@@fidelcatsro6948 US mechanics had not correctly serviced an American transport jet, which dropoed parts of its undercarriage off onto the runway that was not spotted by ground staff before concordes took off next. The large metal object was thrown up into the wing and through a fuel tank, rupturing it at maximum engine thrust starting the fire that unbalanced the 17 fuel tanks and led to its crash. If they could have achieved a higher altitude and speed to level off the engineer might have been able to dump enough fuel to balance the trim enough to get the fire under control once the ruptured tank had bled out.
As a cold of the 70's it was common to daydream about what the future would be like in regards to air travel. I bet no one imagined that in 2023 air travel would be like the 1960's.
Yes, and God only knows, if anyone imagined in 1972 that we wouldn't Land again on the moon during the next 50 years ! Except Tech related to promote bad aspect of AI, Military , Libertinage, Immorality etc... There is a few of what we did with durable tech from the 70's ;
Such as?? Cars? World leading lorries , buses , steel, coal now imported from Columbia half way around the world! The list is endless, I was working age and self employed too when Thatcher was destroying Britain .
You should thank Winston Churchill. He enslaved the UK to be a USA colony. We lost patent rights to everything post 1940. We were well ahead of the USA in R&D across the board.
This was called ‘fuel trim.’ Instead of adjusting elevators resting positions, this was used. Once cruising at mach 2, flight engineers would try and balance her with fuel so well that the elavon position indicators would be at resting position, no steering input or rudder. That way she would fly perfectly straight, balanced, and as aerodynamically efficient as possible piecing a perfect wake through the air at twice the speed of sound. She was the most flight test aircraft ever made. Concorde truly was remarkable.
Concorde was cancelled after the 2000 crash, which was not caused by anything wrong with the plane itself, but because a piece of debris from another plane had been left on the runway, causing a burst tyre. (The French Concorde business had never made a profit but the British Airways business apparently was making one by the time of the crash).
BA made it profitable from the mid 1980ies. The landing gear had not been assembled correctly and THAT was a major factor in the crash. It broke, sent debris through the wing and started a small fire. Then, a little further up the runway, the wear strip dropped by another plane caused a huge tyre failure that made a larger hole in the same wing...feeding the fire with more fuel. Tragically, the tyre would not have ruptured the wing if the crew hadn't overfilled the tanks.
It's fascinating how almost every one of these "challenges" has since been attributed by various commentators to have been the true downfall of Concorde, yet here they were being talked-about as if in another 10-20 years dealing with those problems will be as old hat as the workings of a car. I suppose there is the inherent bias in not wanting to slag-off the government's expensive supersonic plane and risk its commercial future. Overall an interesting insight into the time when exponentially-increasing fuel usage wasn't necessarily regarded as a problem at all, so long as it went fast enough. There was a certain logic to it, since the economy had absorbed the fuel increases required by cars and then planes. A lot of people thought that would inevitably continue, as the world got faster and faster. (See also projections of economical space-tourism, which would've required _even more_ fuel per passenger!)
THANK YOU BBC ARCHIVE , THAT IS WHAT WE THINK ABOUT YOU and GB , EDUCTION & KNOWLEDGE ; Congratulations for Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III ! G'DAY !
Yes, Concorde was far more thirsty, by a factor of 5.5. There is also a wiki page specifically on "Fuel economy in aircraft" listing fuel per seat/passenger.
The whole video consists of telling us how awesomely high the fuel bill will be and how awesomely high the climate changing emissions will be. It was impressive engineering but it's a good thing it's in our past.
I don't agree. I wish Concorde was still flying today. It's true that it should have been re-designed to carry more passengers, because just 100 isn't enough to make it worthwhile. I don't know whether that would have been scientifically possible, or if there was a limit to how large the plane could be.
Well, if it was still around, with a few adjustments, it could whisk some of these politicians and celebrities off to their "climate change summits", instead of their private jets taking up all that airspace, eh? (They could pass the hat around for petrol money)
You'll find that B-52s constantly circling the northern polar region, ready to launch nuclear weapons did the lions share. For nearly fifty years during the Cold War...NATO had these bombers airborne.
