Concorde Flight BA 0002 1998
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2009
- British Airways Flight 0002 from New York JFK to London LHR. Flight was taken at 0845 in the morning to arrive 3 1/2 hours later in London. Approximately 80 of the 100 seats were taken. Hayley Mills was on this flight and is in the video. Taken from seat 5A.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Concorde was arguably the most specialised airliner in history for the following reasons:
1 It looked a hybrid between a passenger plane and fighter jet
2 It flew at twice the speed of sound which is is around 1500 miles an hour
3 It flew exclusively at 60,000 feet on the edge of space
4 It mostly flew the rich and famous like Paul McCartney, Phil Collins, David Frost etc
5 It took less than 3 and a half hours to commute between London/Paris to New York
6 Concorde had afterburners.
Came here to enjoy a marvel of engineering, simbol of science's and human triumph.
Ended up getting disappointed by people that take a huge dump of the very concept of "intelligence".
The speed of this beast is really impressive in terms of feet/second. We're talking about 2,000 feet per second here, folks. That's faster than quite a few bullets!
feet...per second....
Concorde: the flying rocket, a true time machine.
It is a literal time machine, it caught up with the time when it lands
I had that we went on it in 1989 we left London 10am arrived at Kennedy at 8 am and we’re at our friends house by 930 am having breakfast. We didn’t eat on plane as we were eating there.
People actually dressed up for this flight like the old days.
effy zay i mean tickets for a Concorde flight were 5-10k each. Each passenger was most likely a very wealthy businuess man/woman.
Yeah, that's important.
I don't see it in the vid, what clothes they wear.
it was quite common to dress up even for flights to certain capitals all the way up through early 2000s, then dressing up was still almost mandatory for international upper cabins through mid ~07
Wish the Concorde was flying today.
Everyone does.
1:58 sounds just like a fighter jet taking off!
On another level I use to love the sound it made as it flew acress se london when I was a child. Head turner sonic boom! We come running out looking for it :0)
When I think of Concorde' the movie Bonfire of Vanities comes to mind.
They should have followed the brief of the Barbazon Commission and made a private jet for military and commercial application. We would be on Concorde 3 by now.
Thank you so much for those nice images ! I Just to think you were traveling at 700 m per second and nearly 17 km altitude !
I used to fly a lot (never with Concorde) but never got tired of watching through the window like a curious child !
9:45 bruh we in Space I'm done looking out the window too high for me
The most amazing machine ever made!!!!
In the 22nd century when my son born in 2018 is an old man he will see planes flying at twice the Concorde speed.
Wow the speed it was impressive!! 😱
The Concorde nowadays is possible, two engines of today are as powerful as all four of the Concorde with full afterburner.
I doubt that. Their thrust output might be similar. But this larrge turbofan engines are not suitable forhigh speed flights as their front area is too large.
@@matthiaslipinsky501 the large jetliner engines are optimal for subsonic speeds and these on the 747-400 and the GenX can go almost transonic but I didn't mention anything about them, I just said "an engine of today", you just place an F22 Raptor analogue engine and it's enough to make an Overture go supercruise without afterburner
At 1:45, given that they’re 50K+ feet up, those clouds are really moving!
wow 17.000 meters high... and horizon is flat despite window inherent curvature. we truly live on a "spher-OID" as they say officially...
Waiting behind another Concorde on approach 1:00 - 1:08 ! Cool!
The video description says the flight left New York at 8.45am and landed in London three and a half hours later - so why is it dark?
Time difference. London time is usually 5 hours ahead of NYC. Plus 3 hours on flight. So it can be 16:45. Must be winter for less sunlight
@@Raw_Hitz A quick google search shows the sun setting by 4PM in London during some times in the winter indeed.
@@Raw_Hitz no it went at Mach 2.04 that’s the average speed of the Concorde so that’s 1565 miles per hour so that took them 2 hours and 13 mins
@focustc2000 Yes, You can see the Curvature, She flew between 57,000-60,000 feet.
The sky was a Deep indigo, and you could see the Dark of outer spqce, by looking up..Amazing flight...
