Over the last few months there has been a series of increasing efforts to clean up this article, to sort out long overdue ambiguities and problems, and perhaps get it restored to respectability within the Wiki community is now not as unrealistic as it once was. Today I have managed to trace citations down for more than one stubborn citation tag, now only three explicitly remain unattended. I need your help to think of ways to properly address them. Although I have found 90 or so references so far for the article, I am struggling with these three, and could really use the assistance of anybody with knowledge on either of them to help unwined their origins and place them with factual sources. We're so close now, these are amongst the last obvious obsticals to getting this page formally reassessed in my opinion. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to talk to me, but I shall likely be watching the article and its talk page as well to see what progress can be made. Kyteto (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Only one now remains: The FAA's demand for a redesigned visor for Concorde. I need help on this one, it has stumped me several times. Kyteto (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I'd leave an update with my intentions: If I can get this tag sorted out, either by the source becoming apparent or the sentence simply deleted, I am considering putting this article forward for WP: GAN to see if it can be made a good article, as well as to get an up to date assessment on the article's strengths and weaknesses. Can anybody help me on this last reference? Kyteto (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on that required change in print sources I have.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The visor on the two prototype Concordes was of solid metal construction with just two small poorly-positioned windows to provide forward vision. Complaints by the test pilots were ignored until the US Federal Aviation Administration indicated that it would decline to certificate the aircraft in such a configuration. A hasty redesign was instigated resulting in a transparent visor which was fitted to the third Concorde onwards." Concorde (Stephen Skinner 2009, Midland Publishing, page 23. It comes with two ISBNs, one on the typical acknowledgements page (ISBN 978 85780 269 6)(sic) and one on the dust cover (ISBN 978 1 85780 315 0) )

And in this book, "Concorde: story of a supersonic pioneer" on Googlebooks on top of page 84. Paaln (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty awesome. Added and you have my thanks. Once I've cleared History of British Airways though the GAN process, this will probably be my next stop. If anybody else notices a few flaws, point them out here on the talk page (or fix them yourself, that works too!) and I'll take them into account before or during the GA Review. Kyteto (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded whenever looking at the page in edit view that it is well over the suggested limit for article size, though I wouldn't at all suggest splitting it. I think, however, that in view of the section referring to The Crash having its own article, the section could be précised. Anyone agree/disagree? Shall I do it, or leave it to one of the regular team if there is agreement? Trev M ~  00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is fairly and should be shortened in places, maybe some all over. The accident section can be shortened some the details are at Air France Flight 4590, or can be moved there if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with anybody doing it. I've just now hacked away at the crash section a bit, as well as a few other sections, to save over two kilobytes of space. I do have another candidate for possible stripping, though there is some nice information I'd certainly want to keep really, in the Engine section, which has its own existing main article. Carefully removing the less amazing aspects of it will save some space again. I wouldn't take the oversize warnings to heart too seriously though, a large and dedicated article on the right topic, such as this detailed and unique aircraft, can be excused from such restrictions. The F-35 article is already bigger, and that is of a plane not due to come into service for years! There is some trimming to be done here, but I'd hate to destroy the unique coverage this page has amassed, so I have been (moderately) carefully in my reforms and redesigns towards a smoother and compliant article. Kyteto (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't feel like 110+k to me. Over at vitamin D a bot went past and converted the article to cite web format, and the article practically doubled in size. I don't think the article is really as big as we think, I think a lot of it is the refs.- Wolfkeeper 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

this tool] gives: File size: 360 kB; Prose size (including all HTML code): 80 kB; References (including all HTML code): 202 kB; Wiki text: 115 kB; Prose size (text only): 52 kB (8558 words) "readable prose size"; References (text only): 33 kB. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been making efficiency tuneups in coding, snipping a few irrelivances and double-ups, kicking a few chunks of information to side-articles, and rewriting sentences. We've gone from over 119 KB to 113.8 KB. It isn't going to drop much more unless I start intentionally oblitorating references *which I would be expressly opposed to doing, considering how many maintence tags condemning the citation already* or figure out some new manner in which to spin things off into. As mentioned earlier, we could do something with the Engines subsection as that is quite bulky and bound to get a KB or two out of it. Getting really creative, we could think up new subarticles, but not choosing these topics to spin off carefully will result in a deminished state on the main. It is hard to do this. Kyteto (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after installing the tool, and thinking about it, I don't agree with pruning, removal of text from the article seems unwise, given that the tool refers to the article as 'readable prose'. The raw size of the file is being excessively and erroneously increased by the mark-up we have, the article is not over-large.- Wolfkeeper 13:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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. [1]. 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)

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)

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)

And which of the two is a commercial passenger flight? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

• 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:

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)

How come that Tu-144 had first flight in december of 1968 and concorde on march nex year? How come that Russians stole already made designs, rebuilded them and made similar plane faster than concorde?? Doesnt look right, I will try to look into this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.208.84 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The delay of Concorde was down to multiple factors. A simulation, later proving to be invalid, suggested that there would be severe instability in the aircraft that could catastrophically tear it apart by turning too sharply at supersonic speeds, years were spent devising a gentler but needlessly complicated mechanism to soften the effect of attempting to turn. This mechanism, and others, such as the tyres, brakes, air conditioning, and engine thrust controls, were more complicated than the TU-144 counterparts, consuming extra time but sometimes yielding better results in the final product. Finally, the TU-144 was politically rushed out the door to look good and be the first despite it not being ready, Concorde was more cautious. If the Concorde team had thrown caution to the wind, such as the mentioned simulation, and just gone up there, they may have been first, and they may have been fine. The rushed approach of the 'Concordski' produced an aircraft that was barely usable, the in cabin noise was so lous you couldn't hear people talking to one another and ear plugs were apparently distributed to passengers, and it saw an extremely short in-service life with a higher accident rate as a result. The accusation of espionage is well sourced and verified, and Wikipedia is concerned with Verifibility over Truth, so it doesn't really matter how it "doesn't look right", if a statement is properly validated it can be taken as true, and there are multiple valid authors and publishers who have put their name to statements to that effect, and that is all that is needed for its inclusion really. Kyteto (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Concorde was started much earlier, in the 1950s, and was a combined design by the British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation, who had effectively 'merged' the designs of the Bristol Type 223 and the Sud Aviation Super-Caravelle. So Concorde benefited from the combined research of two design teams going back around ten years. The Tu-144 was effectively a 'catch-up' design that was started much later and was cruder and less efficient. For the Soviet aircraft, the design was rushed, as the political 'masters' wanted not to be seen to be technologically outdone by the 'hated west' (the Soviets had no need for a supersonic airliner - how many then-Soviet businessmen would have wanted to get around the Soviet Union quickly, and been able to pay the premium fare that would have had to have been charged for the service), so getting a supersonic airliner into the air became a sort of a race, and having started later, the Soviets were forced to cut corners. The simple-looking wing on Concorde is a point, it looks simple but a considerable amount of research went into the subtle curved shape, effort that the Soviets weren't able to match due to the time constraints. So the Tu-144 received a less advanced straight-edged wing. This made the Tu-144 less well-handling at the low speeds used when taking-off and landing. The other advantage Concorde had was in the excellent basic Bristol Olympus engine which was developed further by Bristol (and later Rolls-Royce) and SNECMA, that, at the time, was world-leading in power and efficiency [2], something that the Soviet engine makers weren't able to compete with [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.61.65 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I came here after reading something on ANI related to the JAS39 Gripen.

