We Went To Bed Last Night

14 Replies to “We Went To Bed Last Night”

1. Come Concorde!!

2. They caught an unusually strong jet stream across the North Atlantic. This is no big deal at all.

3. well…I have an old documentary somewhere in my house on a videocassette where they explain that the concorde did not only cause unpleasant sonic booms……it carried about only half ( or was it one third) as many passengers as other airplanes but it used about 8 times more fuel than other airplanes
   to carry the same number of passengers as the competition you needed either two concordes or one that did two back and forth trips, you are now at 16 times the fuel used by the competition for the same number of passengers transported from point A to point B
   I am a global warming ”denier” but most people believe the planet is about to melt from intense heat caused by our carbon foot prints…how can anyone think we can bring back super sonic jets such as the concorde when their foot print is 8 to 16 times bigger?
   An Electric super sonic jet – if that is possible – would also require 8 to 16 times the power/energy, going super sonic requires a whole lot of energy.
   Aren’t we suppose to use Led bulb , lower the heat in our homes and save the planet ???
   what is this talk of using jets that use 8 to 16 times more resources?

4. I have flown the Concord, BA from JFK to London…It was only 2 seats on each side & one got an uncomfortable feeling of Heat…Fast…Had lunch in NY & had a late Dinner in London….I preferred flying the 747 to London, slower but smooth, it left JFK Mid Afternoon & arrived early Morning
   I remember that the Paris crash by Air France had more to do with the demise of the Concord….

5. The next generation of supersonics will fly above the atmosphere and have near zero fuel usage while at that altitude. No firm idea when that will be an option.

6. Do any tailwinds blow OUT of North America? Cause I feel some mass deportations coming …

7. I saw one once on the tarmac at Miami Int’l. Instant boner. Lol

8. No firm idea when that will be an option.
   Likely sometime between now and self-driving cars.

9. “… the fastest transatlantic flight ever recorded on a subsonic commercial aircraft.”
   I get what your saying, but they aren’t comparing their flight to the Concorde, they are saying they broke a subsonic time record.

10. Only 14 Concords ever flew commercially. The whole project was a boondoggle for the British and French taxpayer. Concord is what happens when government makes choices that would be better left to the market to choose.
    Lots of trivia here:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/concorde-and-supersonic-travel-the-days-when-the-sun-rose-in-the-west-8888836.html

11. I owned a 1969 F100 Ford half ton. In 2003 I bought a new F150. The two trucks had the same poor gas mileage. A reasonable thought could have been that after almost 35 years of R&D the ‘scientists’ should have come up with a little fuel savings.
    I think perhaps the point here may be is that in 1969 a transatlantic commercial flight did occur taking 3.5 hours. After a half century of ‘scientific’ research, the best they can come up with is a flight that is 2 hours slower. And they celebrate it as a ‘new record’.

12. actually the comments in here are hilhairyASS. The plane ground speed, not air speed was above the speed of sound. I’v been there done that in a 747, coming up the east coast from Florida.
    Hey Smithy, there is a large difference between science and tech achievements. Old man Honda gleaned the concept for CVCC from the paten office. The concept was first patented in 1920, but back then they did not have the manufacturing capabilities, nor the need, for implementing it

13. BINGO.
    the ENTIRE Concord program was premised on zhobs zhobs zhobs.
    neither party could back out of the deal either because of the wording.
    the cost overruns from sorting out who built what part and when and where MUST have been a major contribution to the fact
    It. Did. Not. Make. Money. Honey.
    I love flying but crikey . . . .

14. …”… The plane ground speed, not air speed was above the speed of sound. …”…
    Maybe it is because English is not my first language ( French is, don’t blame me, I did no chose to be born of French speaking parents ) but I don’t understand what you mean by that.
    747s, DC10s, Concordes and similar airplanes start to lift off ground at roughly 250 miles per hour…no airplane reaches top speed or the speed of sound while on the ground before take off.
    below 250 mph most of those airplanes sink out of the sky like an anchor.
    for fighter jets like a f-18, f-16 or f-15 – capable of super sonic speed- the lowest speed for take off is about 150 mph…when they land on a carrier and must catch one of the three steel rope they are going at about 125 to 150 mph.
    maybe you were making a joke but I don’t get it.