Jump to content

Talk:Concorde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleConcorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 21, 2005, January 21, 2006, January 21, 2007, January 21, 2011, January 21, 2013, and January 21, 2016.
Current status: Good article

920,000 flying hours, over 600,000 supersonic, by March 1999?

[edit]

Although this claim added in 2009 seems to be as stated in Jane's (https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140324/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml), and appears elsewhere on the Internet, it is not consistent with the hours planes flew in the article (a total to retirement in 2003 of under 244,000 hours).

Nor does it make sense with an airframe design life of 45,000 flying hours (even if all 20 planes built did this number of hours it would not get to the total - and 5 did less than 1,000 flying hours).

(I wonder if Jane's actually intended to refer to engine hours rather than plane hours.)

Also is there an estimate anywhere of total supersonic hours flown in the western world, as that bit could be true? Robertm25 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertm25 Well spotted! The claims of 920k hours and 600k hours are definitely implausible for the reasons you have given. I have looked at the website you provided immediately above. It is focussed on the Olympus engine so I agree with you that the hours quoted are likely engine hours, not airframe hours. Dolphin (t) 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum speed

[edit]

The maximum speed says in the first line "1,354 mph (2,179 km/h (...))" (which is btw only a few mi/km above the indicated cruising speed) but in the second titled the same it is "Mach 2.04" (which according to Google is around 2450 km/h, or 2518 km/h by another source). Anyone to clarify this (relatively glaring inconsistency for an awarded article)? Martin Gazdík (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of sound varies depending on the altitude at which the vehicle is operating. I'm not a physicist, so I don't understand all the nuances, but I believe it has something to do with the thinner air at higher altitudes. 1995hoo (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The speed of sound does not vary depending on altitude, although this fact regularly puzzles most people. It can be proved that the speed of sound varies with the temperature of the air. At progressively higher altitudes the air temperature decreases (at the rate of approximately 2 degrees Celsius every 1,000 feet.) As a consequence of the decline in air temperature with increasing altitude, the speed of sound also declines with altitude. In the stratosphere the temperature remains approximately constant regardless of altitude so, in this part of the atmosphere, the speed of sound also remains approximately constant.
All aircraft have a maximum indicated airspeed specified in knots, kilometres per hour, etc. Jet-engine aircraft and other high-flying and high-speed aircraft also have a maximum Mach number. At low altitudes the limit on indicated airspeed is the more restrictive of the two so it is the one the pilot must monitor closely; at high altitudes the limit on Mach number is the more restrictive so it is the one the pilot must monitor more closely. Dolphin (t) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have all ready been spun out) or reduced as too much detail.
  • In relation to the above, there are some sections that are too long. I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs.
  • The lede, at 5 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended 4 paragraphs at WP:LEADLENGTH.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns. I had a quick look and can see scope for some major pruning. John (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Concorde

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larger aircraft (prose) articles often have their operational history section split off in to another article. The 'Aircraft on display' section is another section that is often split off, it could be added to Concorde aircraft histories with that article being moved to Concorde histories and aircraft on display (or similar title). I can do both if there are no objections. Some of the engine section may be replicating Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 and could be trimmed, as the 593 was the only engine type used by Concorde its article could contain airframe details (I think it already does). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: I support your proposal for these spin outs. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll leave it a day or two for objections. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: I also think these are good ideas. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been a couple of days. I looked at the engine content and the 593 article, the text is different (not repetition), it focuses mostly on the airframe aspects and I think this section should be untouched. Will have a look at creating/splitting/merging, making sure to adhere to the attribution technicalities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the formal splitting notice on the talk page. There is quite a lot of 'aircraft on display' text in the operational history section which could probably be trimmed after it's moved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting notice should have been added to the article, not the talk page, have just done that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been split, the current size is 93kb (from 230 kb) and 9,000 words (from 12,300). One section of five paragraphs was deleted bar one line as it duplicated information in the aircraft on display section and the BAC Concorde G-BBDG article.

Two tables now exist in Concorde histories and aircraft on display, one with images and one without, they could possibly be combined. During the split of 'Operational history' an automated warning appeared stating that seven sources were self-published and/or vanity press and to confirm their use. I would imagine that a few remain as the cite errors (sources not moved) didn't appear in the list IIRC. I hope that I got all the technicalities with attributions correct, I have raised a query at the help desk ref an old article ID not displaying as it should. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Nimbus: Uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to get involved in the review beyond the split but while I'm here...!! I removed the unsourced text marked with CN tags, one line was tangled up with a sourced but off topic line so both were removed. Had a quick look through and it looks well cited now apart from the footnotes, of the six only one is cited, will see what can be done there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the five unsourced footnotes, they very much read like editor opinion/original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split the article as proposed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested to reduce the prose size by splitting sections of this article off per Wikipedia:Summary style. The existing Concorde aircraft histories would be moved and become the new parent article for aircraft on display. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Basically, the article is WP:Too long. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yes, rework and expand the Concorde aircraft histories page to split off more content from this main Concorde article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to alleviate WP:TOOBIG concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concorde&oldid=1257344832"