The title of the article should not be "Concorde". That is imprecise.

The title should be BAC-Sud Concorde as that was the original name used for many years.

I looked at the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 article. It is not the Boeing MD-11 article. So it seems that the original name is the one used. If people insist, I can see BAC-Aerospatiale Concorde as that was also the name for many years. Plain "Concorde" or BAE EADS Concorde is just wrong. Nesteoil (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Concorde is perfectly adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This title is specifically allowed per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft): Special cases: Any guideline can have exceptions as 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 use the common name. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. There are very few planes like this but the Concorde is one of them. So much so that most people don't know what company made it. The runner up is possibly the 747 but there could be objections between supporters of the year, 747 A.D., and the Boeing 747 so I am not making that suggestion. Nesteoil (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Concorde is the common name and very well known. I have not seen any issues with this (attempted moves, etc). This also avoids arguments over Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde, BAC-Aérospatiale Concorde or other. From I recall reading the British side had a slightly greater workshare, so I would put BAC first. -fnlayson (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose On this occasion the staus quo ante is just fine. Per COMMONNAME, "Concorde" is the best possible name for this article. --John (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Concorde has been noted as an exception due to the common name. Also dont think it was ever "Sud" MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at photographs of the prototype French Concorde (001?) on its maiden flight from Toulouse you will see that it WAS in fact the 'Sud Aviation/British Aircraft Corporation' Concorde as it was painted on the fuselage sides above the red cheatline. Aerospatiale didn't exist at that time, or if it did, Sud Aviation was still a separate organisation.

Oh, and if you are thinking about renaming the article best of luck - IIRC, the order of the companies' two names was reversed on some aircraft, and may well have been reversed ('British Aircraft Corporation/Sud Aviation') on the other side of the fuselage on 001 - I can only remember one side view of 001, and I think the names may have been reversed on the other side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.185 (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Concorde 001 here: [4] and here: [5] - actual wording above red cheatline is Sud Aviation France - British Aircraft Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.240 (talk • contribs) 13:56, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find out any concrete information about ticket prices on the Concorde, though I seem to recall a figure around $US 7000 one way. --Janko (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

don't you thuink it is kinda weird how no one talks about how the concorde crashed????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.219.59 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean apart from the section Concorde#Concorde Flight 4590 crash? Britmax (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read a few reports that make me desirous of hearing what informed people think. It has been suggested that the tyre marks of the doomed Concorde were covered up in some way minutes after the disaster, so that nobody would be able to demonstrate at exactly what point the tyre exploded. It is a fact that the Concorde had had trouble with exploding tyres for a long time before the final catastrophe. Tyres (and even rims) disintigrated several times on take-off. It has been reported that several witnesses have stated that they saw the Concorde on fire before it reached the place where the strip of titanium was alledged to be on the runway. What can Wikipedians tell us in this regard? Captainbeefart (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really as this is an encyclopedia not a forum for discussion, so we would only be interested in reliable sources and if they were any it really needs to be at the related article Air France Flight 4590 where some alternate explanations are already covered. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would ask why the article states that a "fuel valve" burst after the wing underside was struck by a piece of tyre carcass. In fact, as can be seen in the official report, a roughly A4-sized piece of tank skin with some stringers attached was ejected from the wing underside and was found on the runway. The crucial unexpected thing about this rupture was that it occurred due to an hydraulic shock propagating inside the tank and ejecting the piece of skin downwards rather than the rubber penetrating the structure from below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.159.137 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, just passing by, but wow, could the authors of this article hated on the Concorde any more? It seems like every section is laden with needless criticism and speculation. This article reads like a detractors notebook, hardly a tone in fitting with an encyclopedia. Clearly there were issues with this aircraft, but perhaps they could be contained to one section so that the other information available is actually readable without being distracted by immature digression and seemingly oppositional language/views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.252.202 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the aircraft line began in controversy and literally went down in flames, it may be difficult to maintain a neutral stance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article but I didn't see anything I could describe as pejorative. Could 122.104.252.202 post a few examples here? I'm happy to work on any bits that don't reflect the necessary neutral point of view. Dolphin (t) 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is American and edited by mostly Americans so there is bound to be partisanship to some extent. Concorde had long been hated by some Americans simply because it wasn't theirs. They started several supersonic transports back in the 1960s but effectively left it too late, as BAC/Sud Aviation had a ten year head start with Concorde. So President Kennedy decided to try and 'trump' Concorde by going for a higher speed/range aircraft, unfortunately, he was mis-advised, and the US SST projects by aiming for a Mach 3 design created a whole load of additional problems for themselves and their intended customers. This led to the eventual cancellation of the US SSTs, as they would have been even more expensive than Concorde for airlines to buy and then run.

Concorde was usable and profitable, as BA proved. Whether Air France made a profit or not is their concern. The extent of some in the US's dislike of not having their 'own' supersonic airliner was seen by the extraordinary efforts some groups in the US went to try and ban Concorde, something that hasn't been seen with any other airliner before or since. This sort of ban was later implemented in some other areas of the world, the excuse being the sonic boom that any supersonic aircraft produces. You can bet that if Boeing or any other US aircraft company had had an SST in service these objections would not have occurred. These bans had an effect on Concorde sales (as they were no doubt intended to) which resulted in few other airlines buying the aircraft. This meant that economies of scale in production were never possible so Concorde remained more expensive than it needed to be. This lack of sales, in turn, led to the design of the improved longer-range and more fuel efficient (as well as quieter) Concorde B being cancelled.

