Talk:Concorde

development support aircraft

Do the BAC 211 (modified Fairey Delta 2) and Handley Page HP.115 warrant a mention for their use for high speed and low speed (respectively) delta wing research? GraemeLeggett 11:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, I think they do. vwozone 13:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lay-mans terms

I noticed that there is a phrase in the first paragraph titled 'general features': "Throughout the landing approach Concorde was on the "back side" of the drag curve".

Now I have around 30 hours solo flight time in sailplanes, not a lot, but i would say i have far more then your average persons knowledge of flight mechanics, yet i still couldn’t figure out what this was referring to. Perhaps someone who understands this could find a simpler way of expressing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Not really :-) Basically at low speeds concorde flew at a very high angle of attack, sort of stalled really (except delta-wings don't, exactly, stall). Raising the nose of the aircraft at those speeds causes the speed to drop and the aircraft to sink, whereas normally raising the nose gains you altitude. So Concorde more or less flew on throttle at low speeds, as I understand it.WolfKeeper 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Concordes Given Names?

Are there any Concordes that have been "named"? Some airliners such as Clipper Maid of the Seas and Tuthmosis III were named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

They've traditionally been called by the last two letters of their registration in the phonetic alphabet; thus, G-BOAD (Golf Bravo Oscar Alpha Delta) is normally called "Alpha Delta," for example. The only use of another name that I can recall was when Tony Blair chartered Alpha Echo to fly to Washington in November 2001. People called it "Blair Force One." (Alpha Delta was sometimes called "the Singapore Concorde" when she flew in dual BA/Singapore colors, and Sierra Delta was called the "Pepsi Concorde" when she wore the Pepsi livery, but I'd suggest that these were descriptions rather than names.) But these are not really the same sort of thing as what you describe. There were never any formal names in the style used by Pan Am. I'd imagine that the uniqueness of Concorde made it unnecessary to come up with a further special identity. (If you really want a thorough answer, post your query on the forum at ConcordeSST.com.) 1995hoo 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It should also me noted that the system 1995hoo describes above isn't completely unique to Concorde; many airliners in general are informally referred to by the last two (or sometimes three) letters of their registration; this is why they're often painted on other places, most obviously the nose gear doors. --Scott Wilson 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to Concorde. Sorry if it came across that way. 1995hoo 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that quite rises to "naming" (not even "BlairForce One", which wasn't official). It's common practise for ATCrs to call "Island Hoppers niner-five alpha" or "Hughes niner-five alpha" (to steal from "Magnum"), which isn't a name as such. Trekphiler 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:Concorde - Air France.jpg

Original version

File:Concorde - Air France(rotated).jpg

Modified version

Kudos to whoever found the image now being used in the infobox - it's a beautiful picture of Concorde, and an excellent start to the article. I have, however, taken the liberty of rotating and cropping the image so that the horizon's level. Admittedly this means we lose that same horizon and the resulting image is slightly smaller, but we don't have Concorde at a funny angle. Is this an improvement? Should we use it in the page? Should I just have the modified version speedied? All comments and constructive criticism welcome. --Scott Wilson 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the mod version! However, it's an Air France plane, which won't make the BA-pic mafia happy. We've had a running battle with him/them over using the ground pic of G-BOAB as the lead. He/they won't discuss it, so it may just be low-grade vandalism, rather than any real pro-BA preference. Seriously though, it will be hard to find a better pic than that new one, whichever version we use. - BillCJ 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't the prior Air France pic been the lead for quite some time except in isolated cases where people tried to bump AB up? The new one is quite nice, though, and very deserving of the lead spot. I wonder when and where it was taken, given the position of the nose. 1995hoo 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That picture does look pretty good. Although, i would prefer a BA one (being british and all ;)), nought wrong with that pic!! Reedy Boy 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks too good to be true. The source site has it with a noncommercial license. The other images in that set look like they were dumped from some wallpaper site judging by the names and Google hits, so the Flickr user didn't have the right to apply any CC license. Unfortunately the original and the nicely modified version have to go. --Para 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Concorde Autopilot

Surely that really wants to be on its own page?

Reedy Boy 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be likely to be wp:copyvio I was considering taking it out entirely.WolfKeeper 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RAF Concorde

I have tried to add a comment about the proposed use by the RAF of Concorde as a bomber, first seen at the Farnborough Air Show 1968 Magazine. Where should this comment be placed within the Wikipedia article on the Concorde aircraft? Acb58 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nowhere, unless we can establish that it is verifiable and we can decide it belongs in the article. Neither is obvious to me at the moment. --Guinnog 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This note is interesting in that it is the only reference I've ever seen that collaborates information I was told in 1981 by a senior British diplomat. He stated that the US Government paid off all development costs of the Concorde in return for stopping production of the aircraft. The reason given was to stop the aircraft from falling into the hands of third party nations and conversion to a bomber. Trevor Heath, January 1st 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorHeath (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Concorde, fly me

Anybody know the date of her first transatlantic supersonic flight?If so, include it here, & on the transatlantc flight page? Trekphiler 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Air France pictures?

There are NO pictures of Air France Concordes in this article, and it appears that there has been a conscious effort to eliminate them. Surely someone can find a public-domain picture of a French Concorde somewhere. Even though many of us regard the BA Concorde operation as far superior, the simple truth is that without the French involvement the whole thing would probably have fallen apart, and Air France played a real and important part in the Concorde story (both for good and for ill). I think it takes away from the article's neutral point of view to make it so BA-centered. (I do not know much about posting pictures on Wikipedia, so I'm not a good person to attempt to resolve this issue.) 1995hoo 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an awfully strong claim! There are only 3 AF pics on Wikipedia Commons, and anyone is able to upload free images there. An AIf France pic has been the lead in this article for a long time, and some users have been changing it to a BA pic for whatever reasons.