@@redcat9436 it drinks so much fuel..the conventional boeing or airbus is like a "moped" with fuel economy in comparison to this gas guzzling "v8 monster"
I miss this kind of educational tv. Tomorows World used to be well presented and interesting magazine of technology.
thankfully there is youtube.
@@milaloup
I do miss them too, there was another TV Emiisson called " Perspective" , maybe UK , German !
Yes same, now its all Agenda pushing, race baiting, woke ideology. "The Science is Settled"
Incredible technology.
sumting went wrong obviously and caused its demise
@@fidelcatsro6948 US mechanics had not correctly serviced an American transport jet, which dropoed parts of its undercarriage off onto the runway that was not spotted by ground staff before concordes took off next. The large metal object was thrown up into the wing and through a fuel tank, rupturing it at maximum engine thrust starting the fire that unbalanced the 17 fuel tanks and led to its crash. If they could have achieved a higher altitude and speed to level off the engineer might have been able to dump enough fuel to balance the trim enough to get the fire under control once the ruptured tank had bled out.
@@5nowChain5 thats sad..
I miss the 70's and 80's. Life was carefree and much easier to handle than today
Except for the threat of nuclear annihilation, sure 🙃
@@chrism74j40 i’d say nowadays even more possible in this Idiocracy world
Because we had endless amounts of fuel to waste!!
I do too , we're tired of promoting Immorality, adultery, Libertinage in every Movie , now days
@@dean6816still do
As a cold of the 70's it was common to daydream about what the future would be like in regards to air travel. I bet no one imagined that in 2023 air travel would be like the 1960's.
Yes, and God only knows, if anyone imagined in 1972 that we wouldn't Land again on the moon during the next 50 years !
Except Tech related to promote bad aspect of AI, Military , Libertinage, Immorality etc... There is a few of what we did with durable tech from the 70's ;
I use to make a paper concorde , could reach 1 side too the other side of the kitchen in 10 seconds 👍
But did your Dad miss the sports page of his newspaper when he came home from work?
@@stephenspence1192 it was the sun page 3 🙄
Must have been a very large kitchen!
@@mikepanchaud1 massive mate 🙄
@@garryleeks4848 Naughty Boy. Lol!
Back when we used to make stuff. thanks thatcher.
There's no point making stuff that no one wants to buy.
Such as?? Cars? World leading lorries , buses , steel, coal now imported from Columbia half way around the world! The list is endless, I was working age and self employed too when Thatcher was destroying Britain .
You should thank Winston Churchill. He enslaved the UK to be a USA colony. We lost patent rights to everything post 1940. We were well ahead of the USA in R&D across the board.
@@CasinoWoyale here’s an example of why it’s best to stay quiet when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@5nowChain5 it was either that or become part of the third reich.
This was called ‘fuel trim.’ Instead of adjusting elevators resting positions, this was used. Once cruising at mach 2, flight engineers would try and balance her with fuel so well that the elavon position indicators would be at resting position, no steering input or rudder. That way she would fly perfectly straight, balanced, and as aerodynamically efficient as possible piecing a perfect wake through the air at twice the speed of sound. She was the most flight test aircraft ever made.
Concorde truly was remarkable.
5:08 I thought they were sleeping 😂
(5:22) That look on the bloke's face as he slowly gets up: "Nah, I've dropped the thing down there.. Somewhere"
I've been there.
It’s only when you watch these kind of documentaries that give you an idea of the engineering genius behind the Concorde.
*INSANELY* technologically complicated for the year 1970!
Concorde was cancelled after the 2000 crash, which was not caused by anything wrong with the plane itself, but because a piece of debris from another plane had been left on the runway, causing a burst tyre. (The French Concorde business had never made a profit but the British Airways business apparently was making one by the time of the crash).