At what minute mark do you see the curvature?
What if the ceiling being above the clouds looks deep indigo? Idk how you measured its depth exactly.
Mach 1 happened about 20 min after take off or 29,000 feet
Clear the coast be letting out the double sonic bang
So it kept climbing , prob 35mins into the flight
What a shame the concord went out of service.
Phil Smith it’s because it proved so much
@@goldenratio1921 Planes seem to fly lower in general than they used to.
A U.S. company is bringing back a mach 2+ passenger plane soon. I think they said it should be in service by 2025
Emirates plans to bring it back,lol
@@hongry-life I wouldn't care as long as it was faster 😂😂
Wow!!!
Mach 2.. That's way too fast, but appears as if nothing is going on..
I was 8 days old when this flight was took to the sky LOL
McIntyre’s Makings What? Really
DGJ P yes I’m serious LOL I was born on 29th of that year
And you're still just as interesting to listen to as you were back then.
Me as well 2pb,Why didnt I have the foresight to document 1 of my journeys on Concorde, The closest I came. Was a Camera and some Photos while sitting in Jump seat bedhind the Capain! Looking Back wish I would Had ! But I always thought there would Naturally be Another Flight on Concorde. Her Reign ended to prematurely for certain
Who was the celeb at the beginning of the video? The lady with the long blonde tresses?
___________o quão extraordinário era____________
The Canarsie departure, I suppose?
who is hayley mills?
Lindo
Bring the CONCORDE back please, anybody?
Well The Design And Technology IS Very Old But They Should Made A New Series OF Concorde With Higher Capacity, Higher Speed And Today'S Technology And Design.
Your youtube comment is the first step to a better world. Thank you for your bravery and devotion to youtube commenting.
exelent, the concorde are the best aeroplane of the world.
I watch the concorde in 1999 wen the concorde of Air France come in Argentina
you see the curvature of the earth??
we have to bring back concorde or made another one with the actuel technology advances
1:55 3, 2, 1, now!
The are family stories of my uncle Esmond who was an airforce pilot then a commercial pilot , at times with British airways , flying the concord….wish I could find out if it was true 🙂 might have to catch up with the rellies I never see lol.
damn!!! this was after my bday!! actually i was bornt on november / 6 /98!!!
aaaaaaaa , but are a fntastic travel
i dont travel in the concorde because the passage are very expencive.
I could never trvel in the concorde ,is my favourite aeroplane.
i reember when BA retired the concorde I cry haha
Horizontal horizon.
walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth
The human eye and human are so tiny compared to the gigantic sized planet we are on. 40,000 meters up would represent better.
I start to notice some curvature at 15,000 - 20,000 meters. But you need a much wider view than the plane window.
The model I linked, move the height slider to about 40,000 meters. you can see compared to eye level.
@@AlexZander688 Scientists say that we cannot see curvature from a plane. What people notice is their circle of sight around them, it's a personal limit of view that makes the horizon seem curved, staying horizontal though, but curved as in visible circle. Horizon means limit/border/ edge of sight. Level would be a better word maybe to indicate something being horizontal.
@@AlexZander688 If the blue line bends down left and right that is of course because of the personal circle of sight, forming our perspective.
@@hongry-life ok if so then there is no proof on flat earth based on what they say "sight is proof"
@@hongry-life yeah, none of that is true. Where did you hear that?
Zero curve.
It's hard to see the curve when the field of view is quite narrow due to the small windows.
The curve is clearly visible from the cockpit of this Global Express with much larger windows:
czcams.com/video/ZOsxgGeABGM/video.html
Wheres the curvature?
Concorde flattened the curve.
walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat%2DEarth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth
The human eye and human are so tiny compared to the gigantic sized planet we are on. 40,000 meters up would represent better.
I start to notice some curvature at 15,000 - 20,000 meters. But you need a much wider view than the plane window.
The model I linked, move the height slider to about 40,000 meters. you can see compared to eye level.
Why is this plane only for the rich people?
Good food.
I find it quite surprising that you can perceive curvature at 65,000. Could you see and perceive the curvature?