The phrase 'sour grapes' springs to mind whenever one hears American criticism of Concorde.

The fact is that for twenty years or-so a passenger could cross the Atlantic in around three hours, and not be affected by so-called jet lag. Nowadays, after the retirement of Concorde, it takes twice as long, and that can hardly be called 'progress'. Six hours in 'steerage'. Think about it next time you're on an airliner half-way through a dreary six hour flight.

Oh, and try asking what the passengers on Concorde thought of it. Most loved it. And why not, that was travelling in style. Concorde was designed in the late 1950s/early 1960s and when it was retired in 2003 it still made every other airliner look like a piece of antiquated junk.

... and today in 2011, it still does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• And still no examples of specific text from the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

hi guys forgive my lack of wiki code if this is in the wrong place. I lived in fergulie park Paisley Scotland when the Concorde flew into Glasgow Airport, over Craigielea primary schoolon May 19th 1987 6.54pm. Fergulie at the time was a poor housing scheme. Which has mostely been demoloshed and rebuilt using EU money. The plain flew over Craigalea school, which was recently demolished. I was so lucky to capture this image and you have my full permission to post it if you find its in keeping with the artical. Concorde photo by david cameron dddoc_blogger please click on the image to get a full size copy ;) --Donnalangton (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The BAC 211 (Fairey Delta 2) and Handley Page HP.115 are both linked in the See Also section but no mention of their purpose or contribution to Concorde appears in the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Development of Concorde seems to be such an important topic with a great deal of langthy detail, yet we're already hanging around 20 kb over what the article size's maximum should ideally be. Thus my suggestion as follows: We create a new article, Development of Concorde. We strip the existing summary here to the essentials, and develop a far more thorough, properly detailed and cited article to house the information. I've looked at it, and the size as it stands barely justifies it, but I'm expecting the true finished product to be double that. I'm more than willing to help such a quest, if it that is wanted. Kyteto (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The author or authors of this article claim that (the) Concorde is always referred to in English without the article, but I would like some evidence of this. I have seen and heard it both ways for all types of aircraft the P-51 Mustang, the Spruce Goose, etc. i could be wrong here, but just interested in the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenklatura44 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, thanks. If you search the archive of this page you will find previous discussions on the topic. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that the article doesn't say that Concorde "is always referred to in English without the article." It says it's referred to in the UK without the article. Americans also speak English and they routinely use the article, so a blanket statement about "English" would be incorrect. But this article is written using UK English and UK conventions (for example, the spelling "tyres" that some trolls keep changing), so omitting "the" is appropriate. Having an explanation is theoretically helpful for people who might otherwise immediately start revising the article to include it. The real issue here, however, is that it's not the responsibility of the people who have collaborated on this article to prove to you (a person who couldn't even bother to sign his comment) that the article as written is correct. Rather, it's up to you to make a compelling case that it should be changed. Wikipedia operates on a "consensus" basis when a fact is (or may be) in dispute, and in this case the consensus is to say "Concorde" without the article. That means someone wanting to adopt a different convention needs to provide pretty compelling evidence to justify a change, and you haven't done so. In fact, you've conceded that you've often seen and heard it both ways. That takes away any force your argument might have had. (Of course, an exception to this sort of rule always exists in the case of material quoted from a source.) Incidentally, I'm American, but I agree fully that British English is more appropriate for this article. 1995hoo (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Under "Testing", might want to make mention of the mission flown on behalf of Los Alamos National Laboratory to observe the eclipse. Unclear which of the prototypes was used on this assignment. knoodelhed (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was F-WTSS. Kyteto will scream bloody murder if we include a citation to ConcordeSST.com, which mentions it. 1995hoo (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Kyteto will scream bloody murder if we include a citation to ConcordeSST.com" Correct. :P There's no point in using an unverifiable source as a citation, as citations are there for verification, unverified matierial is essentially pointless to cite. Thanks for remembering though. Kyteto (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning in this article somewhere that the reason that only 26 Concordes were built was because of the incredible arrogance of the American Government/FAA. At the time of development of Concorde, America was involved in a similar project, to build a high powered, high-altitude supersonic jet airliner (SST). However, hampered by design problems and unable to make the project viable, instead of conceding and using the Concorde's design, the FAA simply banned the Concorde from supersonic flight within its airspace, effectively absolving all of the advantages brought about by supersonic flight, meaning that the only flight being done regularly by Concorde to America was that of London - New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.140.2 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What really killed any US chance of fielding a viable supersonic airliner was President Kennedy's public announcement on June 5th 1963 that Concorde's US competitor would, so to speak, 'trump' the earlier aircraft and be a Mach 3 design. Unfortunately, whether he was mis-advised or whether it was a desire to 'outdo' the UK and France, his aim was not a practical proposal, not only then, but possibly even today. Both BAC and Sud Aviation had spent a lot of time in the preceding years in deciding on the optimum speed, range, and other characteristics etc., that were possible using materials and manufacturing techniques that were widely available at the time and which would allow the production of aircraft at a price that the airlines could both afford to buy and subsequently operate. The Mach 2 speed was chosen because it effectively halved the flight times over conventional subsonic airliners, whilst allowing the use of the same aluminium alloys that were then in general use. In addition, Concorde required no special handling between flights, and could be treated by the airline customers and ground crews as just a normal airliner. By stating that the US competitor would be a Mach 3 aircraft Kennedy effectively guaranteed that any US supersonic airliner would be so expensive that no airline would be able to afford it, as those same alloys could not be used due to the higher aerodynamic heating temperatures at Mach 3, and so much more costly high-temperature alloys would have been needed, as well as generally more expensive methods for manufacturing in these alloys. The other reason was that the Concorde had an at least ten year head start on any US design (as if did also on the Tu-144), the Concorde design was more or less complete by around 1960, and the engineers were already pretty sure that the aeroplane would meet the performance and range specifications. The US on the other hand, was still deciding on the various possible aircraft configurations as late as the final years of the 1960s. If the US had simply decided on a 'Concorde copy' as the Soviets did with the Tu-144, they might have had a chance of producing a viable supersonic airliner, however by deciding on trying to 'up the stakes' to Mach 3, they effectively doomed any chance of the US producing one. No airline of the time could have afforded to buy or operate one.

