x more than the west bound- this was because the East bound flight avoided the overnight red eye on the 747, which completely messes up your bodyclock. In maybe 1999, although I never got a firm price I was quoted about £800 one-way going west from a guy who's father worked as an engineer on Concorde for the British Airways. That presumably would give you some idea of the cost price.WolfKeeper 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of the shiny-one-of-a-kind factor British Airways were making an extremely healthy profit on Concorde. I'm not sure what if anything Air France were doing wrong, but they didn't seem to make much profit.WolfKeeper 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You could also buy supersonic flights around the Bay of Biscay for maybe $1600 or less.WolfKeeper 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It varied considerably. In May 2003 I was quoted $10,507 round-trip on Air France when I looked into flying Concorde to Paris for a Bruce Springsteen concert as a birthday trip. Later that year I paid about $7,000 to fly eastbound from JFK to Heathrow on a 747 on a Friday and then back to New York on the Sunday afternoon BA001 on Concorde. There were specials from time to time, though, and had I done the Paris trip it would have worked out to be $5,203.50 for all practical purposes because American Express had a two-for-one deal with Air France. 1995hoo 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on ticket prices. Any idea about the cost of the special flights- "shooting the eclipse" over northern Canada, the air show overflights at Abbotsford, Oshkosh and the like? I always harboured the dream to sail to Europe on the Queen Elizabeth and zip back on a Concorde for a "no-holds barred" vacation. Bzuk 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know, you would have to google it.WolfKeeper 18:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe those all varied depending on the nature of the flight. The special subsonic flight from Toronto to New York in October 2003 was $999. There was a special New Year's flight at the end of 2001 that was either $2002 or £2002 (sorry, I don't recall which, and I know that's a big difference). 1995hoo 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Takeoff says takeoff.

Cambridge says take-off.

I don't like intra-wiki citing, except on matters of style or policy, but fair enough, it seems in general use, certainly on the other side of the pond (Webster American has it as one word, for example).

Therefore I won't edit a contribution that uses either, but I will edit mass changes as it seems a matter of preference. Same goes for despatch/dispatch and other preference spellings.

Similarly for numbers, I won't change contributions that don't break MOS:NUM, but I will undo changes that simply alter short text to digits in prose. It's personal preference, and both styles are deemed OK in the MOS.

Fair enough?

Cheers --BadWolf42 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

More than fair enough, sorry for hasslin' you (notice country cousin spelling here).

Bzuk 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First flown in 1969, Concorde service commenced in 1976.

Commence (verb) - to begin, to start.

What is the difference between "first flown" and "started"? --Urod 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. But there is a difference between 'first flown' and being in 'service' though. Service is to do with it actually being useful/commercial rather than just the protoype flying. So the sentence is actually perfectly correct.WolfKeeper 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but the *common* phrasing is "revenue service" in the commercial transport industry...
--Baylink (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Readgin the Tupolev 144 article, it says it entered into service in November 1977, whereas the Concorde article claims the latter did in January 1976. However at the end of the Concorde article it is said that the Tupolev entered first into service. Are these dates correct and are they referring to the same things?

Did I miss some consensus to move this page? I thought Concorde was a fine title. --Guinnog 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft):

*Special cases: some aircraft are so well known that it makes more sense to break the usual rules. In theory, the Anglo-French supersonic airliner should be the Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde, but it is so well known as just Concorde that it is better to leave it there; the Mitsubishi A6M is universally known as the Mitsubishi Zero.

- BillCJ 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You beat me by seconds in moving it back. --Guinnog 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:) Am fixing the redircts too. It's a LONG list. I'm starting from the top, so if you want t5o take it from the bottom, that would be nice. Either way, I'll get it done tonight. - BillCJ 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is mentionned twice that the Concorde lengthens by 30 cm while in flight. Is it necessary to have it written two times?

