Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Supercruise was archived by a very clever aerodynamic design of the engine systems and that work was done in its entirety at a Rolls Royce experimental site at Hucknall in Nottinghamshire. Without supercruise ability, Concorde wouldn’t have worked as a viable passenger carrier. By comparison the remainder of the airframe was not that difficult.

Nice try at salvaging something. You cannot say that no-one else could have done the same, after all even the Russians managed it with their copy of the French design. Also the project had a choice of two engine designs.

To say the rest of the airframe for supersonic flight was not that difficult is total nonsense, there were some very difficult unique problems to solve at that time.

Concorde was French and they deserve the credit for it, and for us to try to steal the credit is pathetic. The chief designer for the project was Pierre Sartre who had designed a string of successful jet aircraft. His deputy for the project was Sir Archibald Russell who never designed a jet airplane. Russell designed WW2's least remembered planes, the Beaufighter and Blenheim, then post war designed the Brabazon which was unable to even complete a successful inaugural flight. Eventually he designed the Britannia which was years behind the times at its launch.

Below is a link to the media report from the time when the French design won over the British one, which was based on the delta wing Vulcan bomber:

Air Commerce
.

 

[oldgroaner]

The really clever bit about Concorde is its ability to “supercruise” that is to sustain supersonic flight for an extended period. Up until that time supersonic flight was done with brute force and only really achievable in short bursts.

Supercruise was archived by a very clever aerodynamic design of the engine systems and that work was done in its entirety at a Rolls Royce experimental site at Hucknall in Nottinghamshire. Without supercruise ability, Concorde wouldn’t have worked as a viable passenger carrier. By comparison the remainder of the airframe was not that difficult.

Sorry to spoil your evenings Jonathan & OG, I know c.

Apparently you can't read among your other failings
This sentence lets you down
"Without supercruise ability, Concorde wouldn’t have worked as a viable passenger carrier. "
It didn't did it? that was the whole point and is sailed right over your head
As did the fact that the wingplan and air intakes were equally as critical.

Read this bit again
" Due to their high running costs, Concordes could not be sold for more than a fifth of the price of manufacturing, so the cost could never be recouped.

And for the record if you don't like being referred to as a idiot
Don't make further scurrilous lying comments like this

"Sorry to spoil your evenings Jonathan & OG, I know how much you hate anything remotely successful which is associated with your country."

You are entitled to have opinions, but not to tell people they hate their country
Proving if there was ever any doubt you are in fact an idiot and that reference is appropriate.

We were not the ones who voted to damage the nation with this Brexit idiocy, but you did, didn't you?
How can you mistake that error for being patriotic? and having changed your mind, by your logic you must now hate this country and have no faith in it.

 

[oyster]

By Jove, I'd like our area to receive this sort of financial support.

Rather than the reduced funding I am certain would follow brexit (both less money and higher costs).

Wales and Cornwall hardest hit as UK loses out on £11.4bn in EU regional funding after Brexit
A 22 per cent rise in support would have been due in the next EU budget

Wales and Cornwall

This funding loss will be most keenly felt in two regions: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and West Wales and the Welsh Valleys.

These are classed as ‘less developed regions’, and currently receive most of the UK’s regional funding.

Three additional areas would have been able to join them in the post-2020 period: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham, and Lincolnshire.

All five of these regions stood to receive EU support in excess of €500 or £440 per capita per year for the seven-year period.

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-wales-cornwall-regional-funding-eu/

Apologies if already posted.

 

[oldgroaner]

By Jove, I'd like our area to receive this sort of financial support.

Rather than the reduced funding I am certain would follow brexit (both less money and higher costs).

Wales and Cornwall hardest hit as UK loses out on £11.4bn in EU regional funding after Brexit
A 22 per cent rise in support would have been due in the next EU budget

Wales and Cornwall

This funding loss will be most keenly felt in two regions: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and West Wales and the Welsh Valleys.

These are classed as ‘less developed regions’, and currently receive most of the UK’s regional funding.

