@bluestormjungle that comment was kind of tongue in cheek. so dont get excited you moron. some people died..right? ..so i was simply saying.. i wish it was full of 'bad guys' so to speak, rather than decent hard working people. dont call me a fuckin retard. you retard.
@TonyThrash94 The commentators statement is true... Concorde entered passenger service in 1976 while TU-144 entered passenger service in 1977 and only for a short time... So technically it was the first supersonic PASSENGER aircraft.
@TonyThrash94 What he meant was the Tu-144 was never used as widely as the Concorde was. The Tu-144 was withdrawn from commercial service after just 3 years because it was so unreliable
@aspiringdrummer17 That's closer to truth. But Tu-144 was withdrawn not because it was unreliable, but because it was too expensive and in USSR there were too few routes for an aircraft like that.
@TonyThrash94 Those factors certainly did contribute but the Tu-144 was notoriously unreliable and spent most of its time grounded due to a multitude of problems. The Tu-144 ultimatley did more bad than good for the Russian commercial aviation industry, being the endless money pit that it was. Development of more conventional aircraft were put on hold or cancelled altogether because of it
@TonyThrash94 That plane was nothing but of product of industrial espionage. Look for Sergei Pavlov, arrested during the 60's with plans of the braking system for instance.
@TonyThrash94 Independent... Really? It doesn't look suspicious to you that their design is so much alike? And it has nothing to do with being supersonic, in no way does it imply a single design. There were repeated attempts from the Russians to steal the plan of the Concorde during the 60's.
@maxulic Aerobus looks much like Boeing, so one of the companies is stealing plans from another, yeah? Tu-144 was bigger and most of it's systems were radically new. There was no place to steal it from. Even Concorde.
@TonyThrash94 No, the Tupolev was a transport aircraft. He said, it was the first PASSENGER AIRCRAFT listen before you get all excited with your facts that aren't facts.
While true, I was focusing on the other topic, that is a valid point, but still, it's not impossible, who knows, maybe there will soon be electric planes that travel at super sonic speeds. Well just have to wait and hope that we don't blow our selves up in the process
@admiralsftershockrex right. are you forgetting something? oh yes, let me remind you. there are other means of transport, other than by air, that is. and what of the severe environmental impact caused by kerosene-based jet engine fuels? do you see any electric planes in the skys? no, didnt think so. maybe one day, we wont have an atmosphere with enough oxygen to power our jet engines, let alone a planet with enough people to make super-sonic air travel economically viable once more.
Meh soon all travel will be super sonic, don't belive me? Then your like the people who said we would never break the sound barrier, and they were wrong
@will747ful It's not the aircraft that is dangerous, a piece of ANOTHER aircraft was on the runway and it damaged some of Concord's vital components, which led to the crash.
@shcsepac umm, no. Don't be a dope. If 2000 is the 21st century, then the day you were born, you were 1, on your first birthday you were 2. Doesn't make sense, does it? Guess you need to educate yourself a little before posting on public forums.
@DeeMinion god damn you're dense. A CENTURY has 100 years, right? Start counting in 1900 which had to have been the first year of the 20th century according to you. 100 years later is 1999. So the 20th century, according to you, never got to have "20" in it? Doesn't sound right, does it. You've got to complete a year before you can count it. The 20th century started on 1/1/01 and concluded 12/31/00. Look it up if you don't believe me
@marquess512 lol i guess you forgot that 0 comes before 1 lol you don't count the 1 until the ENTIRE year passes by so just like 1900, 1800,1700,1600, etc you do start at ZERO.
Very true, its not worth flying the Concorde now days. The cost is just too high compared to the existing Boeing 777, Airbus A380 as well as the Boing 747. In the 80's and 90's, its worth flying the Concorde, now I would rather fly on First or Suite Class, its more comfortable seating. In Concorde is like flying Economy Class. Supersonic speed is the only advantage of Concorde.
it wasnt the crash that did the concorde, it was the high cost of maintenance of the plane. A 747 is cheap and noone wants to pay 2000$ for a 59 mile flight . Instead people want a 59$ ticket for 2000 miles. I am baffled it took 30 years for the concorde to die.
Text Olaf 3: Weil die Concorde mittlerweile ein teurer Problemfall für die Betreiber geworden war, wurde sie in England haargenau an dem Wochenende, als das Unglück in Frankreich geschah, aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Die Briten waren der Meinung, dass man mit diesem Schrotthaufen, so schön er auch aussehen mag, nicht mehr fliegen sollte. In Paris war man anderer Meinung. Pech für über hundert Menschen, die jetzt noch leben könnten ....
Text Olaf 2: der Unfall mit der Concorde allerdings wäre vermeidbar gewesen. Am Wochenende, als das Unglück geschehen war, war die Concorde ein Thema in den britischen Zeitungen. Ich war gerade mit meiner Tochter in London. Mein Englisch ist nicht so besonders, aber um die "SUN" zu lesen, reicht es. Die schrieben, dass die Concorde über 30 Jahre alt ist, dass es Risse, Triebwerksausfälle und Ermüdungserscheinungen gibt.