I reverted the recents changes by Vwozone for the following reasones:

1. The lead pic (pic in the Aircraft Infobox) is generally preferred to be one of the aircraft in flight. In addition, I saw no apparent reason for deleting the picture already in place. I have placed the BA photo underneath the infobox, and moved the Brigde picture there also, to fill the blank space beside the TOC.
2. The Fields in the Infobox are not to be changed; doing so blanks the entire line. The Infobox is a template, which means the format is coded elsewhere. Thus "More users" cannot be changed to "Other users".
3. If there is a date in the "Retired" field, leave the "Status" field blank. There is a lengthy discussion on the reasons here.
4. The replacement of the reasons for the end of operations. Neither statement is cited, so I have added a {{Fact}} tag to the older statement.

Thanks. - BillCJ 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry about the editing mistakes with the infobox. I'll look into citations for retirement reasons. vwozone 16:55, 15 December 2006

Does anybody have a picture of British Airways Concorde in flight to which they hold the copyright to replace the main image? Ideally a picture with the landing gear fully retracted, and ideally of speedbird flagship G-BOAC. Thanks vwozone 10:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the pic that's there now? Air France was a user also. - BillCJ 14:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but I'm sure there is a better picture - for one reason, landing gear is extended in the image - and I'm sure many users will understand my reasons for wishing for Speedbird Concorde in place of an air france Concorde, although I can understand if people would conversely prefer an air france concorde. I've seen a lot of great images of British Airways Concordes - a lot of which I guess will be because of a lot of air to air photography which was set up - I know of one mission involving an RAF tornado to undertake such photography. I just ask if anyone has any good images, and naturally I would prefer the British airways flagship, although this is not so important. vwozone

I actually have no prefrence for BA or AF, was just wandering about the reasons, which you have explained. If we can find a good aerial shot of the BA flagship, I won't object to placing it in the lead, provided it's better than the current one, and that the pic is not too tall (extends the Infobox too much). - BillCJ 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see if I can hunt anything down. vwozone

Perhaps someone could ask about using one of these: [4]. I love the one of G-BOAD, but it's probably zoomed out too much. 1995hoo 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do the BAC 211 (modified Fairey Delta 2) and Handley Page HP.115 warrant a mention for their use for high speed and low speed (respectively) delta wing research? GraemeLeggett 11:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, I think they do. vwozone 13:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any Concordes that have been "named"? Some airliners such as Clipper Maid of the Seas and Tuthmosis III were named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

They've traditionally been called by the last two letters of their registration in the phonetic alphabet; thus, G-BOAD (Golf Bravo Oscar Alpha Delta) is normally called "Alpha Delta," for example. The only use of another name that I can recall was when Tony Blair chartered Alpha Echo to fly to Washington in November 2001. People called it "Blair Force One." (Alpha Delta was sometimes called "the Singapore Concorde" when she flew in dual BA/Singapore colors, and Sierra Delta was called the "Pepsi Concorde" when she wore the Pepsi livery, but I'd suggest that these were descriptions rather than names.) But these are not really the same sort of thing as what you describe. There were never any formal names in the style used by Pan Am. I'd imagine that the uniqueness of Concorde made it unnecessary to come up with a further special identity. (If you really want a thorough answer, post your query on the forum at ConcordeSST.com.) 1995hoo 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It should also me noted that the system 1995hoo describes above isn't completely unique to Concorde; many airliners in general are informally referred to by the last two (or sometimes three) letters of their registration; this is why they're often painted on other places, most obviously the nose gear doors. --Scott Wilson 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to Concorde. Sorry if it came across that way. 1995hoo 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that quite rises to "naming" (not even "BlairForce One", which wasn't official). It's common practise for ATCrs to call "Island Hoppers niner-five alpha" or "Hughes niner-five alpha" (to steal from "Magnum"), which isn't a name as such. Trekphiler 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever found the image now being used in the infobox - it's a beautiful picture of Concorde, and an excellent start to the article. I have, however, taken the liberty of rotating and cropping the image so that the horizon's level. Admittedly this means we lose that same horizon and the resulting image is slightly smaller, but we don't have Concorde at a funny angle. Is this an improvement? Should we use it in the page? Should I just have the modified version speedied? All comments and constructive criticism welcome. --Scott Wilson 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the mod version! However, it's an Air France plane, which won't make the BA-pic mafia happy. We've had a running battle with him/them over using the ground pic of G-BOAB as the lead. He/they won't discuss it, so it may just be low-grade vandalism, rather than any real pro-BA preference. Seriously though, it will be hard to find a better pic than that new one, whichever version we use. - BillCJ 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't the prior Air France pic been the lead for quite some time except in isolated cases where people tried to bump AB up? The new one is quite nice, though, and very deserving of the lead spot. I wonder when and where it was taken, given the position of the nose. 1995hoo 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That picture does look pretty good. Although, i would prefer a BA one (being british and all ;)), nought wrong with that pic!! Reedy Boy 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks too good to be true. The source site has it with a noncommercial license. The other images in that set look like they were dumped from some wallpaper site judging by the names and Google hits, so the Flickr user didn't have the right to apply any CC license. Unfortunately the original and the nicely modified version have to go. --Para 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely that really wants to be on its own page?