Three additional areas would have been able to join them in the post-2020 period: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham, and Lincolnshire.

All five of these regions stood to receive EU support in excess of €500 or £440 per capita per year for the seven-year period.

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-wales-cornwall-regional-funding-eu/

Apologies if already posted.

You'll upset the usual culprits with facts like that! and make Tommie yawn too

 

[50Hertz]

Nice try at salvaging something. You cannot say that no-one else could have done the same, after all even the Russians managed it with their copy of the French design. Also the project had a choice of two engine designs.

To say the rest of the airframe for supersonic flight was not that difficult is total nonsense, there were some very difficult unique problems to solve at that time.

Concorde was French and they deserve the credit for it, and for us to try to steal the credit is pathetic. The chief designer for the project was Pierre Sartre who had designed a string of successful jet aircraft. His deputy for the project was Sir Archibald Russell who never designed a jet airplane. Russell designed WW2's least remembered planes, the Beaufighter and Blenheim, then post war designed the Brabazon which was unable to even complete a successful inaugural flight. Eventually he designed the Britannia which was years behind the times at its launch.

Below is a link to the media report from the time when the French design won over the British one, which was based on the delta wing Vulcan bomber:

Air Commerce
.

To say if the UK hadn’t developed the engine systems, someone else would have done, is true. But you can say that about anything, so whilst true, it’s a meaningless statement. In this instance, the U.K. did develop a very complex and innovative power system. Probably years ahead of it’s time.

Supersonic airframes and supersonic flight controls had already been invented, it had been done and it’s always easier when it’s been done before. Concorde’s airframe, although ingenious, was a further development of an existing concept. The engine technology required for supercruise at Mach 2 between continents however, was just a concept at that time, almost science fiction. But the U.K. took that fledgling concept and turned it into reality. Without that engineering genius, Concorde would have been like any other supersonic aircraft of that era, tanks empty in 20 minutes. Useless as an air transport vehicle.

The Rusian version was very different, crude, thirsty, dangerously so, and should not be mentioned whilst talking about Concorde. They are not the same thing.

You are talking down the UK’s part too much and I don’t know why you would do that. The power plant was what made the aircraft, gave it the legs, set it apart, made the dream a reality. We knew how to fly at Mach 2, but we didn’t know how to do it over continental distances, it seemed impossible due to the fuel needed, but U.K. engineers solved that, the biggest challenge Concorde faced.

 

[50Hertz]

Apparently you can't read among your other failings
This sentence lets you down
"Without supercruise ability, Concorde wouldn’t have worked as a viable passenger carrier. "
It didn't did it? that was the whole point and is sailed right over your head
As did the fact that the wingplan and air intakes were equally as critical.

Read this bit again
" Due to their high running costs, Concordes could not be sold for more than a fifth of the price of manufacturing, so the cost could never be recouped.

And for the record if you don't like being referred to as a idiot
Don't make further scurrilous lying comments like this

"Sorry to spoil your evenings Jonathan & OG, I know how much you hate anything remotely successful which is associated with your country."

You are entitled to have opinions, but not to tell people they hate their country
Proving if there was ever any doubt you are in fact an idiot and that reference is appropriate.

We were not the ones who voted to damage the nation with this Brexit idiocy, but you did, didn't you?
How can you mistake that error for being patriotic? and having changed your mind, by your logic you must now hate this country and have no faith in it.

It did work as a passenger carrier. It carried people from one continent to another at Machh 2. That’s what it was designed to do. The initial problem it faced was that it needed to carry so much fuel to travel that distance at those speeds, there would be no capacity left for passengers and their luggage. The UK solved that fundamental problem allowing the project to succeed. It failed as a money maker, true. So it didn’t sail over my head you arrogant fool.

The engine intakes were developed by Rolls Royce. They achieved a high compression ratio even before the air entered the compressor stages of the engine. That was a key part of the supercruise concept.