BTW, someone might find this 1969 Flight article useful for information on the technology used in Concorde: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that his article was promoted to ga status but uses www.concordesst.com as a source, as a self published website I am not sure that it is a reliable source particularly for a GA article. Do we need to demote the article and get is reassessed again or get other opinions on the use of www.concordesst.com. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Even more so with the removal of the information, the article now omits all mention of efficiency or other comparisons with subsonic aircraft and does not mention really anything to do with the reasons behind the manufacturers total inability to sell the aircraft to other than BA or AF. Although this could be fixed, given that GA isn't supposed to have major gaps, at the moment I don't consider it to be GA quality.Planetscared (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did actually want all the concordesst.com citations struck off as non-RS, I was ridiculed and insulted as a 'little hitler' for 'marching in here and telling everybody what is and is not acceptable' - some editors took badly to having concordesst.com questioned. I had to forge a compromise back then, slimming down the amount of citations to that site and - shock and horror - start using books, research articles, and newspapers, the more formal material the article should be based on. Thankfully the era where 40% of this article's content was cited to concordesst.com is long gone, but that minority of about 7-8% is still clinging on.

It is my recommendation that, rather than proceeding directly to delisting, we put together a small band of editors to overhaul this article, rip out the last of the non-RS refs, and finish the work that was started two years ago. It certainly won't be as much of an uphill battle as it was the first time around. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree it needs to be re-referenced I am sure an important aircraft like Concorde must have a reliable references considering the number of books etc that have been written. Perhaps a note at WP:AIRCRAFT to see if we can get any help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since my comment an hour ago, I've wiped out all but one concordesst.com citation - little content was lost TBH. The last one is a problem, because its multilinked all over the history section. I'll have to prepare on that one, I'd appreciate the help of other editors to re-do it however, it ain't fun doing it all on my lonesome. Kyteto (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone might contact Gordon Roxburgh (the webmaster of concordesst.com) and ask him for the source used for the page to which you refer. He's a good guy and may be happy to help if you ask nicely. 1995hoo (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

'of efficiency or other comparisons with subsonic aircraft and does not mention really anything to do with the reasons behind the manufacturers total inability to sell the aircraft to other than BA or AF' - the term 'efficiency' cannot really be used in comparing Concorde to a subsonic airliner - the sole purpose of Concorde was speed. So by it's nature the Concorde was designed to different criteria to conventional airliners. It's a bit like comparing a racehorse to a cart horse - they are both intended for different purposes. A racehorse is very 'inefficient' at pulling a heavily-loaded cart - but a cart horse is very 'inefficient' at going fast and wining races.

The reasons the manufacturers were unable to sell to other airlines was because the US and some other countries effectively banned supersonic flight over their territories. This scared airlines off. Both BOAC (later BA) and Air France both had substantial trans-atlantic traffic which allowed the greater part of the route to be flown over water, which made any bans on supersonic flight ineffective. So BOAC and AF had over-water routes on which Concorde was usable - most of the other airlines did not. The other thing was the 1973 Oil Crisis that made the cost of jet fuel rise astronomically, which meant that airlines had to start finding cost reductions anywhere they could, and this fuel cost rise mean that Concorde was less viable to them - Concorde cost around the same to operate as a Boeing 707. Prior to all this, airlines were queuing up to buy Concorde - BOAC (8), Air France (8), PanAm (6), TWA (6), American (6), Continental (3), Qantas (4), MEA (2). [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good article, but in a few sections there is too much aviation jargon or unexplained technical detail. For example, it refers to "the high alpha needed at rotation". What is an alpha? (What is rotation?). As another example, there is no explanation (or citation...) of the following statement: "63% of the aircraft's thrust is attributed to the intakes whilst the exhaust nozzles generate 29% and the engines just 8% of the thrust". What is a non-aviation reader to make of this statement? How can the engines only produce 8% of the thrust?

I just offer these two examples; there are a few others. Can someone please look through the article and make the needed edits? I don't think it will be a lot of work.Nojamus (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can any future editors clarify what aspects of Concorde were designed/built by the French, and what were designed/built by the UK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.50.253 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

[8] might help give an idea. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to have a section showing where the birds are parked. Also, whether one can walk up (or into) to see them, or if they are fenced off from the general public. Comments please. I will help. Dwight666 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not really a museum guide but have had a look at the museums shown in Concorde aircraft histories. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So... what is the actual range of the Concorde? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.78.44 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Small, simple airplanes can be loaded with full fuel and an adult on each seat and not exceed the maximum take-off weight. It is then possible to determine the range with full fuel, taking off at maximum take-off weight. For these small airplanes it is meaningful to specify the maximum range in nautical miles or kilometers. With larger airplanes, including Concorde, it is not possible to load full fuel and full payload without exceeding the maximum take-off weight. Consequently, for larger airplanes, range is dependent on payload - large payload results in short range, and small payload results in long range. It is not meaningful to specify the range in nautical miles or kilometers in the way that can be done for a small airplane. (Instead, for comparison of two or more different airplanes there is sometimes specification of range with full payload, and range with full fuel.) Dolphin (t) 13:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