Text Olaf 1: Zunächst einmal: Die Tupolev 144 flog bereits 5 Jahre vor der Concord, Bereits 1969 habe ich so eine Maschine in Schönefeld gesehen. Sie gehörte der russischen Linie Aeroflot. Über die Zuverlässigkeit und der Unfallrate verschiedener Flugzeughersteller und Fluggesellschaften muss man nicht diskutieren, es gibt immer wieder bescheuerte Zufälle und Fehler, die man niemandem in die Schuhe schieben sollte, solche Dinge geschehen einfach.
@sussexpalaeo Yes, it didn't have as good a record as Concorde, but it should at least get credit as the first, everyone always says it was stolen from Concorde when really it came first.
A Boeing 747 does not crash every year. If you look at the NTSB data, the 737 has a much higher fatal event rate than the 747. Should we take all Fords off the road because there are fatal accidents? Over 1400 747s have been built and used in commercial service compared to 20 Concords built, and only 16 used in commercial service. The 747 has had 28 fatal events in over 19 million flights...the Concord had 1 fatal event in .09 million flights. You are making an irrelevant comparison.
@Cloosdoosch Wait, I couldn't tell what you were replying to. What are you trying to get at? I'm confused about what the point you're going toward is :)
@rockymountainrandom I was replying to this comment -sorry, that was clear as mud!) :-) a boing 747 crashes every year, a concore crashes once in the 30 years and theyll never fly again but 747 does...
If there is a punctured fuel tank, why can't the pilots still gain altitude?? I see leaking burning fuel, but why can't the engine still produce thrust?
@moxyfruvous The fire was consumed by engines 1 and 2 which made them lose power. The fire also triggered the engine fire alarm resulting in the flight engineer shutting down the number 2 engine.(I read shutting down the engine was not recommended during takeoff.) I also heard the pilots reduced thrust to engine number 3 and 4 to stop the plane yawing to the left. Y couldn't they just use the rudder to keep the plane heading straight?? Essentially more power was needed to stay in the air.
@teemas10 They probably didn't even know they had a massive fuel leak fire. All they knew was that they had "strong flames behind them" and the engine fire alarm probably confirmed that this was a engine fire. Any way i'm not a pilot, it's just what I've heard.
In another film, they also said that FOD, the debris on runways and taxiways was, after this crash, more taken into consideration, because as @LilacDownDeep said, it was caused by another airplane's bit of tire or debris of some other sort.. So maybe they could have concentrated on clearing the FOD, as we do on every airfield nowadays, instead of blaming it on the plane..
This sounds a terribly morbid thing to ask but apart from the sounds of engines spooling down and lack of height etc.. Just how aware were the passengers of the situation they were in regarding the fire itself? Anyone looking up from outside it’s obvious but from what I can make of it the fire was not visible on top of the wing and the trailing edges of the wing are further back than the last window. Fire did not enter the cabin. Would smoke have?
Continental Airlines tryed to tell porkies saying the piece of equipment was on the runway in the first place. Continental Airlines also have been taken over by United Airlines on November 30 2011.
@jesusislord10777 What are you talking about? Boeing was not involved in this incident in any way, other than the fact that they owned McDonnell Douglas, but that is irrelevant because by the time they acquired it, the DC-10 was out of production! Plus, the accident wasn't even caused by the design of the DC-10, but it was triggered by faulty maintenance ON the DC-10.
At 0.49 the presenter claims the concorde was the first supersonic passenger aircraft in the world. I am pretty sure it was the Tupolev Tu-144. Someone did not do his homework.
Still an exciting plane from which i heard they want to let it fly again. (shows etc)
@VinceNakano The tu-44 was designed around the same time as the concorde, and began test flights before the concorde. But the tu-44 did not start passendger carrier services until 1 November 1977, almost two years after the Concorde was already doing so, meaning, that even though they are similar in many ways, the concorde flew passengers for profit first, 2 years before TU-44, making it the first passenger carrying supersonic plane. I did my homework, lol.
Oh come on. 20 Concordes vs 1400+ Boeing 747s. The accident statistics are far from comparable. Also Concorde is very expensive to fly because of extreme fuel consumption, and that is the main reason why it doesn't fly anymore.
@BigBottleLightInc The discontinuation of the concord was a lot more about the economic inefficiency of the plane than the crash. The crash was simply a catalyst for the decison to ground all further flights.
If modern Airlines can barely stay in business, how could an ultra-expensive supersonic jet?
@BigBottleLightInc Yeah but only poor ppl travel on Boings, rich ppl traveled on Concord. You and I both know it shouldnt matter but we also both know it does
@BigBottleLightInc ...another big bottle of lightning and they're pulling me over for another..DUI!...what. just a 100,000 it's US deficit accumilating now each second or so..but you can fix MY Passport SHOWING Me Love!..(some famous club hit like ruling)..noone can blame ANYONE for nature's events; man's minor mistakes!...(I dreamed that those Nazi's back in the the day..The Enemy or Not!..knew where that Zeppelin Will Take Them..On Towards The Bahamas! and places like that!)
@BigBottleLightInc If a Concorde crashed every year after their in-service date, they would've been out of service by the mid-90's. There wouldn't have been any left. :-)
@BigBottleLightInc thats not the reason why it never flew again. A new scratch-proof wing was chosen for it to prevent the incident ever happening again, but concorde was scrapped for economic reason, not because of the crash.