Given the fact that there are now no AF pic in the article (which I did not realize), and no other really good AF pics available to post at this time, I am restoring the AF pic to the lead spot. Please leave it there for the time being. If someone can find more legally-usable AF pics to add to the article, we can consider addign a better pic to the lead at that time. - BillCJ 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Crew

In the Specifications section the number of crew is listed as 9. I assume this to include the number of flight attendents as well. As far as I recall other aircraft only list the flight deck crew for consitency should this be changed to 3 as Concorde only flew with three active flight deck crew (PF, PNF & FE)? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Concorde pilots

I've nominated List of Concorde pilots, for deletion as I do not feel that it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots, and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Concorde pilots during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose AfD, see my comment on the relevant discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Concorde pilots. Please check the AfD requirements, I do not believe you are correct in your statement that the AfD template should not be removed. This is the quideline: Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states: "Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again." IMHO Bzuk 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

That's referring to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion which is to be used for (possibly) non-contentious deletions. I've nominated this under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which has a different set up rules and requires community consensus on the outcome (whereas the WP:PROD can be overturned by any editor). To support your position, you would need to show why it isn't simply a list and that it is verifiable and notable. Please continue further discussions at the AfD page. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Units

• Is there some particular reason Imperial units are listed first (primary) with SI units second? This is mainly in the specs table and in the text in places also. I would think a European design would have SI units are primary. I was going to start switching the data in the spec table, but thought I'd ask first. What gives? -Fnlayson 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Concorde was designed before the UK went metric, therefore the figures from the manufacturers are in lbs, ft and ins. The wikipedia standards are that SI units must be included, but the original data source should typically be listed first. Given that I would recommend that you not swap the data around.WolfKeeper 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking it might be something like that. No need to switch anything then. -Fnlayson 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacking out at high altitudes

This article on the Concorde perpetuates the myth that one would black out in aprox. 20 seconds in the thin air above, e.g., 50,000 feet. This is not true whatsoever, as can be demonstrate that many, many common people can withstand a minute, or more, without breathing at all, merely by holding one's breath. So, if the Concorde lost prressurization at high altitudes, merely hold your breath for as long as you can. Meanwhile, perhaps by then, the pilots will have dived the Concorde to a much-lower altitude.

You can't hold your breath, lungs rupture if you do that. Actually the reason you can't survive at these altitudes is that the water in your lungs boils and fills them with water vapour; and this excludes the air.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, in the early 1960s, the United States Air Force (USAF) debunked the old myth of one's blood boiling if exposed to high altitudes or the vacuum of outer space. They showed that chimpanzees could withstand a vacuum for several minutes without ill effects.

Do you have a cite for that? Possibly some may survive at those timescales, but I'm not sure what the LD50 time is for vacuum.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been tried with human volunteers since then. Sir Arthur C. Clarke knew about the USAF experiments, and he wrote the results into the novel and movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey". When the astronaut Dave Bowman is locked out of the spaceship "Discovery I" by the crazed computer HAL, Bowman enters through an emergency airlock, withstanding the vacuum of space while doing so. If you look closely, you will notice that Bowman closes his eyes tightly before firing the escape hatch of his space pod. That was to prevent eye damage from rapid evaporation of the fluids on the outsides of his corneas and pupils. All this was solidly-backed up in Sir Arthur's mind by the results of the USAF tests. Many viewers of the movie were amazed by this sequence: "Why didn't his blood boil?" Well, Clark knew that it would not boil. DAW 72.146.8.51 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's agreed that Arthur C. Clarke messed up some of these details, you have to exhale to avoid death, and if you do that you no longer have oxygen in your lungs, normal survival during drowning relies on that to a pretty fair degree.WolfKeeper 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See this NASA page for some information on the effects of vacuum, etc. Salmanazar 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: under the section of comparison with Tu-144

It also had two crashes, one at the 1973 Paris Air Show, which made further sales impossible, and another during a cargo flight. Later versions had retractable canards for better low speed control,

Is this a contradiction with the article on Tu-144? According to the Tu-144 page the canards were already installed at the time when it crashed in Paris; some suggested that the crash was caused by a Mirage trying to chase and photograph them. This rumour could not have occured if the canards was not there, I think. Can someone verify please?

I can. Yes, the canards were installed initially on all production Tu-144; only the prototype lacked them. Also, the plane itself was larger and heavier than the Concorde, hence the lack of handling performance against Concorde. Also, it wasn't underpowered, it's cruising speed was actually higher than that of Concorde. Instead, the engines used at first (NK-144) in place of proposed RD-36-51 (which were not ready then) were very inefficient in terms of fuel consumption, so Tu-144 lacked transcontinental range, and were not equipped with thrust reversers. --unpluggged 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You have that a bit garbled, the NK-144 on the TU-144S were incapable of sustaining Mach 2.0 in supercruise, they could only manage a cruise of Mach 1.6.[1] They could activate the afterburners and slightly exceed Concorde's top speed, but I'm pretty sure that's more to do with thermal limits than anything else. I also suspect that Concorde could have hit the afterburners as well and done a speed dash if the designers had wanted it to do that (they doubtless would have had to make some changes, but it should have had enough power), but it was of no commercial value so they never bothered, since the afterburners drank fuel, it was just a cheap gimmick.WolfKeeper 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For instance, here and here you can find out that the cruising speed of Tu-144 was M = 2.16, and maximum speed was M = 2.35. Also, RD-36-51 were not equipped with afterburners at all. --unpluggged 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tu-144D used RD-36-51 engines, and could fly from Moscow to Khabarovsk. But then, in 1978, the second air crash occurred during a test flight of Tu-144D. The reason was fuel leakage that caused fire onboard. In November 1978 passenger flights were stopped. Tu-144 continued to transport mail and cargo for a few years, but in early 1980s the flights were finally stopped. That's why I have placed the neutrality and accuracy template on this section. --unpluggged 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you have references for that, you ought to update/correct the Tu-144 info in the comparison section. -Fnlayson 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

where is concorde now?

Most aviation lovers would know that concorde is clearly a marvel of engineering that took more than thounsands of aviation designers just to make the blue prints of it. This supersonic jet was fabricated by Britian and france, also it was the only airliner in the 20th century capable of reaching twice the speed of sound. However, sadly this aircraft retired because of the terrible crash that happened by Air France that claim the lives of 128 passengers. Many airline companies who owned concordes made numers of modification to assure the safety of their future passengers. For instance, the new concorde tires were capable of withstanding twice the pressure of its coventional tires. Also the wings were padded with bullet proof materials to prevent any penetration. But, even with all these improvements concorde lost its pride because of the low fuel efficiency of this great bird. Nonetheless, we can see the concorde on display in frech or english airports or in certain aviation museums.

Actually no, the Soviets had one as well as is discussed on these pages - the Tu-144. There were only two airlines that owned Concordes - Air France and British Airways. Concorde was retired because it was, according to both airlines, no longer profitable. AJKGordon 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore airliner had one as well. Plus, the fact that Concorde retired because it was not profitable is debatable.