فڕۆکەى کۆنکۆرد Concorde

فڕۆکەى کۆنکۆرد یەکێک بوو لەو دوو فڕۆکە (سەروو دەنگ)یە کە بە خێرایىەکى دوو ئەوەندەى خێرایى دەنگ لە سروشتدا دەڕوات، ئەم فڕۆکەیە بە مواسەفاتى (SST) واتە گواستنەوەى خێراتر لە دەنگ، هاتە ناو جیهانى گواستنەوەى بازرگانییەوە، کە لە مێژووى گواستنەوەى ئاسمانیدا تەنها فڕۆکەى کۆنکۆرد و فڕۆکەى جۆرى تۆپۆلۆڤى 144 بەم مواسەفاتە کاریان کردووە لەڕووى شێوە و دیزانیشەوە هەر تەنها تۆپۆلۆى 144 لەشێوەدا لە کۆنکۆردەوە نزیکە. ئەم فڕۆکەیە بەرهەمێکى فەڕەنسى – ئنگلیزییە و لەلایەن هەردوو بەرهەمهێنەران Aérospatiale و British Aircraft Corporation و لەپێى رێکەوتنێکى فەڕەنسى – ئنگلیزى دروست کراوە. یەکەم فڕینى ئەم فڕۆکەیە لەساڵى 1969دا ئەنجامدرا، لەپاشان ساڵى 1974 کۆنکۆرد بەشێوەیەکى فەرمى دەستى کرد بە خزمەت لەبوارى گواستنەوەى هەواییدا و بۆ ماوەى 27 ساڵ لە خزمەتکردن بەردەوام بوو. کۆنکۆرد بە چوار بزوێنىرى تۆربۆ جێتەوە گەشتەکانى بەسەر زەریاى ئەتڵەسیدا دەستپێکرد و لە هەردوو فڕینگەى لەندەن و پاریسەوە راستەوخۆ گەشتى دەکرد بۆ نیویۆرک و واشنگتۆن بە خێرایى دوو ئەوە و بە تەنها نیوەى ئەو کاتە کە فڕۆکەکانى تر پێیان دەچوو بۆ تەى کردنى ئەو رێگایە. ساڵى 1977 نرخى راستەقینەى فڕۆکەى کۆنکۆرد گەیشتە 23 ملیۆن پاوەندى بەریتانى و ژمارەشى لە 20 دانە تێپەڕى نەدەکرد کە ئەو چەند دانەیەش تایبەت بوون بە هەردوو هێڵى ئاسمانى (Air France) و (British Airways). لە 25ى حوزەیرانى ساڵى 2000 یەکێک لە فڕۆکەکانى کۆنکۆرد لە پاریس کەوتە خوارەوە و سەرجەمى سەرنشینەکانى گیانیان لەدەستدا، بۆیە دواى ئەو رووداوە شارەزایان دواى لێکۆڵینەوە بۆیان دەرکەوت کەموکوڕى هەیە لە دیزانى فڕۆکەکە و بزوێنەرەکانیدا. هەر بۆیە کۆنکۆرد بەها ئابورییەکەى خۆى لە دەستدا و هەروەها روودانى هێرشە تیرۆرستییەکەى 11ى سێپتەمبەرى 2001 ئەمانە بوونە هۆى ئەوەى کە ساڵى 2003 بە یەکجارى گەشتەکانى کۆنکۆرد بوەستێنرێت و فرۆکەکانى کۆنکۆرد خانەنشین بکرێن. وەستاندنى کارکردن بە فڕۆکەى کۆنکۆرد زیانێکى دارایى گەورەى گەیاندە هەردوو هێڵى ئاسمانى فەڕەنسى و بەریتانى چونکە ئەم دوو هێڵەى پشتیوانییەکى دارایى گەورەیان لە حکومەت بەدەستهێنابوو بۆ کڕینى ئەم فڕۆکانە.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zangana R (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use English in talk pages per the talk page guideline.Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides the paragraph about Promotional efforts in 1997 being oddly placed, it says flights were sold for £2 10/- ... decades after the decimalisation of currency. Something's wrong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not unknown for prices to be in pre decimal quantities as part of such a promotion. Britmax (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In 1997? Be serious. As mentioned in my edit summary when I fixed it, it was a simple misreading of the original article. Academic now, mind. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The section was a bit over detailed and not really that notable to the aircraft so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And it's back again. Are we generally agreed with MilborneOne that it should be out? I don't care either way, but I'll gladly stick to any consensus. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

- Another user added the '97 promotional text back. I trimmed the text, re-added the reference and tagged it with an importance tag in case others feel the remaining text is non-notable/minor. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the trimmed text is better I still dont think that it is notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yea, probably not. If there were several of type events, they could be mention together in 2-3 sentences. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The cited reference makes no mention of a price offered by Virgin. Anyone got an actual cite for this discussion? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

According to these news articles [9] [10] [11], he offered £1, then £1 million, and later £5 million. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great (except not quite, the £1 million is always "each"). Will update. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's right. The £5 million offer was the total amount for 5 aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The recent change and revert there seem to be around each other. User:Runlevel1 wasn't trying to change the facts at all, just clarify what was already written. I think there may have been a knee-jerk revert. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, not at all if you read the edit summaries. £1.00 is clearly not the same as £1 million. The sources in the article only cover '£1 million'. Another source needs to be added to change per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've added a couple references to Virgin's original £1 bid. As Pinkbeast said, I was simply trying to make it clearer (visually) there were two different figures in play. The words '£1' and '£1 million' were written in close enough proximity that my eyes stumbled over that part of the sentence a few times. - Runlevel1 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the updates and additional sources! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries yourself, User:Fnlayson. User:Runlevel1 changed £1 to £1.00. These are in fact the same figure. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did read the summaries, but the diff did not appear to match. That was my mistake. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text reads "but with a history of tyre explosions 60 times higher than subsonic jets" Do you mean 60 times more frequent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.225.148 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Concorde had a higher rate of tire damage; one in 3,000 times vs. one in 100,000 times for an A340. See BEA Accident report, pages 145-147 for more details. This has been added as a reference and the wording adjusted to clarify and correct. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User NolanCRules has changed the section heading "operators" to "former operators" under the theory that because Concorde (which he/she incorrectly calls "the Concorde") is retired, there are no "operators." Fnlayson and I reverted it because it's obvious, as the article clearly notes Concorde is retired, and because consistency with other Wikipedia articles calls for "operators" (see, for example, the article about the DeHavilland Comet). If user NolanCRules wants to change it, I feel the burden is on him to explain why this article warrants an exception to the practice elsewhere. Simply saying "Concorde is retired" isn't good enough when deviating from general practice. 1995hoo (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Operators is the normal WP:Aircraft section name, and former operators can be noted in the text per guidelines at WP:Air/PC, specifically WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24629451 - dunno if it's any use. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this section could be trimmed down considerably, although important to the aircraft it does deserve an explanation but the fine detail particularly in the second paragraph is in the related article and doesnt really belong. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I trimmed some intermediate details on the fuel fire, and more can be done. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:John#Concorde has a discussion on the recent external link removals which has not been productive. Aside from the Braniff page that's genuinely missing, what do other editors think about the two links removed by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concorde&action=historysubmit&diff=588846334&oldid=588840115 ? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dont appear to add much to the article, support removing them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. What do we think of Heritage Concorde preservation group site, added in the same round? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

At least 13 references in this article, using the author name "Owen 2001," appear to be linking to Web pages that are inaccessible. Example: The group met for the first time in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.[7] Reference 7 links to either an apparent redirect withing Wikipedia - either to the homepage, or to the article itself.