@BigBottleLightInc There were far more 747s in the air than Concordes. The risk of a 747 crashing was more likely. Besides, concorde was really expensive to run and that's part of the reason they retired it.
@BigBottleLightInc ohh and u forgot that the aircraft waz a very expensive projekt and after the crash the goverment din`t wanted to pay for it enny more and then they shut it down
"reputation as one of the safest planes in the sky..."
"57 burst tires, 13 of them causing damage to engines and 6 of them puncturing fuel tanks..." Whether or not there had been no accidents doesnt mean it was safe, especially after that analysis of the facts. That's like saying, "my car, which has no brakes and seatbelts is safe, because I've never gotten in to an accident with it"
@Cnd1867 you are right, but how many burst tyres etc have there been for other airlines? percentage wise probably the same, if not more, tyres burst all the time, its like having a 5 star euro ncap vw golf, if a tyre bursts its still deadly, the aircraft is still safe, the tyres are just the weakest link, in cars, planes, bikes etc...
Yeah I agree but when you look at the evolution of cars. You see that at first they didn't have breaks and seatbelts and that you also had a chance of breaking your arm starting it. I mean its not cause an accident happen that you need to stop production or pushing that tech tree.
Just a real tragedy involving a high quality, safe, and gorgeous aircraft. Their excellent safety record could not keep the sharks from circling and ending a remarkable history with a terrible disaster.
Ironically, it wasn't even their fault too. Some unknown and unauthorized piece of equipment fell off on a previous Continental Flight; the Concorde plane rode over it and it punctured the tires, causing catastrophic damage.
@LilacDownDeep But then again if you really think about it, due to the positioning of the landing gear a punctured tire is still fatal, regardless of the means with which it was punctured. This was bound to happen sooner or later and they showed in the video that indeed a punctured tire would create holes under the wing.
@32docholiday Hm, yes you are right about that. Though if I recall it was the only major disaster involving Concorde and it sadly happened before 9/11 where flight in the US was grounded. I guess the shutdown was inevitable.
I remember that many years back. The interesting part about it is that the next concord flight hours after that leaving from Paris was fully booked.
ghayath2011 7 hours ago
Thanks
heartbreaking
So sad
macpduff 17 hours ago
Garadaghli Genocide --
On February 17, 1992. Armenian Army attacked Karadaghli village of Azerbaijan.
The village was completely destroyed during the occupation, peaceful people, including
women and children were brutally killed, tortured and taken hostages. Nearly 80 of 110
villagers were killed, 6 became missing and according to the witnesses, 9 people were taken hostage.
watch?v=sKUVqy0pfZY
watch?v=ez9pTyFX7W4
watch?v=OkIYOQ1t4t4
garadaghli org
FarizTug 2 days ago
it was my plane ....
Gioagla 3 days ago
i can only hope this plane was full of fat cat executives.. wall street types. i hate those ones.
Joey1TRFC 4 days ago
@Joey1TRFC you're a sick retarded!
bluestormjungle 3 days ago
@bluestormjungle that comment was kind of tongue in cheek. so dont get excited you moron. some people died..right? ..so i was simply saying.. i wish it was full of 'bad guys' so to speak, rather than decent hard working people. dont call me a fuckin retard. you retard.
Joey1TRFC 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Profitez vite de l'opportunité de notre développement mondial !!
-Concept du 3° Millénaire
-Des paiements instantanés sous 3 mn
-Classée N°1 depuis des mois
Les prochaines personnes qui vont réussir et obtenir de résultats impressionnants sont celles qui vont venir nous rejoindre !!
Désireux de bâtir une véritable affaire ? Ne manquez pas l'affaire de votre vie !!
Contactez-moi vite.
vous pouvez me joindre soit par mail : gagnplus@gmail.com
Skype : magnetiseurdeviry
tel : 01 69 05 39 44
MrPULSAR91 6 days ago
@Cloosdoosch U do realise that concorde stops flying because British airways and air France went bust from making them
MrXBGamer 1 week ago
R.I.P my dad was the pilot
Appleman756 1 week ago 3
@Appleman756 sure...
toughtony22 1 week ago
@Appleman756 bullshit
wagsta1 6 days ago 3
@Appleman756 I'm sorry for your loss :(
warspitejr 3 days ago
first we have the titanic love story now the concordes
sid4life123 2 weeks ago
Tu-144 is a failure, and a copy of Concorde. Condorde RULES.
AviationEnthusiastic 2 weeks ago
0:46 Liar! Tupolev 144 was the first!
TonyThrash94 2 weeks ago 8
Comment removed
teemas10 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TonyThrash94 The commentators statement is true... Concorde entered passenger service in 1976 while TU-144 entered passenger service in 1977 and only for a short time... So technically it was the first supersonic PASSENGER aircraft.
teemas10 1 week ago
@TonyThrash94 but never went in use as the concorde
fenotipobombay 1 week ago
@fenotipobombay Oh, rly? Try at least reading Wikipedia before posting delirium like that =\
TonyThrash94 1 week ago
@TonyThrash94 What he meant was the Tu-144 was never used as widely as the Concorde was. The Tu-144 was withdrawn from commercial service after just 3 years because it was so unreliable
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 That's closer to truth. But Tu-144 was withdrawn not because it was unreliable, but because it was too expensive and in USSR there were too few routes for an aircraft like that.