Actually, no, Singapore Airlines never had a Concorde. They might have painted one up as a promotion or something but, as I said above, only Air France and British Airways ever owned and commercially operated Concorde. AJKGORDON«» 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• In another website I read a very interesting article on Concorde that said that it was not retired because it was not profitable, but because it was more profitable to fly passengers on B747s and B777s.

She or it?

I see my changes from 'she' to 'it' in referring to Concorde have been reverted. I have two problems with the article as it now stands; firstly, I believe (and I think, though cannot now point to it, that there is a consensus for this here) that 'she', while correct in reference to ships, is not the recommended style for aircraft. The more fundamental problem though is that at the moment we have a mixture of (mostly) 'it' and a few instances of 'she'. I believe that on aesthetic grounds the former is preferable, but I believe far more strongly that one pronoun, not two, should be used in this article when referring to the subject. What do others think? --John 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(discussion copied from my talk page)

Concorde is 'she'

[2] WolfKeeper 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[3]WolfKeeper 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BA's usage doesn't have to determine ours, however. --John 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fleet air arm: [4]WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please change it back.WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither BA nor the FAA determines our use in Wikipedia though. Unfortunately I am damned if I can find the MoS where (I believe) it points out that ships (but not planes) are called 'she' on Wikipedia. What we cannot have is what we had before I made my edits, with about 75% 'it' and 25% 'she'. That looks poor. My preference is for 'it', but having a mixture of both is unacceptable.

Do you mind if I copy this to Talk:Concorde? Somebody there is likely to know. --John 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(end discussion copied from my talk page)

... or 'it' ...

We only use 'she' to describe individual examples, where we wish to imply some emotional connotation - "She's a beauty", "She's caused me nothing but trouble", "I served on her for two years", etc. In the dialect of my part of South Worcestershire (England), machines like these are customarily referred to as 'he', even cows: a farmer may say of a favoured cow, 'he's a good milker'. All this is just casual usage. Strict English grammar reserves 'he' and 'she' for male and female animals, and for nothing else. The term 'it' is correct in all other circumstances.

This contrasts with our very unusual use of 'Concorde' as opposed to 'the Concorde' or 'a Concorde', where we have elevated 'Concorde' to a familiar name like 'Alice' or 'Bob'.

I have here the book Concorde The Inside Story written by Brian Trubshaw, the B.Ae Concorde test pilot and a man very emotionally involved with Concorde. He refers to prototype 002, which he flew on her first flight, as "her" (Page x). He refers to Concorde as a whole as "it" (page xiii).

HTH -- Steelpillow 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable summary of usage. However, while it may well be appropriate for Trubshaw to refer to a particular Concorde aircraft as 'her' and the programme as a whole as 'it', it does not follow in my opinion that Wikipedia needs to follow that usage. --John 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that because of the way people (particularly the English and French) see Concorde with some emotional attachment (and pride) it is also talked about as if their was only one Concorde. It would not seem wrong to call a Concorde she because in the mind of most people it is a singular artifact. This agrees with the statement above We only use 'she' to describe individual examples, where we wish to imply some emotional connotation MilborneOne 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to take this to a more central forum to generate a wider consensus. I am fairly certain that here on Wikipedia the convention is to use 'she' for ships and 'it' for aircraft, but I cannot find where I got that from. --John 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with it for aircraft but remember that Concorde is not an aircraft it is a friend! MilborneOne 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 3 conventions stated in the article that certain editors have placed that the wish others to follow:

1. British spelling, such as tyre
2. Absence of the article
3. Use of she rather than it

The spelling onvention is totally correct, and supported by both Wikipedia guidelines and multiple external sources. The other two apear to be totally unsupported by the reliable sources and verifiability Wikipedia is built on.- BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong; we have lots and lots and lots of British authored references all of which have the absence of the article (including the usage on the BBC website), and many of them are referenced from here. Another example I have here 'Backroom boys' by Francis Spufford, he has simply 'Concorde' about four times every page, and *never* has 'the Concorde'.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I know nothing about the French language, it would not surprise me if these last two conventions have their root in grammar rules. However, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we should follow English grammar rules of the appropriate region. Even ship articles tend use it to a large degree, even though she is permissible in certain circumstances. Given the way certain non-Americans fioght against the PROPER use of US spelling or grammer on AMerican-related articles, I have no doubt that if this were a US plane, such deviations would NOT be permitted, say, in the article on SR-71, as she has a status in the US similar to that of THE Concorde (military/civil aside) in France and Britain.- BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrugs, that's pure speculation on your part, and hence doesn't support your claim one way or another; and even if it did, it's still irrelevant if other parts of the wikipedia aren't following the wikipedia's guidelines. And actually the fact that you have to speculate suggests that you have nothing to back you up.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think it appropriate to re-visit the concensus at this time, and I will abide by whatever is decided. - BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two were beaten to death and the more we looked into it, the clearer the evidence became, the she/it is only marginally more arguable, but I have added it, because the convention used by the only British owners of Concorde is entirely self-evident.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can find evidence that the male owners of high-performance cars call them "she", but I wouldn't recommend changing the pronouns in the articles either. I also don't think that pilots calling their aircraft "she" is unique to the Concorde. Why are we making gramatical exeptions here? This is an encyclopedia, not a love letter to a very-exceptional aircraft! I have no problem, however, adding a sourced item to the article in an appropriate place noting that the British owners called it "she". - BillCJ 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:RS evidence in the form of the published usage on websites and in books that have been subject to editorial control that this is the correct usage for this particular aircraft.WolfKeeper 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also check out this video: [5]. That's Raymond Baxter referring to Concorde as her as she took off for the first time, and very nearly every mention is simply 'Concorde', not 'the Concorde'. They also refer to Concorde as 'She bought cities together' which is clearly talking about all Concorde.WolfKeeper 07:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have books subject to editorial control that user the pronoun "it", and uses "the" intermittently. I'm not arguing that your usage is not used, just that it's not appropriate for an objective encyclopedia. Oh, and I assume he didn't actually say "bought", or are we now going to have to start using that spelling here too? ;) (Totally in jest!) - BillCJ 08:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find cases where people have used 'the Concorde' in some places or throughout, but the better the source is on Concorde the more likely they are to use simply 'Concorde', and to refer to the aircraft as 'she'. I think the wikipedia is supposed to accurately reflect a subject, not impose its own standards on it, for example, with weights and measures it's really bad form to change a measurement from ft to metres if the original was in ft (although we do permit conversions to be added for convenience). The other thing is that, ultimately, English follows usage, not the other way around, and this really does appear to be the usage.WolfKeeper 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with WolfKeeper on all of this. If BillCJ has references which back up the opposite case, let's see them so we can balance them against the references we have provided. I do think the burden is on BillCJ to provide a convincing case, and not just the speculation and unreferenced allegations we have at the moment. -- Steelpillow 10:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