The Web site containing the content the editor wishes to link to appears to exist at this location: http://books.google.com/?id=VzNUJlX7CXoC. However, it appears that this content is either inaccessible by the public, or the links to the passages in question could be improved or enhanced for usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Entwistle (talk • contribs) 08:17, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

The links are internal wiki links, not web links. "Owen 2001, p. 35" is shortened footnote that points to a book cite entry in the References section. This is all working as intended per Wikipedia MoS policies & guidelines. See WP:CITESHORT or Help:Shortened footnotes for more info on shortened footnotes. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this real? It sounds unlikely but I don't know the whole history and maybe there was some temporary lease or something? I notice our article on the airline also lists this type as having been operated. Comments please? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a bit of vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Okey doke and thanks. DBaK (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose deleting this paragraph for a couple of reasons "The intake design for Concorde’s engines was especially critical.[73] Conventional jet engines can take in air at only around Mach 0.5; therefore the air has to be slowed from the Mach 2.0 airspeed that enters the engine intake. In particular, Concorde needed to control the shock waves that this reduction in speed generates to avoid damage to the engines. This was done by a pair of intake ramps and an auxiliary spill door, whose position moved in-flight to slow transiting air.[74]"

It's brevity precludes the possibility of stating anything meaningful about the intake. In addition it includes one sentence which is misleadingly incorrect. I feel it detracts from the overall quality of the article. I don't think it is worth rewriting as the intake is covered in the Olympus 593 article.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to identify the sentence that is misleadingly incorrect. Dolphin (t) 22:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Concorde needed to control the shock waves that this reduction in speed generates to avoid damage to the engines". I think it's misleading since shock wave control was needed to ensure optimum performance of all 3 parts of the propulsion system, intake, engine and exhaust nozzle, not for a specific engine-related reason. It's incorrect because surging, not damage, could be one (of several) engine reactions to lack of shock wave control.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you have made an adequate case for fine-tuning the paragraph, but not for deleting it. The information is relevant to the article on the aircraft so I'm not in favour of it being deleted. Dolphin (t) 12:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Surging isn't just an annoyance, it destroys engines if allowed to continue; it's a severe cyclic stress. For this reason, Concorde as a whole was designed to essentially never surge; it would do so only if a serious fault developed. If the inlet ramps were set incorrectly, the shockwave can move towards the compressor section and cause surging. This type of thing happened with other aircraft such as the SR-71, it's seriously bad news.GliderMaven (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

By way of explanation for a paragraph re-write I offer the folllowing. In order to meet wiki guidelines the paragraph should be written to reflect information from authoritative sources which I will ref(The current ref 74 doesn't support any of the statements but instead contains information that is not suitable for a short introduction to the intake).

In line with published accounts of intake design and testing prevention of engine damage is not a consideration in the design of the intake or its control system, contrary to the statement in the paragraph. The requirement is to prevent surges by keeping distortion within limits. Repeated surging on a flightworthy engine design is benign from an engine integrity standpoint. If it were not the design would not be approved for flight.

"Conventional jet engines can take in air at only around Mach 0.5; therefore the air has to be slowed from the Mach 2.0 airspeed that enters the engine intake" I believe this statement is meant to infer that the intake is designed to slow the air to M0.5, which is a common misunderstanding, in which case it is incorrect. The engine itself, not the intake, makes sure the air leaving the intake is moving at its own particular design value, about M0.5 (ref. "Gas Turbine Aerothermodynamics", Sir Frank Whittle, p.83). The intake does not slow the air down(eg ref "Rolls-Royce and the Rateau Patents",Harry Pearson, p.10). But what it does have to do is 1. ensure the slowing down is done as efficiently as possible, and 2. deliver air with low distortion to prevent surges, in the case of Concorde by correct amount of ramp bleed ("Design and Development for an Air Intake for a Supersonic Transport Aircraft" Rettie and Lewis, fig. 6 Effect of bleed flow on engine-face distortion).Pieter1963 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pieter1963, this source could be suitable for further information?
PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Paulo, thanks,certainly an amazing source. I was going to suggest it be included in external links but I see it already is.Pieter1963 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article refers to the retirement of the Concorde as a result of it's only accident. This is not accurate, the Concorde continued to operate for three years after Air France 4590, and the conclusion was that the accident was a result of foreign object damage, in addition to inadequately shielded fuel tanks. The retirement was caused by the unprofitably of the concorde, the worsening economy, Airbus' decision not to support the Concorde, and it's aging technology. I will change the article to reflect this, and will attempt to source this. Skrelk (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

right. The main problem was about spares. Once spare stock remains empty, companies starts to use spare from other of their 10 planes, up to the moment there was no more spare available to fly at least 2 planes. Since Airbus did not want to produce more spare, Concorde was condemned to ground. v_atekor (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a large amount of info about Concorde's operating life in these PPRuNe topics here: [12] and here: [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Useful and interesting video about Concorde on YouTube here: [14] - part 2 here: [15]

BTW, interesting bit of Concorde trivia: When reheat was applied at take-off the wheel brakes were unable to hold the aircraft still, as the take-off thrust produced would move the stationary aircraft even with wheels locked, causing flat spots on the tyres. Because of this on take-off the reheat was applied two engines at a time, after releasing the wheel brakes.

And the 60,000ft operating ceiling for Concorde was an arbitrary one, being chosen so as to allow the aircraft to make a descent sufficiently quickly without danger to the passengers should a cabin window burst or be broken. In test flights Concorde had flown as high as 68,000ft. To allow higher than normal rates-of-descent, Concorde could use the two inner engine's thrust reversers in flight. During the outward climb once over water reheat was engaged and the aircraft accelerated through Mach 1, and once reheat was cancelled, Concorde continued to accelerate on to Mach 2 on dry power while still climbing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The retirement of Concorde was effectively forced on BA by the decision of Airbus - the Type Certificate holder at the time, although originally it would have been Sud Aviation and BAC - to drastically increase the charges for engineering support for the Concorde type. Once Airbus decided to do this the aircraft became unprofitable to operate without a substantial fare price rise, and once airlines had declined to pay the increased charges, Airbus stopped support for the type and as a result its Type Certificate was withdrawn by the CAA and the French equivalent. Once this had been done it became illegal to carry fare-paying passengers on the type. So it wasn't actually a lack of spares as-such.

