In article , Umpston
wrote:
But to throw more public money at it now,
for largely sentimental reasons, would be daft.

But we do this all the time in respect of historic buildings

--
Tony Bryer

Tony Bryer wrote in message ...
In article , Umpston
wrote:
But to throw more public money at it now,
for largely sentimental reasons, would be daft.

But we do this all the time in respect of historic buildings

Fair point, but you can go round most historic buildings for only a
few quid (and soon you will probably be able to see Concorde in a
museum for a few quid). But what price (and how long the waiting list
- at any price?) for a rare flight on a 'preserved' Condorde?
Therefore I think it would be poor value to spend scarce public
'heritage' money to keep it flying. But if you disagree - make your
lottery application now!

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article ,

For me the sight never to be forgotten was Concorde flying
in formation with the Red Arrows for the Heathrow 50th
anniversary flypast. That was a tears in the eyes sight,
though a quick Google shows it wasn't unique:

http://www.concordesst.com/history/reds/reds.html

Yes, I was at the International Air Tattoo at Fairford and have some stills
photographs of the original attempt. Apparently it was *very* difficult to
get right, a case of not being able to get the Dead Sparrows to go fast
enough and not being able to slow Concorde down enough.

Alpha Golf's departure for JFK tonight brought a few tears, as she roared
over Hatton Cross and banked round to salute Her Maj at Windsor.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:35:39 -0700, umpston wrote:
you can go round most historic buildings for only a few quid

True, but I personally hate all those things, I'd rather take pride in
something unique this country has produced then go on a tour of a stone
building.

Once upon a time -- around about 10/23/03 20:29 --
possibly wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:35:39 -0700, umpston wrote:
you can go round most historic buildings for only a few quid

True, but I personally hate all those things, I'd rather take pride in
something unique this country has produced then go on a tour of a stone
building.

Britain's most visible icons 'round the world are Her Majesty and Concorde.
Although Concorde was an Anglo-French invention ask anyone (except the
French of course) what they think of when you show them a picture of
Concorde and Britain is the answer.

Concorde is something to be extraordinarily proud of. If I were English, I'd
be proud of her. As it is, I think Concorde is one of the greatest
non-medical scientific achievements of modern mankind along with the Space
Shuttle and a few other things.

Does anyone understand how many people have tried and failed at this. Some
of the greatest scientific minds in the world have failed at making a viable
aircraft (Tupolev's disasterous TU-144, Boeing, and others). It's not easy
to do. It's amazing.

--
I'm not sure if the sad part is that I know what everyone is missing or that
most people don't know what they're missing. (Eric on Concorde's retirement)
www.darsys.com/concorde.html

Paul Weaver wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:35:39 -0700, umpston wrote:
you can go round most historic buildings for only a few quid

True, but I personally hate all those things, I'd rather take pride in
something unique this country has produced then go on a tour of a stone
building.

Do you really hate all of them? They're not all stone by any means.
Tate Modern, for example, is an awesome piece of British industrial
concrete architecture and worth visiting in its own right, as well as
for the art inside. I'm not so keen on plush country houses but I
love old castles, forts, prehistoric remains, industrial heritage -
and anything to do with transport.

CMOT TMPV wrote in message et...
Once upon a time -- around about 10/23/03 20:29 --
possibly wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:35:39 -0700, umpston wrote:
you can go round most historic buildings for only a few quid

True, but I personally hate all those things, I'd rather take pride in
something unique this country has produced then go on a tour of a stone
building.

Britain's most visible icons 'round the world are Her Majesty and Concorde.
Although Concorde was an Anglo-French invention ask anyone (except the
French of course) what they think of when you show them a picture of
Concorde and Britain is the answer.

Concorde is something to be extraordinarily proud of. If I were English, I'd
be proud of her. As it is, I think Concorde is one of the greatest
non-medical scientific achievements of modern mankind along with the Space
Shuttle and a few other things.

Does anyone understand how many people have tried and failed at this. Some
of the greatest scientific minds in the world have failed at making a viable
aircraft (Tupolev's disasterous TU-144, Boeing, and others). It's not easy
to do. It's amazing.

Concorde is without doubt amongst the defining images of mid-20th
century Britain, in the same way as Queen Victoria and the Forth
Bridge, for example, epitomise the 19th century. We now need some
things to re-define us for the 21st - not to reject the past, rather
to build on it and change for the better. A supersonic Concorde
replacement that was both environmentally more friendly, and carried
enough passengers to make it economically worthwhile, might be
something to hope for one day!

Thank you for your tribute. British pride in Concorde is still
immense as this thread and all the recent coverage demonstrates. As
you say, the achievement itself is a thing of great wonder. But its
day is done. We should celebrate our successes, and preserve the
relics - but not try to cling on to the past. If BA can no longer
make money from them (and I doubt Richard Branson could either, he
just likes to take every opportunity to bash BA) they are surely right
to let their Concordes go out in a blaze of glory, as they will today,
rather than let them gradually dwindle away as all the old fleets of
lesser vehicles do.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:49:58 -0700, umpston wrote:
to let their Concordes go out in a blaze of glory, as they will today,

No, a blaze of glory would have been mach 2 from the Thames estuary,
through the centre of town, at 300 feet. That would have been ++impressive.

Sadly the enviro-nimbys always get their way. Think about transport

Early 20th century - massive underground rail network created in London
Post WWII - spaceflight, satelites
60's moon landing, motorway network
70's Concorde
80's onwards - no more moon flights, no more Concorde, dying space flight,
trains that are slower then the Mallard, car's limited to 1960's speeds,
road destruction, rail destruction (started with Beeching). The only thing
of note is the Channel Tunnel, and even that was way over budget

Since the Early 70's transport technology has regressed to bureaucratic
nonsense