Concorde 1962-69

[@enochpowelghost]

stunning aircraft !!!! a real classic

[@RomelioSanzz]

Concorde then looked so modern, today it still looks so modern,if it could fly.

[@jackjohnbob]

Thanks!!!! I love this plane!!!!!!

[@zmoonn]

Alas! Such a beautiful bird!

[@EA3IEK_4998URE]

That's a great plane, and my favorite one... I wonder if with modern technology, like composite materials, digital avionics, more efficient and silent engines, etc..., an "updated" Concorde could be made again with lower costs, enough to make it practical... We could have something like an "Airbus Concorde"... :)

[@VladAndreis]

RIP Concorde, I am truly sad I didn't get the honour of flying with you :(

[@focustc2000]

exelent video

[@grahamkeithtodd]

thank you Shazzasloon mate for correcting me on this..(i always get the buggers mixed up..) your right about the early versions of the TU-144 beening so alike to the concorde and the russians did "borrow" the plans...sadly for them MI5 got to hear about there intrest and let a doctored set "drop" into there hands...that is why all the early TU144's had a habit of falling out of the sky.. yes at least the russians did make a sst..(even if it was a copy of the concorde)

[@bitukukuasukgremany3]

thanks

[@spitfireJEJ]

Although it made an operating profit at some stage, this was only after development costs had been written off. It never came close to paying those so sadly it was a failure. It cost the equivalent of 110 hospitals in Britain alone. We needed those rather more than we needed 16 expensive aircraft - no matter how charismatic they were.

[@Gruntol5]

Odd remark. The landing gear is nearly always left down during initial flights of prototypes. Get with it!

[@rogerb5615]

At 8:08 seems like a very early rotation, followed by a really low rate of climb. And at 8:15 a massive flock of birds can be seen over the airfield. Sheesh.

[@Mark_Bickerton]

Losing Concord was a step back for mankind!

[@anisocoro]

I think that the number of passengers was limitated by technical factors:more seats would have required a longer ,and much heavier, fuselage, and duraluminium would be not enough "strong" to guarantee the integrity at high speed. Structural integrity was a great problem, Concorde was re-designed several times in order to have enough safeness.

[@Godscountry2732]

I miss that plane I wish we could have a fast transport,noise,and cost killed it,the concorde only had 120 seats,the crash was a freak accident,sad as it was.

[@Silver1Sprg]

Oh please. What makes the concord better? It carried less passengers. It cost more to operate. The only thing it offered was a faster flight at a higher altitude, which was great to see the curvature of the Earth. I always loved the unique look. And yes, it landed in San Diego ONCE at an air show near the border and offered rides. I agree it was a great plane, but not the best, just unique. Why would they bring it back when it cost more to operate anyway?

[@grahamkeithtodd]

sorry i got my planes wrong it was the russian backfire not the blackjack

[@ColdFusion]

lol very sorry! excuse my ignorance.

[@grahamkeithtodd]

sadly your right ..Concord(or Concorde) never made a penny in service.. something to do with the us airlines not buying it (they where going with the boeing S.S.T cancelled in 1967) and the us puplic's hatred of this lovely plane(the old "not invented here syndrome"it was a sad day when it finally went out of service we shall NEVER see it's like again

[@BulgarianInCanada]

concorde is the best from all sst's!

[@ColdFusion]

Retract....the...landing gear.

[@mutikonka]

It looks like something from the future but it is from the past. Maybe the Chinese can build Concord II.

[@Welloiledcog]

And now for something completely different... Monty Python's Flying Circus.

[@doctorwintercold]

The problem with the concorde is that its too damn fast so that parts are shakin and people are ralphin while destinations are completely overflown because the pilots are sleeping on duty and blaming the pretty attendants for decaf and missing parts...-the end.

[@barthoedemaker]

People where so easy that times.

[@BruderBoyTX]

We could make an A390 aka "new concorde"

[@GRAHAMAUS]

Actually the "sound of tomorrow" is way quieter engines than typical in 1965. Who gives a shit about aircraft noise these days?

[@wolfie672]

I understand Concord was never really economical is that right?

[@Doomsday2060]

Oh just bring the bloody thing back. It would be very simple to do that, trust me. It will take no money to do that at all ;)

[@PilotInCommand100]

well worth 100million pounds

[@killabilla]

so concorde flew and it got scrapped who cares why mourn..it was fun while it lasted

[@grahamkeithtodd]

no not really the russians nicked a set of (doctored) plans and bulid there own version.. strangely it kept crashing... and before you say any more the russians have a long tratdition of coping planes.. the Tu4 (B-29) the blackjack( a rather poor even by the russians standards) of the B1 bomber

[@Philflash]

That is still the problem, it is not a profitable idea.

[@Gruntol5]

Roy Jenkins at 2.35 - typical Labour politician: completely out of his depth. All bluff and bravado. Here he was the "Aviation Minister," yet graduated with a degree in politics, philosophy & economics. Knew nothing about aviation. Small wonder the UK is heading slowly and inexorably to third world status.