TonyThrash94 1 week ago
@TonyThrash94 Those factors certainly did contribute but the Tu-144 was notoriously unreliable and spent most of its time grounded due to a multitude of problems. The Tu-144 ultimatley did more bad than good for the Russian commercial aviation industry, being the endless money pit that it was. Development of more conventional aircraft were put on hold or cancelled altogether because of it
aspiringdrummer17 1 week ago
@aspiringdrummer17 When it comes to things like Concorde, or 144 it doesn't matter whether it's a money pit or a money spring.
TonyThrash94 1 week ago
@TonyThrash94 That plane was nothing but of product of industrial espionage. Look for Sergei Pavlov, arrested during the 60's with plans of the braking system for instance.
maxulic 3 days ago
Yup. None of caught spies in Russia were announced. Maybe they were just killed? Don't exaggerate. Two independent planes.
TonyThrash94 2 days ago
@TonyThrash94 Independent... Really? It doesn't look suspicious to you that their design is so much alike? And it has nothing to do with being supersonic, in no way does it imply a single design. There were repeated attempts from the Russians to steal the plan of the Concorde during the 60's.
maxulic 1 day ago
@maxulic Aerobus looks much like Boeing, so one of the companies is stealing plans from another, yeah? Tu-144 was bigger and most of it's systems were radically new. There was no place to steal it from. Even Concorde.
TonyThrash94 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TonyThrash94 No, the Tupolev was a transport aircraft. He said, it was the first PASSENGER AIRCRAFT listen before you get all excited with your facts that aren't facts.
PhotoShopChannel 2 days ago
Comment removed
MrChowell726 2 weeks ago
While true, I was focusing on the other topic, that is a valid point, but still, it's not impossible, who knows, maybe there will soon be electric planes that travel at super sonic speeds. Well just have to wait and hope that we don't blow our selves up in the process
admiralsftershockrex 2 weeks ago
Like I said, soon it will be all super sonic, well mostly air travel, or only air travel. And then we will all feel like idiots for denying it
admiralsftershockrex 2 weeks ago
@admiralsftershockrex right. are you forgetting something? oh yes, let me remind you. there are other means of transport, other than by air, that is. and what of the severe environmental impact caused by kerosene-based jet engine fuels? do you see any electric planes in the skys? no, didnt think so. maybe one day, we wont have an atmosphere with enough oxygen to power our jet engines, let alone a planet with enough people to make super-sonic air travel economically viable once more.
timmah583 2 weeks ago
Spah is sappin' mah reverse thruster.
Malice720 2 weeks ago
Meh soon all travel will be super sonic, don't belive me? Then your like the people who said we would never break the sound barrier, and they were wrong
admiralsftershockrex 3 weeks ago
@admiralsftershockrex you're an idiot, and you're illiterate.
Milkpipe 2 weeks ago
It actually was a safe plane; it's famousness is what killed it.
FireStormBravo 3 weeks ago
no no no wait safestplane in the sky going slow
kian218 3 weeks ago
well 3 miles under 1 second could cause the plane to go upward with the wind then get forced down and go boom.
kian218 3 weeks ago
its no good this aircraft its dangerous
will747ful 3 weeks ago
@will747ful It's not the aircraft that is dangerous, a piece of ANOTHER aircraft was on the runway and it damaged some of Concord's vital components, which led to the crash.
RaccoonFox186 3 weeks ago
my grandparents rode on one of those but not tht one
hurlysurf 3 weeks ago
1:46 You really see in his face, that he's so shocked!
Pellkartoffel1000 4 weeks ago
hi
SELFproclaimedVIRGIN 1 month ago
Key moment of the 21st century?? FAIL. This happened in 2000 - the last year of the 20th century.
John19182004 1 month ago
@John19182004 Umm, no. The year 2000 is the first year of the 21st century.
shcsepac 1 month ago
@shcsepac umm, no. Don't be a dope. If 2000 is the 21st century, then the day you were born, you were 1, on your first birthday you were 2. Doesn't make sense, does it? Guess you need to educate yourself a little before posting on public forums.
John19182004 1 month ago
@John19182004 The year 2000 is/was the first year of the 21st century, whats so hard to get?
DeeMinion 1 month ago
@DeeMinion god damn you're dense. A CENTURY has 100 years, right? Start counting in 1900 which had to have been the first year of the 20th century according to you. 100 years later is 1999. So the 20th century, according to you, never got to have "20" in it? Doesn't sound right, does it. You've got to complete a year before you can count it. The 20th century started on 1/1/01 and concluded 12/31/00. Look it up if you don't believe me
John19182004 1 month ago
Oh right yeh guess that makes sense
DeeMinion 1 month ago
@shcsepac No it isn't
marquess512 1 month ago
@marquess512
Yes it is just like the 1900 were considered the 20th century 0ad-999ad was the first century, 100-199 was the second.....1900-1999 was the 20th....