Reedy Boy 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be likely to be wp:copyvio I was considering taking it out entirely.WolfKeeper 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Concorde, fly me

Anybody know the date of her first transatlantic supersonic flight?If so, include it here, & on the transatlantc flight page? Trekphiler 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are NO pictures of Air France Concordes in this article, and it appears that there has been a conscious effort to eliminate them. Surely someone can find a public-domain picture of a French Concorde somewhere. Even though many of us regard the BA Concorde operation as far superior, the simple truth is that without the French involvement the whole thing would probably have fallen apart, and Air France played a real and important part in the Concorde story (both for good and for ill). I think it takes away from the article's neutral point of view to make it so BA-centered. (I do not know much about posting pictures on Wikipedia, so I'm not a good person to attempt to resolve this issue.) 1995hoo 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an awfully strong claim! There are only 3 AF pics on Wikipedia Commons, and anyone is able to upload free images there. An AIf France pic has been the lead in this article for a long time, and some users have been changing it to a BA pic for whatever reasons.

Given the fact that there are now no AF pic in the article (which I did not realize), and no other really good AF pics available to post at this time, I am restoring the AF pic to the lead spot. Please leave it there for the time being. If someone can find more legally-usable AF pics to add to the article, we can consider addign a better pic to the lead at that time. - BillCJ 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Specifications section the number of crew is listed as 9. I assume this to include the number of flight attendents as well. As far as I recall other aircraft only list the flight deck crew for consitency should this be changed to 3 as Concorde only flew with three active flight deck crew (PF, PNF & FE)? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated List of Concorde pilots, for deletion as I do not feel that it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots, and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Concorde pilots during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose AfD, see my comment on the relevant discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots. Please check the AfD requirements, I do not believe you are correct in your statement that the AfD template should not be removed. This is the quideline: Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states: "Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again." IMHO Bzuk 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

That's referring to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion which is to be used for (possibly) non-contentious deletions. I've nominated this under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which has a different set up rules and requires community consensus on the outcome (whereas the WP:PROD can be overturned by any editor). To support your position, you would need to show why it isn't simply a list and that it is verifiable and notable. Please continue further discussions at the AfD page. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is there some particular reason Imperial units are listed first (primary) with SI units second? This is mainly in the specs table and in the text in places also. I would think a European design would have SI units are primary. I was going to start switching the data in the spec table, but thought I'd ask first. What gives? -Fnlayson 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Concorde was designed before the UK went metric, therefore the figures from the manufacturers are in lbs, ft and ins. The wikipedia standards are that SI units must be included, but the original data source should typically be listed first. Given that I would recommend that you not swap the data around.WolfKeeper 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking it might be something like that. No need to switch anything then. -Fnlayson 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This article on the Concorde perpetuates the myth that one would black out in aprox. 20 seconds in the thin air above, e.g., 50,000 feet. This is not true whatsoever, as can be demonstrate that many, many common people can withstand a minute, or more, without breathing at all, merely by holding one's breath. So, if the Concorde lost prressurization at high altitudes, merely hold your breath for as long as you can. Meanwhile, perhaps by then, the pilots will have dived the Concorde to a much-lower altitude.