The horizon looks like a continuous line of a disc until you reach a critical height where you can perceive the curve, then suddenly, it becomes impossible to perceive the horizon as a flat disc anymore. Once your mind has adjusted, there is no turning back.
This is why people, so fervently, believe that the Earth is flat.
Harry Growler
the physical sense that one cannot see a curve on the horizon is the biggest detractor. My point here, is that, mathematically it should be impossible to perceive a curve below about 65,000ft - although a friend I know who flew on the Concorde said he could see it.
There are many phenomena that I witness daily which clearly defy the conditions required for the earth to be flat; and concepts of flat earth, therefore, are demonstrably incorrect based on these daily observations.
Further, I have seen specific phenomena which demonstrates a far off and distant sun, such as convergent (anti-crepuscular) sun rays, and the shadow of my airplane appearing in the centre of the sun halo projected onto the clouds.
I have also observed the curved shadow of the Earth across the moon, cast during a lunar eclipse on many occasions.
I could go on with examples, but I wont... But, tell me: what particularly makes you think that it is flat?
Harry Growler
when you look at the stars, sun, moon... you agree something is moving, right? So, what is moving and how fast?
HI Harry Growler I am not sure how you did your calculation. I would be interested to see that. But let's turn the conversation to gravity; a downward force which causes objects to move towards the surface at a speed which increases by 9.8xx metres per second, per second.
For that force to not be incurred by the mass of the Earth (globe) drawing objects towards it's centre, then the only other way that it could be caused so evenly across the surface, is for the surface to be moving upwards - correct?
How fast would the flat Earth be moving, in an upward direction, after 6 months? (given that the acceleration rate to create the effect is 9.8m/s/s)
What about after 100 years? how fast is it going now? Moon, Sun, Stars, Dome and all, hurtling upwards at multiple light speed, in order to create the force which appears to make objects drop to the ground and prevents water from flying off the surface.
You must begin to see how ludicrous this idea is?
That is speed (and acceleration to make gravity, now what about the speed that the dome spins at to make the stars move across the slky so quickly? Thos stars are 3200 miles away - how fast do you calculate they are moving?
My point is that you will get no relief from astronomical speeds (some even more unbelievable than the ones you have already calculated) by accepting a flat earth model.
No matter which way you turn, you will have to get your head around unimaginable speeds, so I encourage you to dismiss this objection and move past it.
What next? cheers, Craig :)
Harry Growler
Make sure you don't get lost in unresolvable detail. For example; seeing the curvature of the earth with your eyes.
The curvature would only become apparent if our minds when we see something that we were not accustomed to.
Like, when you see a really good optical illusion, it takes a while to work it out because your mind struggles with it.
I walked on a glacier once in New Zealand and as we looked up the glacier, there was a rise and a ridge which appeared to be a few hundred meters away. Our guide informed us that that ridge was 1.5km away - and I was completely gob-smacked. I stood their looking at it, trying to work out what I was seeing.
The scale of the tortured ice formations, the size of the mountains either side, etc.
I realized that because I had no reference point to anything familiar to my eyes, I could not, easily conceive the facts that lay before me.
Similarly, I visited Nepal a few years ago and went trekking in Lang Tang National Park. At one point we were camped at about 3000m and we had a clear view across the expanse to a set of mountains which ranged from 6000-7200m in elevation, from only a few KM away. I kid you not, my perception could not define relative distance to respective peaks, and could not perceive that they were much higher than where we were standing, even though I knew that I was looking up at mountains 3-4km higher than where I was standing.
The question is, how would we know what a curve looked like, unless we saw it, side by side against a landscape that we knew to be otherwise? you CANT!
My point is, what makes us think we should ever see a curve when we don't even know what flat looks like on this scale?
This may sound like semantics, but it's true. You have no alternative reference point. When you see photos from the moon the landscape looks very very weird, for this very reason - the horizon does not stretch off into the distance, but appear to stop just over the next hill. Wee, frankly, that's just what a horizon looks like when the ball is only a quarter of the size of what you're used to! :)
Visually, this stuff confuses the hell out of our brains, but if you think about it, you know that what I am saying is true.