AnhYeuEmMaiMai69 1 month ago
@AnhYeuEmMaiMai69 So the first century was the year 0-99? Oh wait, there was no year zero. Learn math.
marquess512 1 month ago
@marquess512 lol i guess you forgot that 0 comes before 1 lol you don't count the 1 until the ENTIRE year passes by so just like 1900, 1800,1700,1600, etc you do start at ZERO.
AnhYeuEmMaiMai69 1 month ago
@shcsepac No, it's the last year of the 20th century. A century lasts from, say, 1801 to 1900. 2000 marked the completion of the 20th century.
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
the top comment is so inaccurate. do some fucking research before you post stupid comments like this.
fejic 1 month ago
Cause was trash on the runway left by crap American plane
Zakariah1971 1 month ago
@Zakariah1971
retarted comment but alas, I epect nothing less from a forgiener.....
AnhYeuEmMaiMai69 1 month ago
Did he died??ლ(ಠ益ಠლ
Skittlesking 1 month ago
Well I hope the a380 doesnt fall in to the same disaster. cuz it carries alot more people.
PREZILLA2009 1 month ago
wel said everyone u wanna buy an expensive sports bike ,,but nt ready to spend to fly in concorde ha,,hhhmmm,,,
spotstories 1 month ago
Very true, its not worth flying the Concorde now days. The cost is just too high compared to the existing Boeing 777, Airbus A380 as well as the Boing 747. In the 80's and 90's, its worth flying the Concorde, now I would rather fly on First or Suite Class, its more comfortable seating. In Concorde is like flying Economy Class. Supersonic speed is the only advantage of Concorde.
1755ganesha 1 month ago
it wasnt the crash that did the concorde, it was the high cost of maintenance of the plane. A 747 is cheap and noone wants to pay 2000$ for a 59 mile flight . Instead people want a 59$ ticket for 2000 miles. I am baffled it took 30 years for the concorde to die.
orion1979z 1 month ago
BRING IT BACK
Yeaaaaaaaahhhhhhh 1 month ago
@Yeaaaaaaaahhhhhhh well contact frances president sarkozy and britains prime minister david cameron to bring it back then
michaeloflaherty 1 month ago
Text Olaf 3: Weil die Concorde mittlerweile ein teurer Problemfall für die Betreiber geworden war, wurde sie in England haargenau an dem Wochenende, als das Unglück in Frankreich geschah, aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Die Briten waren der Meinung, dass man mit diesem Schrotthaufen, so schön er auch aussehen mag, nicht mehr fliegen sollte. In Paris war man anderer Meinung. Pech für über hundert Menschen, die jetzt noch leben könnten ....
21kanne 1 month ago
Text Olaf 2: der Unfall mit der Concorde allerdings wäre vermeidbar gewesen. Am Wochenende, als das Unglück geschehen war, war die Concorde ein Thema in den britischen Zeitungen. Ich war gerade mit meiner Tochter in London. Mein Englisch ist nicht so besonders, aber um die "SUN" zu lesen, reicht es. Die schrieben, dass die Concorde über 30 Jahre alt ist, dass es Risse, Triebwerksausfälle und Ermüdungserscheinungen gibt.
21kanne 1 month ago
Text Olaf 1: Zunächst einmal: Die Tupolev 144 flog bereits 5 Jahre vor der Concord, Bereits 1969 habe ich so eine Maschine in Schönefeld gesehen. Sie gehörte der russischen Linie Aeroflot. Über die Zuverlässigkeit und der Unfallrate verschiedener Flugzeughersteller und Fluggesellschaften muss man nicht diskutieren, es gibt immer wieder bescheuerte Zufälle und Fehler, die man niemandem in die Schuhe schieben sollte, solche Dinge geschehen einfach.
21kanne 1 month ago
Volta Concorde, Acaba Airbus
freitasti 1 month ago
The Concorde was not the first Supersonic passenger aircraft.... Tupolev Tu144 was...
boysboat 1 month ago
@boysboat Didnt that plane fall out the sky at an air show though!!! Not the best of adverts...
sussexpalaeo 1 month ago
@sussexpalaeo Yes, it didn't have as good a record as Concorde, but it should at least get credit as the first, everyone always says it was stolen from Concorde when really it came first.
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
no not to picky but good job very actuate
hdfdgdyugsuy 1 month ago
A Boeing 747 does not crash every year. If you look at the NTSB data, the 737 has a much higher fatal event rate than the 747. Should we take all Fords off the road because there are fatal accidents? Over 1400 747s have been built and used in commercial service compared to 20 Concords built, and only 16 used in commercial service. The 747 has had 28 fatal events in over 19 million flights...the Concord had 1 fatal event in .09 million flights. You are making an irrelevant comparison.
Cloosdoosch 2 months ago 50
@Cloosdoosch Wait, I couldn't tell what you were replying to. What are you trying to get at? I'm confused about what the point you're going toward is :)
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockymountainrandom I was replying to this comment -sorry, that was clear as mud!) :-) a boing 747 crashes every year, a concore crashes once in the 30 years and theyll never fly again but 747 does...
