Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsb!dsmith From: dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Re: Number of Concorde ever build Message-ID: <5120@hplabsb.HP.COM> Date: 19 Jan 89 18:34:57 GMT References: <8812270136.AA22740@crash.cts.com> <13081@cup.portal.com> <4595@mtgzy.att.com> <209@s5.Morgan.COM> <8XpBody00XomQ0fFNY@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 29 In article <8XpBody00XomQ0fFNY@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason... >American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to >get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded ! The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. Suppose you tell us what US manufacturers did to kill it. I think what killed it were high fuel consumption and limited range. No subsonic jet would be successful if its usefulness were limited to the North Atlantic run (London/Paris to NY/Washington).* And its fuel reserves on arrival to New York would be considered impermissibly low on another plane. >Fortumately they couldn't do that with Airbus Industrie. I'm surprised you're not moaning about the resistance La Guardia put up to letting Airbuses land. It seems that Airbus Industrie didn't consult much with airports over their landing restrictions. They built their plane (A300/A310) with the main gear legs too close together, violating La Guardia's preexisting rules on weight concentration (which were intended to safeguard the runways, which were built over soft landfill). "Fortumately", a little friendly gov't-to-gov't arm twisting got La Guardia to relent. * OK, so they fly to Bahrain. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898