You can't hold your breath, lungs rupture if you do that. Actually the reason you can't survive at these altitudes is that the water in your lungs boils and fills them with water vapour; and this excludes the air.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, in the early 1960s, the United States Air Force (USAF) debunked the old myth of one's blood boiling if exposed to high altitudes or the vacuum of outer space. They showed that chimpanzees could withstand a vacuum for several minutes without ill effects.

Do you have a cite for that? Possibly some may survive at those timescales, but I'm not sure what the LD50 time is for vacuum.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been tried with human volunteers since then. Sir Arthur C. Clarke knew about the USAF experiments, and he wrote the results into the novel and movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey". When the astronaut Dave Bowman is locked out of the spaceship "Discovery I" by the crazed computer HAL, Bowman enters through an emergency airlock, withstanding the vacuum of space while doing so. If you look closely, you will notice that Bowman closes his eyes tightly before firing the escape hatch of his space pod. That was to prevent eye damage from rapid evaporation of the fluids on the outsides of his corneas and pupils. All this was solidly-backed up in Sir Arthur's mind by the results of the USAF tests. Many viewers of the movie were amazed by this sequence: "Why didn't his blood boil?" Well, Clark knew that it would not boil. DAW 72.146.8.51 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's agreed that Arthur C. Clarke messed up some of these details, you have to exhale to avoid death, and if you do that you no longer have oxygen in your lungs, normal survival during drowning relies on that to a pretty fair degree.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See this NASA page for some information on the effects of vacuum, etc. Salmanazar 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It also had two crashes, one at the 1973 Paris Air Show, which made further sales impossible, and another during a cargo flight. Later versions had retractable canards for better low speed control,

Is this a contradiction with the article on Tu-144? According to the Tu-144 page the canards were already installed at the time when it crashed in Paris; some suggested that the crash was caused by a Mirage trying to chase and photograph them. This rumour could not have occured if the canards was not there, I think. Can someone verify please?

I can. Yes, the canards were installed initially on all production Tu-144; only the prototype lacked them. Also, the plane itself was larger and heavier than the Concorde, hence the lack of handling performance against Concorde. Also, it wasn't underpowered, it's cruising speed was actually higher than that of Concorde. Instead, the engines used at first (NK-144) in place of proposed RD-36-51 (which were not ready then) were very inefficient in terms of fuel consumption, so Tu-144 lacked transcontinental range, and were not equipped with thrust reversers. --unpluggged 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You have that a bit garbled, the NK-144 on the TU-144S were incapable of sustaining Mach 2.0 in supercruise, they could only manage a cruise of Mach 1.6.[5] They could activate the afterburners and slightly exceed Concorde's top speed, but I'm pretty sure that's more to do with thermal limits than anything else. I also suspect that Concorde could have hit the afterburners as well and done a speed dash if the designers had wanted it to do that (they doubtless would have had to make some changes, but it should have had enough power), but it was of no commercial value so they never bothered, since the afterburners drank fuel, it was just a cheap gimmick.WolfKeeper 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For instance, here and here you can find out that the cruising speed of Tu-144 was M = 2.16, and maximum speed was M = 2.35. Also, RD-36-51 were not equipped with afterburners at all. --unpluggged 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tu-144D used RD-36-51 engines, and could fly from Moscow to Khabarovsk. But then, in 1978, the second air crash occurred during a test flight of Tu-144D. The reason was fuel leakage that caused fire onboard. In November 1978 passenger flights were stopped. Tu-144 continued to transport mail and cargo for a few years, but in early 1980s the flights were finally stopped. That's why I have placed the neutrality and accuracy template on this section. --unpluggged 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you have references for that, you ought to update/correct the Tu-144 info in the comparison section. -Fnlayson 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)