BigBottleLightInc 2 months ago 73
Cloosdoosch 4 weeks ago
the concord could go from NY to London in 2 hours
hdfdgdyugsuy 2 months ago
@hdfdgdyugsuy Closer to three hours the fastest ever flight was 2 hrs 52mins and 59secs...hope i'm not being too picky ;)
mcvilla25 1 month ago
If there is a punctured fuel tank, why can't the pilots still gain altitude?? I see leaking burning fuel, but why can't the engine still produce thrust?
moxyfruvous 2 months ago
@moxyfruvous The fire was consumed by engines 1 and 2 which made them lose power. The fire also triggered the engine fire alarm resulting in the flight engineer shutting down the number 2 engine.(I read shutting down the engine was not recommended during takeoff.) I also heard the pilots reduced thrust to engine number 3 and 4 to stop the plane yawing to the left. Y couldn't they just use the rudder to keep the plane heading straight?? Essentially more power was needed to stay in the air.
teemas10 1 month ago
@teemas10 They probably didn't even know they had a massive fuel leak fire. All they knew was that they had "strong flames behind them" and the engine fire alarm probably confirmed that this was a engine fire. Any way i'm not a pilot, it's just what I've heard.
teemas10 1 month ago
In another film, they also said that FOD, the debris on runways and taxiways was, after this crash, more taken into consideration, because as @LilacDownDeep said, it was caused by another airplane's bit of tire or debris of some other sort.. So maybe they could have concentrated on clearing the FOD, as we do on every airfield nowadays, instead of blaming it on the plane..
Claptrack 2 months ago
Fucking stupid to take this away, fastest flight ever. A step back in modern transport history.
MurdocLC 2 months ago
Very sad I always wanted to fly in the concorde
The73slapshot 2 months ago
This sounds a terribly morbid thing to ask but apart from the sounds of engines spooling down and lack of height etc.. Just how aware were the passengers of the situation they were in regarding the fire itself? Anyone looking up from outside it’s obvious but from what I can make of it the fire was not visible on top of the wing and the trailing edges of the wing are further back than the last window. Fire did not enter the cabin. Would smoke have?
bommmmmmmm 2 months ago
This be de reason I don't fly
EyesOnly100 2 months ago
@EyesOnly100 I guess you have driven a car anytime and there die thousands of people everyday in car accidents...
josito194 2 months ago
HOw can we be sure the results are accurate about this crash? MOst companies couldn't care less
210482fmj 2 months ago
Continental Airlines tryed to tell porkies saying the piece of equipment was on the runway in the first place. Continental Airlines also have been taken over by United Airlines on November 30 2011.
TheMattyboy20 2 months ago
BOEING SABOTAGE AIR FRANCE PLUS THEY ALLMOST KILL CHRIRAC...INVESTIGATE
jesusislord10777 2 months ago
@jesusislord10777 Chirac* :D not Chrirac ^^
Iantorchwood94 2 months ago
@jesusislord10777 What are you talking about? Boeing was not involved in this incident in any way, other than the fact that they owned McDonnell Douglas, but that is irrelevant because by the time they acquired it, the DC-10 was out of production! Plus, the accident wasn't even caused by the design of the DC-10, but it was triggered by faulty maintenance ON the DC-10.
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
@rockymountainrandom *Accident.
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
@rockymountainrandom Look up the deeper side of 9'11 on youtube then we talk again
jesusislord10777 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
jesusislord10777 2 months ago
MY COUSIN, DIMITRI okoye died in that crash. rip to all who died
ApexPredator95 2 months ago
@ApexPredator95 Sorry for your loss :( R.I.P.
rockymountainrandom 4 weeks ago
say that to the 121 people who were sitting on that bomb knowing they were gonna die
then make comments
tied2dye1 2 months ago
Fuck all of you bitches. Now when I come back from my box this better be the top comment.
BillWilliamRainBob 3 months ago
Nooo, 1 crashed. Thats it. Just 1
supertruckerw9 3 months ago
Build another? They built over 20 of them!
supertruckerw9 3 months ago
@supertruckerw9 No cuz all 20 went boom
legowolfmindstorms 3 months ago
after seeing this im glad i didn't go on that thing
210482fmj 3 months ago
That is without a doubt the best plane ever built, bloody shame they dont build another.
rh7riky 3 months ago
3:18 look at the bath its like totally unharmed
XXXcodmaster01XXX 3 months ago
@XXXcodmaster01XXX lol
Jaso4444 3 months ago
25 of july is 2 daysafter the hegehogs birthday...sonics.SONIC ROCKS!
fretdemon123 3 months ago
At 0.49 the presenter claims the concorde was the first supersonic passenger aircraft in the world. I am pretty sure it was the Tupolev Tu-144. Someone did not do his homework.
Still an exciting plane from which i heard they want to let it fly again. (shows etc)
VinceNakano 3 months ago
@VinceNakano The tu-44 was designed around the same time as the concorde, and began test flights before the concorde. But the tu-44 did not start passendger carrier services until 1 November 1977, almost two years after the Concorde was already doing so, meaning, that even though they are similar in many ways, the concorde flew passengers for profit first, 2 years before TU-44, making it the first passenger carrying supersonic plane. I did my homework, lol.
pyropuck 3 months ago
But it was so fuel inefficient...
vinniebello 3 months ago
the real phoenix
xnoelx05 3 months ago
a boing 747 crashes every year,
a concore crashes once in the 30 years and theyll never fly again but 747 does...