Your continued hatred and putting down of the U.K. or anything which the U.K. does which is remotely inivative disgusts me. You are a bad person, you really are. Sometbad must have happened to you to turn you into the beast which stalks these pages.

 

[tommie]

Apparently you can't read among your other failings
This sentence lets you down
"Without supercruise ability, Concorde wouldn’t have worked as a viable passenger carrier. "
It didn't did it? that was the whole point and is sailed right over your head
As did the fact that the wingplan and air intakes were equally as critical.

Read this bit again
" Due to their high running costs, Concordes could not be sold for more than a fifth of the price of manufacturing, so the cost could never be recouped.

And for the record if you don't like being referred to as a idiot
Don't make further scurrilous lying comments like this

"Sorry to spoil your evenings Jonathan & OG, I know how much you hate anything remotely successful which is associated with your country."

You are entitled to have opinions, but not to tell people they hate their country
Proving if there was ever any doubt you are in fact an idiot and that reference is appropriate.

We were not the ones who voted to damage the nation with this Brexit idiocy, but you did, didn't you?
How can you mistake that error for being patriotic? and having changed your mind, by your logic you must now hate this country and have no faith in it.

https://giphy.com/gifs/kDIhIpwRRIi3K/html5

 

[oldgroaner]

I don't usually bother looking at the Sun, an having just done so I can see why.
It is no longer even posing as a "Newspaper"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8289330/brexit-latest-theresa-may-martial-law-chaos/

PROJECT FEAR RETURNS Brexit news latest: Fury at bizarre claims Theresa May could declare MARTIAL LAW to cope with chaos after a No Deal Brexit
The PM could use sweeping powers to try and stop riots and uproar which some fear would occur in the event Britain left without a deal in March

About the only factual words on the entire front page are up there
Fury at bizarre claims

Nowhere on the entire front page can it be attributed to anyone at all
"a source said" is the nearest you can get to anything concrete.
This paper should be warned against spreading fake news and disturbing the peace deliberately.

 

[oldgroaner]

https://giphy.com/gifs/kDIhIpwRRIi3K/html5

Tommie your link to an an idiot laughing rather appropriately didn't work
May I suggest you stick to using the Yawn button, you seem to have got the hang of that?

 

[oldgroaner]

he engine technology required for supercruise at Mach 2 between continents however, was just a concept at that time, almost science fiction

Wrong as usual it had all been done long before
By of all people the Swedes who achieved supercruise years before
The Saab Draken did the first supercruise 26 january 1956 when a prototype without afterburner broke the sound barrier. Later versions with stronger RM6C engine had no problems to reach supercruise without afterburner.
The English Electric lightning P1 early models did not have reheat but could easily exceed and fly beyond the sound barrier.
The trick is to have both enough power and air intakes that keep the incoming air travelling at less than the speed of sound
Do give up, it was an already well proven idea long before Concord and not a revolutionary idea.

 

[tommie]

Wrong as usual it had all been done long before
By of all people the Swedes achieved supercruise years before
The Saab Draken did the first supercruise 26 january 1956 when a prototype without afterburner broke the sound barrier. Later versions with stronger RM6C engine had no problems to reach supercruise without afterburner.
Do give up it was an already well proven idea

Awe..shucks, our resident Idiot in his panic has found Wikipedia - and there was our million viewers thinking he wuz intelligent or sumthin............oh dear rumbled again!!

Saab Draken
I saw recently that this aircraft was removed from the list. There was a series on aircraft (I believe it aired on the History Channel but I could be mistaken) that featured the Swedish Airforce. I do recall the narrator announcing that the J-35 could cruise at mach 1.2 without using afterburner but I have been unable to find the video again. I believe the video was on Youtube for a period but then removed (most likely for copyright violation). If anyone else saw this video or has another source for the Draken it would be appreciated. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Draken did the first supercruise 26 january 1956 when a prototype without afterburner broke the sound barrier. Later versions with stronger RM6C engine had no problems to reach supercruise without afterburner. 130.241.141.198 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt that. Any decent source for this? ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supercruise

 

[50Hertz]

Wrong as usual it had all been done long before
By of all people the Swedes achieved supercruise years before
The Saab Draken did the first supercruise 26 january 1956 when a prototype without afterburner broke the sound barrier. Later versions with stronger RM6C engine had no problems to reach supercruise without afterburner.
Do give up it was an already well proven idea

Your posts are always saturated with an ugly arrogance. It's sad really.