Let's talk about Polaris. Where is it, relative to our solar system? Well, it's above our planet, due north, or on the axis of rotation and at a great distance. Now, the orbit of our Earth around the sun, is such that Polaris is a very great distance 'above' the motion, so the sun never crosses the path of Polaris. Is you can picture this, you can begin to understand why we can orbit the sun and Polaris' position doesn't change.
I wasn't being silly when I was talking about gravity and acceleration before, either. If you are not going to accept gravity, you need to find an alternative mechanism which causes objects to fall to the ground at the same rate, and also causes the water to sit in the oceans. The concepts of how this might happen on a flat earth without gravity are completely ridiculous. If you are unhappy about the explanation of how the globe earth orbits the sun, you're going to be even more flabbergasted by the alternative explanation for things like gravity.
If we believe that someone is lying to us because you cant comprehend the explanation, we really need an alternative that CAN be understood to replace it. This is where you soon realize that the Flat earth makes even less sense, and the speeds required, just to make gravity work, for instance, are even more ridiculous and unpalatable.
Harry Growler
your sons helium balloon wont leave the atmosphere. I guarantee it. :)
Designed by Britain
and France
Mauritanian KID But it originally a British idea.
So? An idea is just an idea until someone makes it happen. For example If someone had an idea for a magic car ,it doesn't mean they invented it. Look, I'm British but the French still deserve recognition too because it was a joint project
Actually British Aircraft Company designed her before they joined the French. Her delta wing layout and basic fuselage design was all BAC. They joined with the French mainly because it was an expensive project and the UK Gov didn't want to foot the bill alone. The biggest French input was the powerplants, or engines and they were designed by Rolls Royce and SNECMA. The French built and flew 001 which was the first prototype at Toulouse. They also wanted the 'e' on the end of the name...which they got. And for some reason they wanted a bell on the pitch wheel in the flight deck....which they also got. No joke...Look it up. Without input from both the French and British, it would never have happened.
joe smith It’s kinda hard to believe that France and Britain partnered together to make this sexy bitch of a swan
concorde have to come back
Avec une corde = con corde.
From Middle French corde, from Old French corde, borrowed from Latin chorda (“gut”), from Ancient Greek χορδή (khordḗ, “string of gut, cord”).
corde f (plural cordes)
rope (general)
(geometry) chord
(music) chord (of a string instrument)
chord (vocal chord)
line (washing line, for hanging clothes to dry)
Is this like an emperors new clothes thing?
How?
Nope Brendon took back the crown
60.000 feet and still NO Curvature :O QC
It looks flat to me. I see no curve. I'm still in the fence though. Its probably yet another way to keep us all pitted against each other.. Divide and conquer
Science say, abover 45.000 ft, you see curvature.
Yeah an amazing plane made by french
That's one of lots of things what i'm proud to be french !
Sorry for my my bad english ;)
The french didn't make it on their own, and without the engines that were developed by bristol siddley 10 years before concorde rolled out, it would have been a giant glider.
No curvature at 59.000 feet
and british
Looks flat from 10 miles up.
Mike Scott It’s not. It’s been confirmed that you can see you curvature of the earth from the Concorde.
@@-star_27-20 Please minute mark of seeing curvature.
hongry life I never said it could be seen from this video. Here is a link to an image of it from the Concorde www.quora.com/Can-you-see-the-Earth-curvature-from-the-Concorde
Yakutsk
Horizon still at eye level
TropicaOptica you have to go higher than that to get it off eye level
The Earth is flat
Earth is definitely flat .
José Maurício Gonzales Praxedes No. I know people who have gone on the Concorde and they saw the curvature.
@@-star_27-20 okay i know people and they saw not a curvature.
Peter Hoebarth well this is what they should see www.quora.com/Can-you-see-the-Earth-curvature-from-the-Concorde
@@-star_27-20 Lol, no details of camera used + the windows can have a curve at the edges. You are easy to trick: no research whatsoever being displayed, just believing at first sight.
@@hongry-life You mean like you believing flat earth at first sight of the ridiculous CZcams videos you watched? It's frightfully easy to disregard knowledge the Greeks knew before the birth of Christ. You Sir, are impressive AF.