After the Paris crash Airbus would have suddenly found themselves having to concentrate money and engineering resources on solving the accident problems of a 40-year old type that was, in effect, not of their original design, and dated as far back as 1960. They no doubt - perhaps understandably - wished to concentrate money and resources on their own newer airliner types, then in current production and development. I suspect that the responsibility for Concorde was something they wished to rid themselves of as soon as was possible, as they gained little financially from it as it was no longer in production and generating income for its manufacturer, and I suspect they had few, if any, engineering staff who had been involved in Concorde's original design. So, financially the crash probably cost Airbus a lot of money on an aircraft that had never been profitable for them - they 'inherited' Concorde from what had been the companies they bought out when Airbus Industrie bought up various parts of the French and British aircraft industry back in the 1980-1990s - and the crash may have scared Airbus over possible future costs if more accidents were to occur. The Paris crash allowed Airbus to rid their hands of Concorde, albeit in an unfortunate manner, and one I'm sure that Airbus themselves would not have wished-for.

In addition, many of the BA Concorde's regular passengers were business men and women involved in finance, insurance, etc., who had been working in the Twin Towers and so, at a stroke, a small but significant proportion of BA's Concorde farebase was lost during the 9/11 attacks, and this small but important regular farebase hadn't recovered by 2003.

BTW, IIRC, if Concorde had not been retired early it would have been due to retire around now - 2013 - due to the airframe fatigue limits having been estimated to have been reached. Certainly prior to the Paris crash BA had been planning on operating it much later than 2003. About AF I don't know. Update - a 2002 Flight editorial on the BA Concordes expected life extension to 2010-15 here: [16]

IIARC, the only notable problems BA ever had had with the type were a couple of in-flight upper rudder losses due to dis-bonding - which were non-events, as Concorde had duplicated rudders - and a few precautionary engine shut-downs. I think AF were the only ones that had any fuel tank punctures, although why they affected AF and not BA I don't know.

A 2003 Flight article on Concorde's retirement here: [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Video on YouTube of a BA Concorde 'greasing in' at Kai Tak back in 1996 here: [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, despite the age of the aircraft there was little or no corrosion simply because most of the moisture was boiled off due to aerodynamic heating before it could do any damage. [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that both AF and BA operated Concordes, so naturally there would be differences in cabin service. But perhaps a section could be added that compares Concorde cabin service with that of comparable subsonic transatlantic commercial flights? For example, the single-class Concorde seating appears to be on a par with American coach-level seating (i.e. rather tight and cramped), but not having flown Concorde myself, I couldn't say for certain. And what of food/beverage service onboard? Was it similar to Business- or First-class service of the time on AF and BA? Perhaps some Wikipedians have photos of the food/beverage service? How many passenger lavatories were available? How many flight attendants were embarked on a typical flight (and were the staffing levels comparable to those on subsonic transat flights of the time)? Again, I know that service would differ between the AF and BA flights, and that service offerings would change over time. That said, I'd be really interested in knowing what the typical passenger experience aboard was like. Had I been quicker on the draw, I'd have spent a boatload of frequent flyer miles to give Concorde a try myself before they were retired, but that's a missed opportunity on my part.  :( Regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to the menu from my BA Concorde flight on 7 September 2003: [20] Click your "back" button after each page to return to the thumbnails. I still have the full-size original menu, my boarding pass, and all the rest of my Concorde stuff, with the exception that the BA flight 001 security sticker later fell off the back of my passport. Looking back now, I think the food in FIRST on a BA 777 from LHR to IAD (we were upgraded from Club World at the gate) was every bit as good as the food on Concorde but the wine/liquor selection wasn't as extensive. Regarding the seats, bear in mind that while in terms of distance Concorde was a long-haul flight, time-wise it was far shorter. My flight took 3 hours 21 minutes from takeoff at LHR to touchdown at JFK. You don't need the same large fold-flat seating and the like that goes with a seven- or eight-hour overnight long-haul flight in that situation. In so many ways, all the spiffed-up premium classes you see on some of the newer aircraft are just (as nice as they are) a way of trying to sugarcoat the fact that they're cramming more and more people into bigger and bigger planes for longer and longer flights. 1995hoo (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lovely! Thank you very much!  :) 72.0.15.8 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Concorde 1984 fares here; [21]

• Concorde London-New York return = £2,399 - subsonic First Class return = £1,986.
• Concorde London-Washington return = £2,426 - subsonic First Class return = £2,258

I wrote the Partnership with Sud section to reflect what I found in two primary sources. However, it seems there is more to the story that what I've presented here. Given that we know the Sud design of 1960 was a reflection of the STAC design, it is confusing that the earlier designs, from 1957, were apparently separate. I suspect this is not the case, that the earlier studies were prompted by STAC, and the downselect to the Sud model occurred as a result. However, I have no sources that really delve into this. Does anyone else? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a vast amount of information on Concorde in the Flight global archive, online here: [22] and it also includes contemporary articles on the respective UK/French SST projects prior to the Concorde agreement being signed between Britain and France. As the aircraft were/was not called that at the time, you may need to try various search terms though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.129 (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That Infobox image is changed by an IP editor half an hour after the image is placed on Commons by a user called Russavia, when Russavia (talk · contribs) is banned from editing on Wikipedia? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I reverted the change, but not for that reason. I believe it's more appropriate to have a production model of the aircraft in the Info Box rather than a pre-production variant. Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we put the top speed of the aircraft in the little detail box there? I think that is one of the most common questions in regards to this plane, why not put it there for all to see quickly. Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is in the Specs section, the first line under Performance, Mach 2.04. - BilCat (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the information box at the top of the article. It would be nice if it said the speed there so people don't have to go dig for it. That is after all one of the key features having to do with this plane. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The top box, called an infobox, on aircraft articles isn't used for specs. Specs on all aircraft articles on English WP are in the Specs section. It can't be added to the top infobox for this article alone, as the infobox template itself would have to be changed, and that's not likely to happen for just one article. - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Bummer. Then I guess I propose we add a short sentence in the lead about its speed.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As an airliner the top speed was very rarely used but as a guide the cruising speed for a typical Concorde supersonic flight was Mach 2.0 or around 1,250 mph. The actual figure depends on the external air temperature but the above are typical speeds for a transatlantic flight. The speed is given in mph rather than knots as that was what was displayed on the cabin display, along with Mach number, height, air temperature, and distance to destination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.168 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, as a guide, at maximum continuous dry power (the Mach 2.0 cruise setting) each Olympus engine was producing 10,000lb thrust.

