This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Concorde article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Concorde. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Concorde at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Concorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Article says 55 for Tu-144.
I’m sure it’s on Google somewhere but I can’t find it.
Estimate? 2 per week? 27 years? 2700 flights?
MBG02 ( talk) 06:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Still haven't found it.
This site [2] says 50,000 flights (in total).
This site [3] implies 50,000 too; and (if I read it correctly) says 1 round trip per day by Air France, and 2 by British Airways => 42 flights per week for most of 1976-2000 => 24.5 years => 53.6k flights.
MBG02 ( talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I read somewhere ages ago that each and every flight was subsidised by taxpayers by several hundred euros, and so it never made any real profit. Article is poor on the real economics of it, and also its contribution to future technology.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Should add that Concorde flew faster than the earth spins and would catch-up with the sunset, so passengers could see the sun rise in the West [ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/concorde-contemplatio Fig ( talk) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)n] .
Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections Jacob805 Jacob805 ( talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Although this claim added in 2009 seems to be as stated in Jane's ( https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140324/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml), and appears elsewhere on the Internet, it is not consistent with the hours planes flew in the article (a total to retirement in 2003 of under 244,000 hours).
Nor does it make sense with an airframe design life of 45,000 flying hours (even if all 20 planes built did this number of hours it would not get to the total - and 5 did less than 1,000 flying hours).
(I wonder if Jane's actually intended to refer to engine hours rather than plane hours.)
Also is there an estimate anywhere of total supersonic hours flown in the western world, as that bit could be true? Robertm25 ( talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The maximum speed says in the first line "1,354 mph (2,179 km/h (...))" (which is btw only a few mi/km above the indicated cruising speed) but in the second titled the same it is "Mach 2.04" (which according to Google is around 2450 km/h, or 2518 km/h by another source). Anyone to clarify this (relatively glaring inconsistency for an awarded article)? Martin Gazdík ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried today to add this template, but ended up just messing up the See also area and I gave up, but I would love to have this in the article. I'm thinking Boeing 2707, Tu-144, and the Lockheed L-2000 to be added. Forevernewyes ( talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Concorde article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Concorde. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Concorde at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Concorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Article says 55 for Tu-144.
I’m sure it’s on Google somewhere but I can’t find it.
Estimate? 2 per week? 27 years? 2700 flights?
MBG02 ( talk) 06:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Still haven't found it.
This site [2] says 50,000 flights (in total).
This site [3] implies 50,000 too; and (if I read it correctly) says 1 round trip per day by Air France, and 2 by British Airways => 42 flights per week for most of 1976-2000 => 24.5 years => 53.6k flights.
MBG02 ( talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I read somewhere ages ago that each and every flight was subsidised by taxpayers by several hundred euros, and so it never made any real profit. Article is poor on the real economics of it, and also its contribution to future technology.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Should add that Concorde flew faster than the earth spins and would catch-up with the sunset, so passengers could see the sun rise in the West [ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/concorde-contemplatio Fig ( talk) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)n] .
Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections Jacob805 Jacob805 ( talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Although this claim added in 2009 seems to be as stated in Jane's ( https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140324/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml), and appears elsewhere on the Internet, it is not consistent with the hours planes flew in the article (a total to retirement in 2003 of under 244,000 hours).
Nor does it make sense with an airframe design life of 45,000 flying hours (even if all 20 planes built did this number of hours it would not get to the total - and 5 did less than 1,000 flying hours).
(I wonder if Jane's actually intended to refer to engine hours rather than plane hours.)
Also is there an estimate anywhere of total supersonic hours flown in the western world, as that bit could be true? Robertm25 ( talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The maximum speed says in the first line "1,354 mph (2,179 km/h (...))" (which is btw only a few mi/km above the indicated cruising speed) but in the second titled the same it is "Mach 2.04" (which according to Google is around 2450 km/h, or 2518 km/h by another source). Anyone to clarify this (relatively glaring inconsistency for an awarded article)? Martin Gazdík ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried today to add this template, but ended up just messing up the See also area and I gave up, but I would love to have this in the article. I'm thinking Boeing 2707, Tu-144, and the Lockheed L-2000 to be added. Forevernewyes ( talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)