Flat earth is in plane view even more so from 60,000ft another reason why concord was scrapped! & the sun is local on our stationary planet
Horizont are flat . not curvature. earth is flat.
www.dropbox.com/s/2x9xhiagd69dozr/Prada%20S.P.A%20volo%20concorde%20aprile%202000%20new%20york.jpg?dl=0
You are smart scientists is dumb. earth is good. fire hot.
Wow look at that the earth is actually flat.
czcams.com/video/SPMFhcC4SvQ/video.html the state of cgi when the blue marble image came out. fucking idiots.
czcams.com/video/FHtvDA0W34I/video.html
stupidconspiracies.org/misc/Toronto_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.gif
You can see the curve retars
@@user-ng4tf2oq7s What minute mark?
You can't see any curvature at all!
And if, it most properly is the window which generates a fish eye optic.
+m3Zz2012 The Concorde fly's at less than 1% of the radius of the earth, you won't see anything from there
What are you fucking blind?
Donald 'The Duck' Trump that's rubbish! If the earth was round you would see that shit from 60 000. The horizon would be below the plane window. Earth is flat and stationary just like you experience.
Its more of a deep purple you see.
flat horizon
Arthur Scott or because the surfice is actually flat, which makes more sense.
Arthur Scott It all works out. Gleasons new standard map of the world is correct, sun circles above the Earth and goes from tropic to tropic creating the seasons. Sun and moon are very close. The masonic heliocentric lie is coming to an end. My ebook is coming out soon and more thousands of people will be awaken to this lie. God exists!
Arthur Scott Where did you get 12.000 miles? I have never afirmed such thing, nor anybody who I've talked with or seen on youtube. How are the sunrays coming in divergin angles forming a piramid through the clouds? If the sun is 93m miles away they should come in pararel. How can you see a hotspot under the sun in ballon footages? Clouds behind the moon? How can you see Chicago from 60 miles distance at 6 feet above sea level during 15 hours straight (as shown by Joshua Nowicki in several time-lapses)? How come railways and canals are constructed with no allowence for curvature whatsoever? Michelson-morley experiment, Airy's failure? Why dont planes constantly adjust downwards once they are flying level? Horizon always at eye level? Horizon flat over 33.000 meters high? Why doesnt the Earth fly off into space when its in the furthest point in its elipse around the Sun and why doesnt it crash into the Sun when its nearest to it? How come the only photos we have of a globe Earth are the ones shown by NASA(a government agency)? How come there was the word SEX in the clouds in the Blue Marble photo of 2015 shown by NASA? Why are the clouds cloned in photoshop in the Blue Marble photo of 2001 shown by NASA? Why did they fake the Moon Landing as shown by several undisputable facts? How come we have never seen water curve? Believing in the globe requires lots of faith (and government indoctrination).
Arthur Scott the flat earth society is a joke, if you knew anything about flat earth you would know it. I have read 6 flat earth books, from Rowbotham, Carpenter, Gabrielle Henriet, David Wardlaw...your assumption that I only see youtube videos is wishful thinking at best. You have some argumentos to refute up there, instead of throwing childish ad hominem attacks like "stupid" (which accomplishes nothing).
Arthur Scott Your statement is laking any kind of proof. Show me footage that can prove the Sun was doing such things in the places you say (if that can even be possible to prove with a video). If that assumption (not fact) is the only thing you have, I would say 50 arguments win against an alleged Sun phenomenon for which you provide no proof of happening whatsoever. Globe is in serious danger these days, only corn syrup aspartame eaters, fluoride drinkers and chemtrail sprayed zombies hold onto the NASA lies now, its time to cut the programming and start doing some serious investigation Arthur, you've lived a lie all these years since kindergarden, globe aint real, its all NASA photoshoped pictures, no real footage of outter space Arthur. Aint no satellites up there or ISS, they've been caught faking space walks and ISS footage hundreds of times now...check out the 200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball from Eric Dubay for a start, then keep going from there..plenty of good info and books like the ones I mentioned.