Concorde's RR.58 airframe was able to tolerate Mach 2.4 for a limited time under worse case conditions, i.e., inadvertent overshooting of the desired cruise Mach number, e.g., when encountering the jet stream, 1967 Flight article here; [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fastest Concorde flight speed in mph was 1,488 mph, a record for a commercial aircraft set by the BA Concorde G-BOAC on 19th December 1985.

On 22th November 1987, Richard Noble became the first airline passenger to cross the Atlantic three times in one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The article "The Tu-144: the future that never was" used to substantiate statements about the Tu-144 seems to be an opinion piece and isn't even referenced on the Tupolev Tu-144 page itself. Is there not anything more substantial available? Otherwise, it's almost as bad as just repeating hearsay and not technical fact. PaulBoddie (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Concorde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130928074301/http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A6825061AH&q=Concorde+Delta&uid=788872723&setcookie=yes to http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A6825061AH&q=Concorde+Delta&uid=788872723&setcookie=yes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131023060458/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130516143325/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4794332.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4794332.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531215441/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7422409257931235094 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7422409257931235094
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121104070406/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-5212185.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-5212185.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130516144849/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78118409.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78118409.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100512045534/http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de:80/concorde-f-bvfb to http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/concorde-f-bvfb/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510192947/http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3250817/Final-flight-British-Airways-Concorde.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3250817/Final-flight-British-Airways-Concorde.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127041801/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24654137_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24654137_ITM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100116124028/http://www.esemag.com:80/1101/1101ed.html to http://www.esemag.com/1101/1101ed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article as it currently stands does not fully address the slew of cancellations by airlines with options for Concorde in 1973. The article describes these cancellations as being partially due to the 1973 Tu-144 crash at the Paris airshow, but the dates show that most of the cancellations were in the first half of the year, before that crash. The article states that environmental and noise concerns also had an impact, but doesn't provide a reference. Another possibility is the general economic downturn/recession in early 1973. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's an important part of the Concorde story, and it would be nice if we could find references that answer that question a little more definitively.Voodude (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A year earlier in 1972 PanAm had resumed talks with Aerospatiale/BAC on purchasing five of its original eight optioned Concordes: [24]

The hyphen in "Aérospatiale-BAC" gives the impression that Aérospatiale and BAC were a single company. Reliable sources that pre-date Wikipedia use "Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde" or (rarely) "BAC/SNIAS Concorde" as the aircraft's full name.

Examples:

• Norman Barfield. 1973. Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde. Profile Publications. whole book.
• The Aeronautical Journal. 1973. Royal Aeronautical Society. vol. 77. p. 640.
• ITA Bulletin. 1980. Institut du Transport Aérien. 1–24. p. 185.
• Egbert Ternbeek. 1982. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 67.
• M. J. Armitage; Bill Gunston; Peter Bently. 1992. Chronicle of Aviation. JL International. p. 970.
• AAIB Bulletin No: 3/94. 1994. Air Accidents Investigation Branch. p. 1.
• Glen Segell. 1998. Weapons Procurement in Phase Considerations. Glen Segell Publishers. p. 203.
• Martin Staniland. 2003. Government Birds: Air Transport and the State in Western Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 295.

This error has been corrected in the latest edition of the Haynes manual, with the hyphen changed to a slash. [25] [26] Firebrace (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned about the number of images in this article. It's a bit of image overload. Look at this image and consider what encyclopedic value it adds to the article. IMO, it looks like a flashy, stylistic bit of artistic photography, like several other fish-eye photos. It does not illustrate anything new or encyclopedic or add any knowledge in this article. It does not clarify anything in the text of the article. I think we need to shift this article away from being a presentation about how cool Concorde was to one that has a more informative and encyclopedic appearance and content. Dcs002 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The article says, "Prior to the accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero", but does not go on to mention the post-crash rating. Surely it's worth including too? Of course, any plane that has flown but hasn't caused any fatalities yet has a perfect rating. Muad (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A decade-old version of the article says the crash dropped Concorde instantly to the status of "most lethal plane". It also argues that one accident is insufficient data, and I tend to agree - because of the low flight hours, any mention of the plane's actual safety rating is meaningless. Muad (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, though at the time that perfect record of never having killed anyone did receive a lot of mention is all the media. But WP is not a newspaper. Has Concorde's safety record been covered since 4590? Coverage that is not limited to the time of occurrence can establish notability and context. Mathematically, I still agree with you. It's more of a promotional claim. Dcs002 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I added Other accidents and incidents as a subsection under under the Concorde Flight 4590 crash section. I think this is important because I don't personally know anyone who is not an airline pilot who knows these accidents even happened, and at the time there was quite a buzz about the fleet getting old and possibly unsafe. (I think BA kept a tight lid on these accidents.) Flight 4590 did not happen isolation, though in the end the causes were unrelated, but these rudder disintegrations scared a lot of people. I used the AAIB investigations as RS. Besides these two, there was another during flight testing, but I don't know if test flights count. Dcs002 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the Concordes were 'getting old', they had a design life of 45,000 flying hours (equivalent to 90,000 for a subsonic airliner), the oldest - in the BA fleet - had around 23,000.

Most of the Olympus 593 engines - built in the mid-seventies - had only ever been major-overhauled twice, or at most, three times, in their entire lives. For each journey they were only in the air for half the time of other airliners, see. So although they had travelled the same distance, the flying time was halved. So were the engine hours.

BA was planning on operating Concorde up to 2013, with a possible life-extension beyond that.

BTW, the 'accidents' you refer to were technically 'incidents' which is how the AAIB refer to them. They didn't get much publicity because they were handled safely by the crews and no-one was hurt. Most of the times the passengers were unaware anything was wrong. These sort of incidents happen all the time on other airliners, and you also never hear of them either.

FYI Concorde still has a 100% safety record in scheduled airline service. The 2000 Paris crash was a private charter flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)