However, on visiting the recent history, I see that WolfKeeper has changed many general references to Concorde-as-a-whole from 'it' to 'she'. I do disagree here - 'she' should be reserved only for references to individual aircraft (and even then there may be times when it is not appropriate). I believe that the references provided above by WolfKeeper and myself both back this up. -- Steelpillow 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You would expect that the collective would not be 'she' however the references do actually seem to support that usage, and particularly notably all the BA stuff I've found does.WolfKeeper 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on terminology was part of an earlier archived section. A consensus was arrived that corresponded to usage determined in the United Kingdom and France, the primary operators of the type. In brief, the aircraft is referred to as "Concorde" and identified in the ship/aircraft convention as "she" both of which are unconventional but accepted protocols as Concorde represents a significant iconic example. BTW, using the same logic that Steelpillow has employed, it is contingent on him to FIRST provide corroboration for the campaign he has launched to recategorise Concorde as "tailless" (along with numerous other aircraft which have been the source of contention in the individual articles as well as the project group's discussion page). Bzuk 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. As I said somewhere before, I have to get my books out of storage. It may take a few days.... P.S. I'm not advocating 're'categorising Concorde and the others, just adding an extra category. -- Steelpillow 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Concorde" vs. "the Concorde". A humble suggestion

As a Brit, the use of just "Concorde" is totally natural to me. However, I can understand how it would look very odd to other users of the English language. While this article may be about a British (and French) aircraft, it doesn't mean that this article is any more British than any other and imposing strict provincial customs to the language we use seems rather over-zealous and exclusive. My suggestion is this. After the Table of Contents have an Etymology section on the usage of the word Concorde and why the "the" is missing. This would explain a lot of things to our friends across the Atlantic and elsewhere while retaining the correct customary usage of the word. It would be common courtesy, something that sometimes seems to be lacking in these discussion. AJKGordon 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• A Etymology section would be a good addition. Although, I'd prefer it near the bottom of the article. -Fnlayson 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The custom seems to be for it to appear at the beginning of the article. It would also help readers to accept the odd omission of "the" before they read the rest and are tempted to edit it back in. AJKGordon 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware that Etymology sections are typically at the top. However this is not going to explain the origin of "Concorde". I guess putting it at the top would be helpful and not look too out of place. A couple sentences at the bottom of the Lead might be enough. -Fnlayson 23:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very reasonable suggestion and I would support its inclusion as an introductory section because this is where readers first start to read the article. As this explanation of the use of "Concorde" is only found in the invisible tag, readers presently do not have a ready reference to the etymology and use of the aircraft name. FWIW Bzuk 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

I like the idea, but it might be a bit clumsy, impact readability. Come to think of it, it's a bit surprising there isn't a tag to warn people that a particular article is written in colloquial english, and perhaps a small section at the end to explain the conventions used.WolfKeeper 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

	this article of iconic importance uses British English

I agree with Bzuk, AJKGordon’s proposal is a fine one. However, I believe that rather than have an etymology in the introduction, that there be single sentence in the intro (possibly parenthetical) noting the novel convention for referring to [the] Concorde. Any exposition on its etymological evolution should be reserved for the main body (and that could very well be at the bottom of the article – or anywhere else that makes good and fitting sense).

As for the use of “she” vs. “it”, the dominant usage should certainly be “it” (although more creative ways to get around heavy repetition of “it” would be commendable). Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, which calls for a formal, not colloquial, style. Although I don’t think complete neutering is absolutely necessary, it is probably best restricted to quotations. While individual aircraft do often get called “she” in the West, this is not as ingrained as with nautical usage – and it should be kept in mind that the masculine pronoun is used for ships in some cultures (e.g., Russian). Askari Mark (Talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That would sort of be OR- the references use she, and not just for the individual aircraft, they talk about collective Concordes as she.WolfKeeper 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark makes very valid points and I have not seen a collective "she" ever, although I will bow to proper referencing on that point. I also agree with others that a simple explanation in the first section explaining the derivation or etymology of terminology can be the simplest solution. The tag looks positively obtrusive (read:UGGGly) and does not lend to an easy solution to the issue. This is an iconic aircraft that has an unconventional nomenclature, the tag should be left for some other issue. FWIW Bzuk 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

Since the "she" usage is rather occasional, I'm not clear how it would be awkward. In any case, I did not suggest changing quotes but rather keeping them as written – that's straight from the MOS. I've never seen a collective "she" either and it would be unnatural English given that it is a singular pronoun. The reason I don't think "100% neutering" is absolutely necessary outside of quotes is that there might be a textual construction following the quoted material where the "she" reference makes perfect sense. My point was that it should be used sparingly, if at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bill and Mark here. It is not about using UK spelling, or even UK English, it is about balancing our stylistic clarity as an encyclopedia against using correct terminology for the subject. To make an analogy, I am sure we could find a video of Jeremy Clarkson referring to a particular car as 'she'; but we could not extrapolate from that to changing that car's article to use 'she'. We might, however, present a brief terminology section if it can be referenced, to point out that certain sources use 'she' to describe this aircraft. The article itself, I maintain, should use 'it'. --John 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say, as I said in the previous section, it comes down to reliable sources. Jeremy Clarkson wouldn't really be a reliable source, whereas British Airways and the video of Raymond Baxter referring to Concorde as 'she' (AFAIK working for the BBC when he did it) probably does count as reliable to some degree. I haven't got hold of any of the books written by pilots lately to check what they wrote, but they would also be reliable for this I suppose (having been published, and presumably having gone through an editorial process).WolfKeeper 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The other way to go would just be to replace all the her's and she with Concorde, but it would be a bit repetitive, I'm not at all keen.WolfKeeper 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's a danger that this discussion will revert back to the style of previous ones where we'll get hung up on the personal preferences of editors for "she" or "it". So can we please concentrate on one thing at a time. (I will state from the outset that I am a fairly neutral observer in all of this with no expertise on the subject, only interest.)