I made it very clear that we were talking about super cruise over continental distances, which had not been done. You really hate any kind of entrepreneurial success or innovation don't you?

 

[oyster]

I don't usually bother looking at the Sun, an having just done so I can see why.
It is no longer even posing as a "Newspaper"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8289330/brexit-latest-theresa-may-martial-law-chaos/

PROJECT FEAR RETURNS Brexit news latest: Fury at bizarre claims Theresa May could declare MARTIAL LAW to cope with chaos after a No Deal Brexit
The PM could use sweeping powers to try and stop riots and uproar which some fear would occur in the event Britain left without a deal in March

About the only factual words on the entire front page are up there
Fury at bizarre claims

Nowhere on the entire front page can it be attributed to anyone at all
"a source said" is the nearest you can get to anything concrete.
This paper should be warned against spreading fake news and disturbing the peace deliberately.

The Sunday Times version is a bit more sober:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-ready-to-declare-martial-law-to-avert-no-deal-brexit-chaos-bfqgzzlrw

Still dirty digger stable.

 

[flecc]

You are talking down the UK’s part too much and I don’t know why you would do that.

I'm not talking down our part, I'm trying to correct the idea that it was all down to us and the widespread notion that Concorde was British. It was not, we only designed the engines. It could have been carried out without the Rolls Royce involvement, the Bristol Olympus redesign was the other official option and so were the US jet engine companies, but for the French antipathy towards all things American at the time. One only has to know the record of US innovation in jet engines to realise they would just as easily have created supercruise, particularly when it had already been achieved elsewhere.

We don't need to try to get the credit for what others have achieved when Britain has designed so much of excellence. Apart from some small or short haul examples, airliners aren't amongst that though.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

It did work as a passenger carrier. It carried people from one continent to another at Machh 2. That’s what it was designed to do. The initial problem it faced was that it needed to carry so much fuel to travel that distance at those speeds, there would be no capacity left for passengers and their luggage. The UK solved that fundamental problem allowing the project to succeed. It failed as a money maker, true. So it didn’t sail over my head you arrogant fool.

The engine intakes were developed by Rolls Royce. They achieved a high compression ratio even before the air entered the compressor stages of the engine. That was a key part of the supercruise concept.

Your continued hatred and putting down of the U.K. or anything which the U.K. does which is remotely inivative disgusts me. You are a bad person, you really are. Sometbad must have happened to you to turn you into the beast which stalks these pages.

Good grief man, you really are weird it seem nothing will stop you rambling on and lashing out in all directions
And this "The air intakes developed a high compression ratio?"
That is only part of the picture as they actually reduced the airspeed coming in below Mach This is because the engines stall if they are fed supersonic air.
As flecc pointed out the whole airframe design was critical the issue was far more about aerodynamics than engine power or design. Concorde could supercruise because it was designed to -- a long, slender fuselage with a relatively short wingspan. Militarily, this doesn't work

Stick to things you know about, there must be something.

And cut out the insults and keep your "disgust" to yourself you are making enough of a fool of yourself without resorting the them

Just look at the things you post!
"you arrogant fool"
"Your continued hatred and putting down of the U.K. or anything which the U.K. does which is remotely inivative disgusts me."

"You are a bad person, you really are. Sometbad must have happened to you to turn you into the beast which stalks these pages."

Describes you exactly, so why are you here stalking these pages?

 

[oldgroaner]

Awe..shucks, our resident Idiot in his panic has found Wikipedia - and there was our million viewers thinking he wuz intelligent or sumthin............oh dear rumbled again!!

