why isn't Concorde?

Let's take Concorde first.

The Concorde crash in Paris in July 2000 did not bring about an end to Concorde flights but it did mark the beginning of the end for commercial supersonic air travel.

Only 20 were built: two prototypes (001 & 002) two pre-production prototypes (01 & 02) and sixteen production aircraft. The first 2 aircraft were used for development work and did not see commercial service,5 went to British Airways and 4 to Air France. later the remaing 5 also went to the two airlines, 2 to BA and 3 to Air France. After the Paris crash in July 2000 the aircraft were withdrawn from service for modifications but Air France put 4 back into service and BA flew 5.

Ulitmately, both airlines retired their Concorde fleets because (the airlines said) they were not economic. Many disputed this 'economic' argument and it remains a matter of some despute even today - and I'm no accountant so I can't say either way. However, the aeroplanes were very old by the time they went out of service (although they had lots of flying time left in them it was cash not fatigue that was the problem).

At first glance the TU144 sometimes called the "Concordski" looked similar to Concorde, but it was designed to do a similar job so that is not too surprising, but it was, in fact, very different.

When delta wing aeroplanes fly at low speed (when they are landing) they suffer from an aerodynamic effect called Dutch Roll. Basically this causes the plane to rock from side to side until it literally falls out of the air. Concorde avoided this problem by using a special sort of wing shape called an 'ogive'. The TU144 had a simple double delta wing which didn't work nearly as well and later versions of the aircraft had a pair of winglets behind the cockpit which were deployed at low speed. The other problem with the TU144 was the engines.

If an engine fails at supersonic speed (or above) the thrust of the remaining engines works to throw the aircraft off straightline course and puts the aircraft under huge stress and will cause it to break-up in mid-air (the USAF Convair B-58 Hustler was notorious for this very reason). The design and engineering on Concorde could cope with the loss of and engine or even two - all that would happen is that it would slow down. On the TU 144 the engines were positioned in a block of 4 on the centre-line of the aircraft which suggests the Soviets never really solved the problem of losing an engine inflight. A TU 144 crashed at the Paris Airshow in 1973 and another crashed in May 1978. THe plane was used to fly cargo within the USSR but the only passenger service from Moscow to Alma Ata lasted a mere 50-odd flights.

Ultimately both aircraft were the products of government attempts to meddle in 'planning' in the avaiation industry. the Anglo French Concorde was undoubtedly an engineering tour de force that died of old age and (probably) bad economics. Whereas "Concordski" was a Soviet attempt to demonstrate its technical superiority that failed, and in my humble opinion, a very dangerous aeroplane.

roary69 has it right but just to add

airbus shut it workshop where Concorde parts were made and refused to supply parts so removing the airworthy certificate.

BA could not stop Richard branson buying the plane if he could fly it but as airbus would not let him use an other source for parts he could not

Not all the fleet had the mod done so the coverage to the states was reduces

as for the planes that didn't have the mod and i include Delta Golf BA had the wings cut of them making them unserviceable ever again

The Paris crash

it all started to go wrong when a part was left out of the undercarriage causing the wheels on the one side of the plane to close up causing the plane to crab off the runway where a 747 was parked watching the take off.

as for the tupolev it was built from ripped off blue prints and had to have at least one after burner going to maintain speed

Concorde doesnt fly now for a few reasons mainly that airbus (who supplied the spares) withdrew that facility, the TU-144 is flying its been used by Nasa in conjunction with TU to test engines and other new technologies.

Sorry most of the answers are incorrect, after the paris air crash all concordes where withdrawn from service and extensivley and expensivley modified, the main and only reason that concorde was withdrawn from service was that airbus industries withdrew the facility to BA and Air france could not purchase spares for the plane, without that the airworthiness certificate was withdrawn so the plane had to be retired, there where No microcracks in the airframe ( i read the report) and the measures reccomended to keep it flying where implicated, the airframe was certified for another 20,000 hrs and would have done, Sir Richard Branson offered to keep the british versions in flight but BA refused as concorde was the jewel in the crown of their fleet, and was making money

You got a lot of wrong answers K, excluding Roary 69 and Paul H.

The Concorde was in active service AFTER the Paris crash. British Airways retired its Concordes on October 2003, three years after the Paris crash. It was only the Airbus' withdrawal of support that finally rested the beauty.

To those who claim that it was environmental hazard, a fleet of 20 airplanes effect on this whole wide world is practically nil. Your SUV's does more damage. And neither was it "too expensive". Its per passenger mileage is comparable to a modern business jet and it is still more than worth for those who value TIME.

The Tu-144 was a different story. (16 of them were made, not two) It did not have the efficiency or the comforts of the Concorde.

To add to Roary 69's correct answer, another reason for Concorde (I hate putting the e on the end, we lost that one to the French) being withdrawn was that a staggering 40 or 50% of Concorde's REGULAR weekly customers were murdered in the WTC on 9/11.

And Branson could have done it, but the "Establishment" wouldn't let what they feel is a cheeky little upstart owning and running the most beautiful machine ever built.

Is this our weekly "why are the Concorde not flying anymore" question...? We had it twice last week - I bet it was because of the holidays - Now, do not forget to ask the other favorite questions too - Why don't airlines give parachutes to passengers...? Why did kamikase wear helmets...? What do I do during a ("X") hours flight...? Can I visit the cockpit because I am only 13 years old...? Can I learn to be a Delta A380 captain with a FSX simulator...? And... my VW gearbox 3rd gear does not work (thinking pilots know the answer) - .

To add to Roary 69's answer - Richard Beranson tried to lease/buy a Concorde from BA 10 years ago..........and BA agreed.

However, BA own the patent for the airframe paint which is elasticated to grow the 2 inches in supersonic flight with the airframe, and would not let Branson have use of it.

It proved too costly to re-invent the wheel (BA made sure of that), so bang went that idea.

In the event that you wish to visit places like Kremlin, Red Square and St Basil's Cathedral than you will need to head to Moscow, the capital of the Russian Federation and one of many country's hottest destinations for foreign guests and you may be one if you appear with hotelbye . In Moscow you will even see the planet famous cinema, the Bolshoi Theatre, the gem in the top of Moscow's wealthy cultural life. Moscow has ton to supply and without a doubt you will relish a holyday here.

The TU-144 had a few crashes, the most spectacular being the one at the Paris Air Show in 1973.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R5I5LwxHUJk

One was used by NASA for research in the 90s, but it hasn't been used commercially for over 20 years. Its passenger carrying career was very brief.

They only built two Tu-144's: One became a lawn dart in France, and the other is now in a museum. It was only built as a "Keeping up with the Jones's" thing by the Soviets.

The Concord stopped flying from multiple causes: mainly economics, and they were just worn out.