Firstly, the question of why the word Concorde takes no article. It seems there is general consensus that this needs explaining due to the obvious jarring to non-Brit or non-Commonwealth English speakers. It should be covered in some form at the beginning of the article - either in a brief sentence or two in the introduction or in an etymology section directly after the ToC. Would somebody like to do this please? (I would if I knew the reasons why but I don't!) I would suggest something like:

• It has become customary in British English that the word Concorde does not take the definite or indefinite article when describing the aircraft as a class. "I flew on Concorde" or "Concorde flies at Mach 2" rather than "I flew on a Concorde" or "The Concorde flies at Mach 2" as would be common with other aircraft types. This is due to blah blah blah and is similar to the use of the word example. (This link might be useful). As the aircraft is British-French, this convention is used in the article."

Secondly, the use of "she" rather than "it". It seems that use of the word "she" for Concorde is not general convention but rather the preference of people closely associated with the aircraft such as pilots or marketing people at BA. Reading through this article from the BBC, they use "it". Even Bannister uses "it" in this BBC site talking about Concorde. As it appears to be a personal preference I suggest we use encyclopaedic language and stick with "it". If, however, we decide to use "she" then this should be explained in an etymology section along with the lack of an article and even perhaps why there is an "e" on the end of the word! AJKGordon 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No he does use 'her' in the visor description; although he also talks about 'its movable nose and visor system', arguably the it is the system (probably not but I think he messed it up) but he also says: 'streamlining Concorde to enable 'her to go much faster'. I didn't notice any other references to it or her though anywhere.WolfKeeper —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - so its 50:50 from BA's chief Concorde pilot and "it" exclusively in the first four latest news articles (1, 2, 3, and 4) listed on the special BBC Concorde site. Seems pretty conclusive that "her" is, while not unusual, a personal preference by some people some of the time and perhaps isn't the language that an encyclopaedia should be using in this article. AJKGordon 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say that Bannister just messed it up, but my case is that the Airline, the manufacturers, the pilots, and the museums all refer to Concorde predominately as her.

I mean, check out this classic movie by the manufacturers BAC, SNECMA etc. etc., called 'She Flies'!!![6], they use 'she' or 'her' throughout; and even the title is significant, they didn't have to call it that!WolfKeeper 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if they're not a reliable source about terminology about their own plane, who on Earth is?WolfKeeper 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reliable sources on English grammar usage are generally English grammar refernces and style manuals, not corporate and personal communications. English grammar refernces and style manuals what Wikipedia tries to follow, as it uses formal, not colloquial ussage. If a general British English grammar guide can be cited, not one industry-related, then you would have a much stronger case here. - BillCJ 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the whole line of discussion is moot as the archived consensus-driven decision is already made- "Concorde" is the prescribed terminology and "she" used to refer to the type (although used infrequently). The orginal request was for the inclusion of a disclaimer note and that should be the topic of the continuing discourse. I do detect a bit of manners creep, and would suggest that all parties remember to keep "cool," and not in the global warming sense... [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

We're reviewing the consensus here, BillZ. That's an acceptable alternative to an ongoing edit war, a la the F-22/Typhoon war. - BillCJ 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manners creep? Can't see it myself. Looks pretty cool to me. But yes, the suggestion was originally about putting in a line or two about the zero article. Seems that the consensus is that there should be just that nobody's volunteered yet!

Beautiful video, Wolfkeeper, thank you! But it's hardly contemporary and, as BillCJ says, it's commercial so probably not as reliable a source as, say, the BBC which in my very limited research prefers to use "it" today. And without wishing to be rude, your assertion that "Bannister just messed it up" is just that - an assertion :) AJKGordon 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about floating the explanation in a box under the introductory picture, something like this:

Concorde is possibly unique in aviation, for the familiar use of its name in phrases such as "I flew on Concorde" or "Concorde flies at Mach 2" rather than "I flew on a Concorde" or "The Concorde flies at Mach 2" as would be common with other aircraft types. The custom was never formally endorsed, and seems to have grown up spontaneously due to the iconic nature of the aeroplane to the British people. As the aircraft is British-French, this convention is used in the article. TOC goes here

-- Steelpillow 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is more of what I was thinking we could use:

The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde is an iconic aircraft which has acquired a unique nomenclature. In common useage, the type is known as "Concorde" and this Anglo/French convention is used throughout the article. See:<|ref> British Airways tribute to Concorde and BBC concorde page<|/ref> Another variant, but I would not endorse the "floating" window example for many reasons, chiefly, it is wordy and obtrusive. FWIW Bzuk 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Looks good, Bzuk. You want to put it in? AJKGordon 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I just clarify that it is correct to use a construction such as "The Concorde supersonic aircraft....". In this case the "The" corresponds with "aircraft" and "Concorde" and "supersonic" are qualifying adjectives. GraemeLeggett 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We do already have some text on this in article under Concorde#Public perception (for want of a better place to put it.)WolfKeeper 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But it really hasn’t “acquired a unique nomenclature” – it’s simply a convention of British English, right? How about a simple parenthetical note like “(This article follows the usage of British English, which simply uses “Concorde” without a preceding article like “a” or “the”.)” Askari Mark (Talk) 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not the usual convention for aircraft. That is the whole point of the discussion. --- Steelpillow —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I frankly believe this is all making a mountain out of a molehill. All this talk of "iconic" and "etymology sections" and what-not is rather beside the point IMHO. The only reason for all of this should be to head off American editors who are ignorant of British conventions from constantly (re)adding the articles; my suggested sentence covers that. Non-editor American readers might think the "missing" definite or indefinite article odd, but it wouldn't make it unintelligible for them (the way slang can). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Askari Mark, I think you're missing several points. Firstly, it is already a mountain out of a molehill. I'm just trying to find a simple and effective way of describing what is an unusual form of grammar regarding an iconic aircraft but only used by some English speakers. As such it is worthy of our limited attention. Secondly, while your sentence is great, I don't believe it goes far enough in explaining why it is only Concorde that uses this nomenclature nor will it dissuade non-Brits from editing the article back in if they simply feel it's wrong. While the inclusion or absence of the article is of little real important in the grand scheme of things, it is illustrative of how Concorde is viewed in the UK and its iconic status there and therefore deserves something a little less perfunctory.