Saab Draken
I saw recently that this aircraft was removed from the list. There was a series on aircraft (I believe it aired on the History Channel but I could be mistaken) that featured the Swedish Airforce. I do recall the narrator announcing that the J-35 could cruise at mach 1.2 without using afterburner but I have been unable to find the video again. I believe the video was on Youtube for a period but then removed (most likely for copyright violation). If anyone else saw this video or has another source for the Draken it would be appreciated. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Draken did the first supercruise 26 january 1956 when a prototype without afterburner broke the sound barrier. Later versions with stronger RM6C engine had no problems to reach supercruise without afterburner. 130.241.141.198 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt that. Any decent source for this? ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supercruise

So you haven't proved anything have you Tommie?
So you found a wikipedia entry on the subject that confirms my statement?
even if the Draken video it off the list it your cut and paste confirmed later models could supercruise.
What was the point of your post? you just proved my point
Thanks for that

 

[oyster]

The Sunday Times version is a bit more sober:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-ready-to-declare-martial-law-to-avert-no-deal-brexit-chaos-bfqgzzlrw

Still dirty digger stable.

Is it entirely accidental that Les Mis tonight has street fighting and rioting in Paris with the army losing control ...?

 

[Fingers]

Good grief man, you really are weird it seem nothing will stop you rambling on and lashing out in all directions
And this "The air intakes developed a high compression ratio?"
That is only part of the picture as they actually reduced the airspeed coming in below Mach This is because the engines stall if they are fed supersonic air.
As flecc pointed out the whole airframe design was critical the issue was far more about aerodynamics than engine power or design. Concorde could supercruise because it was designed to -- a long, slender fuselage with a relatively short wingspan. Militarily, this doesn't work

Stick to things you know about, there must be something.

And cut out the insults and keep your "disgust" to yourself you are making enough of a fool of yourself without resorting the them

Just look at the things you post!
"you arrogant fool"
"Your continued hatred and putting down of the U.K. or anything which the U.K. does which is remotely inivative disgusts me."

"You are a bad person, you really are. Sometbad must have happened to you to turn you into the beast which stalks these pages."

Describes you exactly, so why are you here stalking these pages?

Post after post after post of spiteful bile that has nothing to do with Brexit.

It’s constant spam. Offensive spam.

Sad, bitter old man. Only happy when he’s trying to cause misery to others.

And your spelling and grammar is the level of a 10 year old. Give it a rest.

 

[tommie]

even if the Draken video it off the list it your cut and paste confirmed later models could supercruise.
What was the point of your post? you just proved my pointt

Eh? !!

 

[50Hertz]

Good grief man, you really are weird it seem nothing will stop you rambling on and lashing out in all directions
And this "The air intakes developed a high compression ratio?"
That is only part of the picture as they actually reduced the airspeed coming in below Mach This is because the engines stall if they are fed supersonic air.
As flecc pointed out the whole airframe design was critical the issue was far more about aerodynamics than engine power or design. Concorde could supercruise because it was designed to -- a long, slender fuselage with a relatively short wingspan. Militarily, this doesn't work

Stick to things you know about, there must be something.

And cut out the insults and keep your "disgust" to yourself you are making enough of a fool of yourself without resorting the them

Just look at the things you post!
"you arrogant fool"
"Your continued hatred and putting down of the U.K. or anything which the U.K. does which is remotely inivative disgusts me."

"You are a bad person, you really are. Sometbad must have happened to you to turn you into the beast which stalks these pages."

Describes you exactly, so why are you here stalking these pages?

What a sick and bitter person you are.

I have noticed that you tend to paraphrase some of the terms that I use, so something must be penetrating.

I’m going to leave this topic here, I can’t be bothered to converse with a kind of AA breakdown man for lavatories. That may well be an arrogant statement, but you are simply searching the Internet and posting things without any understanding of what it is that you are talking about. That’s coming through in every post you make. You are just a poundshop pillock who’s found out how to use Google and that makes it impossible to have a sensible conversation with you.