Grounded as it was faster than usa jet fighters, plain and simple , debris on runway was dubious. Sort of fell off an American plane....hmmm.
the french would have made more money making plenty of citroen ds cars! 🐱👍🏿
@@fidelcatsro6948 Où sont les Français ?
where are the French ?
BA made it profitable from the mid 1980ies.
The landing gear had not been assembled correctly and THAT was a major factor in the crash. It broke, sent debris through the wing and started a small fire. Then, a little further up the runway, the wear strip dropped by another plane caused a huge tyre failure that made a larger hole in the same wing...feeding the fire with more fuel.
Tragically, the tyre would not have ruptured the wing if the crew hadn't overfilled the tanks.
The 3 men asleep on the wing was worrying. One woke up towards the end and tried to look busy. You've been rumbled mate.
😂
Except they weren't sleeping but were placing their arms down the holes.😂😂😂
It's fascinating how almost every one of these "challenges" has since been attributed by various commentators to have been the true downfall of Concorde, yet here they were being talked-about as if in another 10-20 years dealing with those problems will be as old hat as the workings of a car. I suppose there is the inherent bias in not wanting to slag-off the government's expensive supersonic plane and risk its commercial future.
Overall an interesting insight into the time when exponentially-increasing fuel usage wasn't necessarily regarded as a problem at all, so long as it went fast enough. There was a certain logic to it, since the economy had absorbed the fuel increases required by cars and then planes. A lot of people thought that would inevitably continue, as the world got faster and faster. (See also projections of economical space-tourism, which would've required _even more_ fuel per passenger!)
All that lovely fuel!!
So much better than the garbage that passes on TV of today.
You got anthing on the ngte pyestock?
(3:55) Thinks to himself,
"Yeah.. That's safe to walk on."
No "suddenly dropping" there.
Phew.
I'll always resent the fact that that my parents weren't rich enough to fly us on Concord.
Mine were!
THANK YOU BBC ARCHIVE , THAT IS WHAT WE THINK ABOUT YOU and GB , EDUCTION & KNOWLEDGE ;
Congratulations for Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III !
G'DAY !
Did the Concorde burn more fuel per passenger than an Airbus 380?
Yes, Concorde was far more thirsty, by a factor of 5.5. There is also a wiki page specifically on "Fuel economy in aircraft" listing fuel per seat/passenger.
@@Gr33nMamba Thank you.
He looks a bit like Miles jupp
WHEN WE were the true ALIENS !
Dom Joly
FIFTY YEARS AGO ! WAW WOW WEW WYW WIW WUW WÖW WÔW WÄW WÊW
The whole video consists of telling us how awesomely high the fuel bill will be and how awesomely high the climate changing emissions will be. It was impressive engineering but it's a good thing it's in our past.
I don't agree. I wish Concorde was still flying today. It's true that it should have been re-designed to carry more passengers, because just 100 isn't enough to make it worthwhile. I don't know whether that would have been scientifically possible, or if there was a limit to how large the plane could be.
Well, if it was still around, with a few adjustments, it could whisk some of these politicians and celebrities off to their "climate change summits", instead of their private jets taking up all that airspace, eh?
(They could pass the hat around for petrol money)
Crazy there's no wires all over like the fake iss fake station
We are headed 4 climate armageddon because a few rich wanted to travel so fast, and it was a disaster for the ecconomy.
You'll find that B-52s constantly circling the northern polar region, ready to launch nuclear weapons did the lions share. For nearly fifty years during the Cold War...NATO had these bombers airborne.
@@Setright indeed, the military is a disaster, but we have to challenge everything, especially the things we have control over.
Get bent! Climate crisis is a made up problem!
Im glad they shelved this expensive pollutive fuel guzzling uneconomical project..
That is an uneducated comment.
@@redcat9436 it drinks so much fuel..the conventional boeing or airbus is like a "moped" with fuel economy in comparison to this gas guzzling "v8 monster"
My smart fridge has superior computing power, amazing
Yeah but can it fly supersonic 😉
@@Firkinnel no, it does beep when left open.