But, as you hinted, perhaps enough talk and waffle. I'll give it a shot. :) AJKGordon 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the lead should state what Concorde is before getting into usage of 'she' and omission of 'the'. Adding another sentence for that to what is already there will be fine, imo. -Fnlayson 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. AJKGordon 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

These are two spearate issues, though. Omission of 'the' I am fine with. Use of 'she' I am less keen on. As an encyclopedia article about an aeroplane (however 'iconic'), I believe we should use 'it', except of course in direct quotes. --John 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, for this sentence in the Lead:

In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" rather than "the Concorde" or "a Concorde".

the references BBC Concorde page and British Airways tribute are both general pages on Concorde. Anybody know the specific pages on those sites to cover the no article usage? A search on British Airways' site find the phrase "the Concorde" several times and none seem to support the sentence above. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those usages are relatively uncommon there, and don't seem to follow any pattern, although one thing is that it's evidently perfectly OK to say 'the Concorde SST' or 'the Concorde's landing lights', and quite frankly sometimes people seem to just mess it up, but mostly not. I bet the BBC have a written guideline about it though, if somebody could check that would be helpful. Note also that it's a 'common usage' not an absolute hard rule carved in stone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I looked and couldn't find a specific BA page on for this. The phrase "the Concorde" was/is the best search criteria I have. More specific reference links are needed to be of help... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BA themselves could be inconsistent on this issue. I uploaded the menu from my Concorde flight in 2003 as part of my trip report, and it's interesting that on the first page (headed "The Ultimate Experience") the menu says "the Concorde" but on the third page (headed "Wine List") the menu says "Concorde." Here's the link; to view a page, click on it, and then use the back button to return to the thumbnails. BA001 menu, 7 September 2003 1995hoo (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to be consistent about not using the article, should it not begin "Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde was", as opposed to "The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde"? Rphilipp (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. It used to read 'The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport' and 'the' was correct then.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde it is not the same as The Concorde if you wanted to change it then it would be Concorde was ... or I suggest just leave it alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat arguable, but I think it is actually wrong.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a google on "Aérospatiale BAC Concorde" none of the hits had 'the' in front except the wikipedia (which is not considered a reliable source!): [7]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Current state re. above

I feel I should get closure on this as I started the above discussion. Various editors have made changes that describe the lack of the article (i.e. no "the") and use "it" rather than "she". To my eyes this seems to work well. Any dissent or are we all happy? ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 10:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this. I'm happy with whatever other encyclopedias use, but AFAIC references to gender are emotive and as such, have no place in an encyclopedia. As for 'the', whatever is the cultural norm in the UK. Daytona2 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Error - needs urgent correction or clarification

>>Because of Concorde's visit in 1985, Continental Airlines added Cleveland-London service in 1999 and Cleveland-Paris in 2008<< 2008 ? Gregpalmerx 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just needs a citation. It's not suggesting that Continental introduced a Concorde service if that's how you read it... Perhaps a slight tweak of the text. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The 2008 date looks suspicious. Both years are well after 1985 also. -Fnlayson 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've removed that before as vandalism, but I didn't check the edit history to be sure. Just remove it as vandalism this time, as it is definetely suspicious and dubious. - BillCJ 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I just removed it. Very dubious. -Fnlayson 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that before, but I googled it, it actually seemed legitimate(!)WolfKeeper 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, it didn't seem unreasonable at first either. -Fnlayson 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an example of a poorly written edit; I don't think it was vandalism. FWIW Bzuk 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, but without a verifiable source, we couldn't use it anyway. Anyway, I sincerely doubt anyone could prove that a Concorde visit caused a direct route to open 23 years later!! I would bet there are other US locations with recently-opened direct routes to London or Paris that never had a visit by THE Concorde. - BillCJ 09:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement was nebulous and unattributed so that was why I classified it as "bad writing" but not necessarily "vandalism." Nevertheless, the deletion of the submission is fine as it was also mainly trivial in retrospect. FWIW Bzuk 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) .

Tyre versus tire

I have added both and changed the phrasing a bit. Many people do not know what a tyre is so I added tired in parenthesis beside it for clarification. I also added structural to the shockwave as it was a structural shockewave that caused the damage. There are other types of shockwaves such as sound, etc.. I would also like to remind people that Concorde was French as much as it was British. That isn't relevant to the English version of the article as there is a French version, but it along with the lack of a pointer to spelling guidelines for British versus other English spellings is causing trouble here. Could somebody please find the guideline referring to British spelling about British things and link it here so as to defuse some of this. Also, please leave tire alone, they should both be there for clarification since tyre is again, so unknown outside of GB by normal people. Please talk instead of reverting also, I originally reverted because I thought the comment ( ) added was visible in the article and was a mistake. I was busy rewriting the phrases to add back tyre with tire when it was reverted which was OK at first since I was rewriting but then reverted again which is not appropriate IMO. In fact, I see that they reverted again as I am trying to write this which is totally wrong. I believe a call should be made for an administrator to help make the article work for everybody. UB65 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Please read Wikipedia:Mos#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic and stop making these kinds of changes. If you really feel strongly that people won't know what a tyre is, adding a wikilink to tire might be acceptable, but the text in the article is British English and since we're following MOS so it's going to stay that way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be a bit less sarcastic please and actually read what I wrote before sounding off. BillJC already fixed it. UB65 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate you aggravating this situation User:Wolfkeeper. What you wrote on my personal talk page was inappropriate. UB65 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for absolute nothing, and I would do the same again, every time. I really don't appreciate you vandalising the article in this way. BillCJ's being way too easy on you, you repeatedly reverted without an edit summary, you failed to respond on the talk page, you removed comments in the article saying that you shouldn't make the changes you did, you insisted on adding American spelling that was inappropriate, I started off with a helpful comment on your talk page, which you ignored... I could go on.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not vandalize this page and you are aggravating the situation. It has been solved. I was busy trying to write on this article's talk page and did not see your comments on my personal talk page until later. You are not helping this situation at all. You also are making unfounded accusations. Please stop.