BigBottleLightInc 3 months ago 72
@BigBottleLightInc that wasnt the only reason they aren't flying anymore...they were very fuel inefficient.
ActionFiggaOne 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ActionFiggaOne I like smart people like you :)
Camoflaged3 3 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc
# of 747 flights vs # concorde flights
TheGreatestAjax 2 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc
Oh come on. 20 Concordes vs 1400+ Boeing 747s. The accident statistics are far from comparable. Also Concorde is very expensive to fly because of extreme fuel consumption, and that is the main reason why it doesn't fly anymore.
jounihat 2 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc The discontinuation of the concord was a lot more about the economic inefficiency of the plane than the crash. The crash was simply a catalyst for the decison to ground all further flights.
If modern Airlines can barely stay in business, how could an ultra-expensive supersonic jet?
DRN0524 2 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc Yeah but only poor ppl travel on Boings, rich ppl traveled on Concord. You and I both know it shouldnt matter but we also both know it does
GeneralG1810 2 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc ...another big bottle of lightning and they're pulling me over for another..DUI!...what. just a 100,000 it's US deficit accumilating now each second or so..but you can fix MY Passport SHOWING Me Love!..(some famous club hit like ruling)..noone can blame ANYONE for nature's events; man's minor mistakes!...(I dreamed that those Nazi's back in the the day..The Enemy or Not!..knew where that Zeppelin Will Take Them..On Towards The Bahamas! and places like that!)
foxyroxstar 2 months ago
@BigBottleLightInc If a Concorde crashed every year after their in-service date, they would've been out of service by the mid-90's. There wouldn't have been any left. :-)
bilodef66 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc thats not the reason why it never flew again. A new scratch-proof wing was chosen for it to prevent the incident ever happening again, but concorde was scrapped for economic reason, not because of the crash.
soapychowder 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc so true, I never even saw it this way.
oliverecords 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc There were far more 747s in the air than Concordes. The risk of a 747 crashing was more likely. Besides, concorde was really expensive to run and that's part of the reason they retired it.
phchanunga 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc 747 is cheaper as an Concore..
AresoZe 1 month ago
@AresoZe Concorde can make thier tickets way more expensive because it was faster then the 747.
dontBugly 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc
they didnt retirer concorde because of the accident, but because they werent making enough money and there was no demand for higher priced tickets. C
max8987 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc Realy?
Only 1 in 30 years?
I miss you Concorde
BJastoreB 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc ohh and u forgot that the aircraft waz a very expensive projekt and after the crash the goverment din`t wanted to pay for it enny more and then they shut it down
HoloPatrick 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc You are correct, but you need to keep in mind how many Boeing 747s were built, and how many Concordes.
firebird264 1 month ago
@BigBottleLightInc
20 concorde's built, 1 hull-loss = 5% of total built aircraft crashed
1418 boeing 747s built, 49 hull-losses = 3.45% of total built aircraft crashed
9753241860hb 1 month ago
What a pity. Concorde was a great machine and one of the most beautiful. Concorde was the king of skies!
MultiRevoltec 3 months ago
@TheARMAProductions
So should the T-Model be mention in car history?
bobthechipmonk 3 months ago
What I never understood is that traffic just kept going on. No one stopped
Saartje05 3 months ago
shame
ODonnell1888 3 months ago
wow
mamonyong 3 months ago
"reputation as one of the safest planes in the sky..."
"57 burst tires, 13 of them causing damage to engines and 6 of them puncturing fuel tanks..." Whether or not there had been no accidents doesnt mean it was safe, especially after that analysis of the facts. That's like saying, "my car, which has no brakes and seatbelts is safe, because I've never gotten in to an accident with it"
Cnd1867 3 months ago
@Cnd1867 you are right, but how many burst tyres etc have there been for other airlines? percentage wise probably the same, if not more, tyres burst all the time, its like having a 5 star euro ncap vw golf, if a tyre bursts its still deadly, the aircraft is still safe, the tyres are just the weakest link, in cars, planes, bikes etc...
xFathead41x 3 months ago
@Cnd1867
Yeah I agree but when you look at the evolution of cars. You see that at first they didn't have breaks and seatbelts and that you also had a chance of breaking your arm starting it. I mean its not cause an accident happen that you need to stop production or pushing that tech tree.
bobthechipmonk 3 months ago
3:33 LOL!
flora2378 4 months ago
when was that news report filmed? what type of airplane was it that left debris?
ghostbustersrule1 4 months ago
@ghostbustersrule1 A DC10
Saartje05 3 months ago
113 lives is alot.
Just think of it, 113 lives who all had parents, names, friends.
