This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I don't think this article is written with a very neutral point of view. It seems to slant heavily in favor of the anti-Concorde crowd. - Thaabomb (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this article meets WP:N let alone WP:NPOV. Whist many of the article's claims are referenced to sources, these are claims about Concorde and super-sonic air transport generally. The only references to Wiggs and his activism in the cited literature appear to be in his own book, thus I cannot see how the putative subject of the article has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as mandated by WP:N. Rather than a piece about Wiggs, the article appears as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang anti-supersonic arguments.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments preceded the renaming of the article and the removal of the bio. of Wiggs.
I'd say it meets WP:N but needs quite a bit of work to meet WP:NPOV: it comes across as strongly opinionated, with assertions about "facts" and indeed "all" counts/criteria. However, there is no doubt that a "project" or campaign did exist. If anyone would like to help in the cleanup operation, that would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason Concorde generated an emotional response (both pro, and anti) in some people, the anti's were usually the people who flew little, if at all, and so were not going to benefit from any reduction in flight times, and saw no reason why anyone else should either. They thus by their non-inclusion negated any reasoned argument they may have had, as they were 'against' it anyway, no matter what. A noted 'anti' was the economist Mary Goldring. The anti's were also almost without exception noticeably quiet when it came to the corresponding Tu-144 and competing US SST designs, about-which they complained little.
As for noise, Concorde was designed in the late 50's-early 60's when most if not all jet airliners were turbojet-powered, and were in fact noisier than Concorde subsequently was. The advent of high-bypass turbofan engines in the mid-sixties lowered aircraft noise, leaving Concorde and the remaining older turbojet-powered airliners such as the Comet, 707, and DC-8, at the top of the 'noise league' so to speak. BTW, for most of the 1970s there were plenty of USAF KC-135's flying around Britain that were in fact noisier than Concorde, as well as making impressive amounts of black exhaust smoke. Concorde was noticeably noisier than the turbofan-powered wide body airliner of the 70's and later but due to the SST's higher speed it was around to cause the noise for a much shorter time. I write this speaking as someone who used to live under the flightpath into and out-of Heathrow when Concorde was flying regularly. Concorde didn't hang around. I didn't mind it at all.
BTW, Concorde was designed as a successor to the de Havilland Comet, which after a false start, had halved flight times over its piston-engined predecessors. Concorde was intended to do the same over the first-generation jet airliners. And it did.
Way too many "sources" are too closely connected to the topic to be credible. Groups such as this make fabricated or exaggerated claims to push their agenda, so their claims as to the noise levels, costs etc are not good sources for these, nor is the quote from a school teacher explaining supersonic flow characteristics trustworthy.
They make fallacious noise comparisons (against later aircraft that were quieter due to design improvements), claims of being uneconomic to operate (it wasn't or it wouldn't have been in service for 27 years - they just charged more for tickets), false comparisons between low altitude sonic booms and supersonic flight at altitude, and making it seem that bricks are being broken 25 miles around the flight path of any aircraft that goes supersonic. Even breaking glass only happens when the aircraft is very close - usually less than a few hundred yards, and neither tiles nor bricks are as likely to sustain damage. Damage claims have to be put in perspective of anything that can conceivably be claimed as being someone else's fault, especially in the US, will be, and so they tend to be very much larger than the damage actually caused (by any cause). If you merely suggest that sonic booms can cause broken bricks, all of a sudden everyone will be making claims for broken brickwork that had nothing whatsoever to do with supersonic flight. Add to all this the ignoring the likely outcome of cancelling the project, which, with the cancellation of three other major projects would have put most of the British aviation industry out of work - something it is unlikely to have recovered from readily, indeed, it could have destroyed the British aviation industry much as the Arrow's cancellation did destroy much of Canada's aviation expertise. What is needed is sources as to the actual effects, not from an interested party.
Interesting that you should mention about them ignoring the US and Soviet SST programs - I wonder if this group (and its allied groups) received any significant funding from "interested" sources that would have benefited from the cancellation - and if there are any sources for the same - I am sure they didn't get all the money from private donations, especially to pay for the first ads (a full page ad in a major publication is not cheap).NiD.29 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the 'anti-' lobby only received substantial recognition and publicity once the US SST's had been cancelled, and one suspects that if the US had managed to get a Mach 3 SST into service the furore would have been non-existent.
Perhaps what annoys the 'anti-'s was that Concorde did an extremely technically-difficult thing, and that it did it so well and with almost effortless grace as a real thing of beauty.
Anyway, Concorde no longer flies today, but one does at least have the satisfaction of knowing that for nearly thirty years it thoroughly p****d-off the luddites every time they saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and in-depth interview with BA Concorde pilot John Hutchinson here: [1] in which he states that many of the most vociferous of the anti-Concorde brigade were actually British. Many Americans were in fact pro-Concorde, especially the ATC controllers at JFK International Airport who, he states, were wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.131 (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