I just don't buy this in any way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please also read: Wikipedia:Mos#Opportunities_for_commonality as this is what I was trying to do. UB65 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no you weren't, and any trivial look at your edits shows this.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These accusations are not true, I am not a vandal and I have tried to explain what I was trying to do. Please stop making accusations and such. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. UB65 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being contentious in my edit summary. I honestly thought "tyre" was wiki-linked elsewehre in the article, but upon checking, I saw that it wasn't. I'm glad to see that the current wikilink to "tyre" to the tire page is acceptable.- BillCJ (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize too Bill. I thought I was being ganged up on and I was just trying to fix the problem. I wish I had thought of your solution myself as it would have averted all of this. UB65 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you might find that referring to English speakers outside the UK as "normal people" might raise a few hackles! AJKGORDON«» 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this is NOT the place to discuss it but why is anyone using a British spelling for anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/ which is an American web site that uses American English. If a few British users can not put up with American spellings then those British users should request a separate sub-domain such as http://uk.wikipedia.com/. Please feel free to flame me on my user talk page or enlighten me as to where I should be discussing this. Donkdonk (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is the English language wikipedia. Go to WP:ENGVAR and discuss on the talk page there. Also WP:SPELLING -Fnlayson (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an extract from the template concerning such matters: "...you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles. For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style." ... richi (hello) 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Transatlantic routing

This is something that I know but can't source online, except through inference from statements in non-reputable forums. Concorde's LHR-JFK routing was not the usual Great Circle passing near Iceland and Greenland: the faster route from Heathrow was out to the Bristol Channel, then accelerating through Mach 1 somewhere south of Ireland, to avoid sonic boom over land. I've seen the maps and lived in Reading where Concorde was the only flight to pass over, all other transatlantic traffic having turned north, so I've pretty sure of my ground.

Please can anyone find a reference for this and add it? We already have the routing south of Florida on a much less travelled (Mexico city) route, and it's another interesting implication of Concorde's unusual characteristics. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Try searching the forum at ConcordeSST.com. I believe the poster named Project Oxcart has posted a map showing the SST tracks (although it may have been under his prior username Bone Driver). I should note that he tends to make a lot of typos, but his information is pretty accurate. 1995hoo (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 1955hoo. I've had a poke around that site with no success - again, one can see many passing references to the Bristol Channel route, but nothing directly on why it was used. I'll keep searching. It may, ultimately, come to picking up one of those old-fashioned book things, I guess. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was a Concorde Flight Engineer with BA (that's my source). We flew subsonic from Heathrow to our acceleration point at Mach 0.95. The acceleration point did vary a little bit dependent upon atmospheric conditions, but was generally in the Bristol Channel at about 3½ degrees West or so (Southern Ireland doesn't start until about 6 degrees west). We counted down the miles to go using our INS, and at that point the pilot handling selected maximum throttle and called for the Flight Engineer to bring in the reheats in pair. From the acceleration point to Mach 1 took seconds.  :} Concorde001 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad that someone agrees on this. Do you happen to have a reference to show this routing, so we can add it to the article? Maybe a flight ops manual of some sort? (Sorry, I'm not an expert on the terminology). TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is what you're looking for: See this thread on the ConcordeSST forum and note Project Oxcart's first post with the links. The Photobucket link is what you want. You'd have to ask him about the rights to the image, however (he got it from someone on af001.com, but I don't speak French so I can't go over there and ask about it). 1995hoo (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaths per million flights?

Currently the article says (uncited) that after the Paris accident Concorde's record was '12.5 deaths per million flights'. That implies that it had flown about 8 million flights, which is impossible (e.g. 8 flights a day for 2700 years. Should it be "... per million passenger flights" (dividing by the number of passengers per flight, gives say, 100 passengers on 8 flights a day for 27 years, which sounds roughly right to me.) Does 'per million flights' in this context usually mean per million passenger flights? To this lay reader it implies simply the number of times it made a trip. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also saw this independently. With 14 aircraft each flying a daily roundtrip, that's 28 trips per day. Pe year, that 10,000 flights; per decade, 100,000.

Therefore, over 25 or so years, Concorde flew around 250,000 flights. 125 people died. Therefore, the death rate is around 500 people per million flights. I have edited the article to match this easily verified fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangles1 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://airsafe.com/journal/issue14.htm as it contains an explanation for the 12.5/million rating. UB65 (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have altered the Wiki article to reflect "12.5 fatal EVENTS per million flights." Of course, the 12.5 events would involve over 1,000 human deaths. I find it to be an odd safety metric, but at least we have a somewhat reasonable conclusion now. The 12.5 "deaths" per million figure was a mis-application of the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangles1 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Courier use during cold war?

I vaguely remember reading that during certain episodes of the cold war Concorde was used as a high-speed courier service when people and documents had to travel between Washington and London as fast as possible, and that, when this was done, the White House or 10 Downing St. would give orders to allow supersonic flight over land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.88.112 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like fiction from a good novel - no reason why the normal British Airways scheduled tranatlantic service could not have been used and the use of supersonic flight over land would not achieved anything as most of the flight was over water where supersonic flight was allowed. If it really was that important the military would have resources of their own to use. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Carol Vendi elected to Congress?

In the section titled "Environmental impact" a lady by the name of "Carol Vendi" is mentioned as helping fuel the anti-noise pollution movement in the United States with regards to Concorde and, as a result, being elected to the US Congress.

However, a search of the internet for "Carol Vendi" yields that the only references to this person happen to be in this article (or copies of it). Furthermore, no trace of her was found when her name was searched for her at the websites for the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the US Government's Congressional Biographical Directory which has a biography for every US Congress member since 1774.

Therefore, given the apparent non-existence of Ms. Vendi I took the liberty of removing references to her altogether. If the name was misspelt then perhaps somebody can reinsert the correct name.

Cheers,

André Sihera (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The "le" in "le Concorde"

The French grammar element "le", the definite article, is used simply to distinguish a proper name from a common noun (typically countable) of the same spelling. This occurs in a good number of proper names for geographic locations, artistic works, historical events, and vehicle names (particularly boats or aeroplanes, of which Concorde is just one).

A book entitled "Le Bon Usage: Grammaire Française" (tran. "Good Usage: French Grammar") Maurice Grevisse, 13th Edition, p722 (§465) cites that the practice of using "le" specifically with boat and aircraft names was first suggested by two French government ministers (François Piètri, Military Navy, 13 August 1954, and Raymond Schmittlein, Merchant Navy, 22 March 1955) who both proposed independently that the names of boat classes (e.g. frigates, destroyers, etc.) be prefixed with the definite article "le" as part of their name. This practice for boats was informally extended to aeroplanes more through lay usage than through governmental backing and this concept is extended to Concorde as it is viewed as an aircraft class as opposed to a single, unique design.