Fuck, It's is just so sad :(
ThePengyMonk 4 months ago
Dam what a amazing plane BUT one day it come back to life
ShockWaveDS13 4 months ago
1:18 waw
checkempate 4 months ago
Just a real tragedy involving a high quality, safe, and gorgeous aircraft. Their excellent safety record could not keep the sharks from circling and ending a remarkable history with a terrible disaster.
johnbarr2011 4 months ago
R.I.P Concorde, the world wasnt ready for you, hope to see you again in the future
Gam3rTagger 4 months ago
wow 911 and this so sad
Madlo27432 4 months ago
concord was the second supersonic airliner jet not the first
zero48411 4 months ago
Comment removed
75lauranna 4 months ago
@75lauranna accualy the tu-144 fle befor the concord but the concord is a fare better plane
zero48411 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh godͣ̋̏̀ͨ̿͒̚,̷̐͡ W̢͉̘͇͙͂̇͒ͩ̚͝Ḩ̛̖̪͈̘̥̏̎̑̾̈́͆͞Ă̧̧̮̯̰͎͈̘̱ͯŢ̳͈̹̲͈̩̤̪̅ͣ͠ ̛̞̖̮ͣ̉̋̀ͦ͛̊̚ ̧̛͇͈͕̣̟̣̠ͪ̉ͯͫ̾̒ͭͫ͡H̨̳̯̲̻͖̫̒ͯͅͅA͐͋̽̌V͌ͦ̂̀̉ͤ͛͛̌͆̈̊ͯ̓͂͂̒͝҉̭̦̗͕͔̜E͈̩͎̜̙͖̘̺͓̋ͮͤͮ͊̔ͭͧ͑ͩ͗͛̀̀͘ͅ ̎̽ͯ͂͒ͤͭ̃͗͌̐͛͆͛̉̊̃̾ͩ҉͖̲͈̲͎͓͔̫̭̫̼̩̫͈͈̜̭ͅI̴̶̶̗̯̳͍͕̼̭̰͍̥̼͙̬̩̼͎̞͑̿ͭ̏ͣͧ̍̾ͦ͆̓ͦ͘ ̵̣̹̜̗̩̻͇̱̖̻̈́ͣ̍̂̊͋͟͞ͅD̢̮͖̬̫͍̳̱̦̬̤ͤ̃ͪ̊̔̓̽ͦͩͩ̊̈ͣ̀̀͢ͅÔ̴ͯ̀ͬͮ҉̧̳̪̲͔̙͓͔̲̼̼͈̜̀͜ͅN̷̳͕̱̞̪̹͙̲͇̙͓͈̫ͥ̃ͥ́̿̐̎́ͫ̐̍̓̌ͦ͌͢͡E̷̴̛͉̩̦̻̦̯̠̬̭͙̞ͮ̓̀͌ͩ̐ͯ̈̅̄ͧ̐̈͛̒̅̾́?̌͗
adamcel6 4 months ago
FUCK OBAMA
sublimepuravidamae 4 months ago
very sad that Concorde was grounded. I want to see a generation 2 of this stunning plane.
unggrabb 5 months ago
Ironically, it wasn't even their fault too. Some unknown and unauthorized piece of equipment fell off on a previous Continental Flight; the Concorde plane rode over it and it punctured the tires, causing catastrophic damage.
LilacDownDeep 5 months ago 31
@LilacDownDeep But then again if you really think about it, due to the positioning of the landing gear a punctured tire is still fatal, regardless of the means with which it was punctured. This was bound to happen sooner or later and they showed in the video that indeed a punctured tire would create holes under the wing.
32docholiday 4 months ago
@32docholiday Hm, yes you are right about that. Though if I recall it was the only major disaster involving Concorde and it sadly happened before 9/11 where flight in the US was grounded. I guess the shutdown was inevitable.
LilacDownDeep 4 months ago
Comment removed
powervr250 3 months ago
@LilacDownDeep yes, youre right. and btw, the piece of equipment that fell was from a previous DC-10 , that had taken off before concorde....
Maydayn1 2 months ago
fgs what's with Air France, crashing planes is their speciality! Unlike Britsih Airways
;-)
TheModernMovement 5 months ago
RIP
all the passenegers of concorde and itr crew :,(
16nwb1 5 months ago
The space shuttle was safer than the Concorde. Compare the number of people killed in each and that tells the story which is...was safer.
FootLoose4ver 5 months ago
I dont understand. It was the safest plane yet the wheels punctured various things
1v1oCODoStatus 5 months ago
I remember this crash. It was my seventh birthday.
Quagmirian 5 months ago
@ccmattyxat Kid, you should get off the internet and go play or something...
ChidoPol 5 months ago
Funny how one of the safest aircraft in history are grounded after a single crash, im sure Boeing have lost more aircraft than this...
bushpigification 5 months ago
@ccmattyxat
You're only 11? Lol get off the internet.
CynicalVision 5 months ago
somebody got hurt???????ßß??
kwisi 5 months ago
So what hapenned cause the guy in the video didnt say it?
1470cool 5 months ago
40 years and one crash, don't we wish Boeing have that kind of record!
landship92 5 months ago
@landship92 count the number of Concordes built versus the number of Boeings built and see who's got the best record
OldHPAT145 5 months ago
@landship92 20 Concordes were built, 5 percent crashed, Boeing has built thousands of aircraft, who's got the best record?
OldHPAT145 5 months ago