Hence, in French, "le Concorde" is used to differentiate the aircraft class proper name from "(une) concorde" (with or without the indefinite article, "une", and a small "c") which refers to a political agreement or peace arrangement between two parties. In this case the definite article "le" has no other special or singular significance other than that originally assigned to it within French grammar (e.g. it does not mean that there is "only one" Concorde).

Having found a french dictionary explanation of the usage of "le" in French proper names that specifically cites "le Concorde", I translated the salient points and updated the article accordingly. I also added, as a reference, a link to the original French dictionary explanation as I couldn't find an English reference.

Cheers,

André Sihera (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Just removed a lot of the external links as they do not appear to add any value. Apology if I have removed anything useful but the sample I looked at did not meet the criteria of WP:EL particular as it was looking like a link farm. External Links should add value to the article no just a long list of concorde connected links. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor error in Notes

Note [25] refers to the "Museum of Air and Space, Le Bourget, France". It should read "British prototype G-BSST (002), Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, UK" because that's the photo it's linked to.

The photo is entrely relevant to the main text (about the visor), it's simply the Note that refers to the wrong museum.

I could not see how to edit this. HiTek213 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is fixed now. Added the page the image comes from too. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Primary users

The infobox at the beginning of the article lists all four airlines that operated Concorde under the category "Primary users." It seems to me to be somewhat misleading to list Braniff and Singapore here because their Concorde operations were on such a smaller scale than BA's and Air France's as to be not even remotely comparable. There's a section further down the article that lists "Operators" (in which Braniff are left out for whatever reason) and it seems to me that it would be more reasonable to list all four airlines under "Operators" but to list only BA and Air France under "Primary users" in the introduction because "primary" implies that it refers to the airlines that made the most use of Concorde, without excluding the possibility that there were others, whereas "Operators" implies a more complete list.

Anyone have any thoughts? 1995hoo (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Braniff and Singapore operations was shortlived doesnt make them so un important they cant be in the infobox (that would be against NPOV). As Braniff operated both British Airways and Air France Concordes they were probably the biggest operator of Concorde! if you count the number of aircraft operated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if your point controls, then the infobox should just say "Operators" because there were only the four operators. I don't believe I argued that the Braniff and Singapore operations were unimportant, but I think it's unrealistic to contend that, where there were only four airlines operating Concorde, and where BA and Air France clearly and indisputably ran far more extensive Concorde operations than these other two carriers, the Braniff and Singapore operations were of a level of importance comparable to the BA and AF operations (especially when Braniff, in particular, were required by BA's insurance carriers to have BA captains and flight engineers present as observers). I don't see how there's an NPOV violation at all by deleting them, but perhaps the solution is to dump the wording "Primary users" (unless it's some sort of fixed template that can't be changed). 1995hoo (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Primary users" is fixed in the template, so it can't be changed on an individual article basis. Beware of placing too much weight on words in the infoboxes. The Aircraft infobox is used on thousands of articles, and some aircraft have dozens of operators. "Primary" is there to indicate that these 4 operators (the infobox limit by consensus) are more important than the others listed. In cases with only 4 users, or less, then naturally all the users will be listed. It's not meant to be a statement on their relative importance in such cases, just a list. - BillCJ (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Braniff Intl. & Singapore Airlines are listed after British Airways & Air France because they are less important. Should we put them in small font as well? It's just a list. Not an end all, be all thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the People Have Spoken. This is why I raised it here rather than going ahead and revising the article. I'll go take a look at the article and revise the "Operators" section if it hasn't already been done. 1995hoo (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I strongly agree with you. Which companies owned aircraft? If we are going to include short term leases then there are countless charter companies we can claim were operators. Hell, even Tony Blair is an operator according to that definition. Where there is an extensive list of companies that made extensive use of an aircraft it makes sense to list only the biggest ones in the infobox. Where there aren't that many it doesn't mean that we should artificially pad out the list with minor footnotes given equal status: that is misleading through undue emphasis. Indeed, in the case of Concorde it is significant that there were only two operators: the fact that no planes were sold over and above those ordered for each government's flag carrier show Concorde as a technical marvel but ultimately a commercial flop. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Singapore and Braniff operated Concorde flights for over a year each, so how short term disqualifies a user, one week, one month, one year, five years. Concordes were registered in the United States to allow Braniff to operate them and one Concorde was painted on one-side with Singapore markings not in the same league as week charter for Tony Blair. Also as BillCJ has stated above no reason why the entries in the Concorde infobox should be treated any different to other aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Future

Is there a chanche that a comparable aircraft or even the Concorde itself will operate passenger flights again within the next 30 years? Dagadt (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible because France and Japan started to work on new supersonic jet ('Son of Concord') that is expected to be in operation by 2015 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.190.155 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Citation Number 74

It does not appear to support the statement that in Britain concorde is regarded as British, and in France regarded as French. As an aside ive never met anyone who expressed an opinion about concorde that didnt realise it was a joint Anglo-French project. I was going to add a citation needed, noticed it already had one, and noticed it doesnt back up this assertion ( nor does it relate to concorde in any way ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.215.104 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

citation incorrect

The United States cancelled its supersonic transport (SST) programme in 1971. Two designs had been submitted; the Lockheed L-2000, looking like a scaled-up Concorde, lost out to the Boeing 2707, which was intended to be faster, to carry 300 passengers and feature a swing-wing design. Other countries, such as India and Malaysia, ruled out Concorde supersonic overflights due to noise concerns.[11] The web site on concord history makes no mention of the L-2000 loooking like a scaled up concord. This is POV and I suggest that it be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with POV it is not mentioned because it isnt that relevant, both the L-2000 and the Boeing 2707 (not swing-wing) looked similar to Concorde it is what happened when you design a supersonic aircraft in the 1960s from the same principles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

British Aiwars Concord 214 ( G-BOAG) 1990

I am trying to find out the name of the Captain and all the crew who flew Concord 214 (G-BOAG)from London Heathrow to LIsbon in Portugal on December 4th 1990. This was a special charter flight for OKI the Japanese Printer Company who flew all its UK Dealers on that flight to a dealer conference. If anyone can help I would be grateful. answers to marlin1143@sky.com 90.208.194.48 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)