Walt Disney\\’S Rude Secrets Exposed

By | July 12, 2014

Walt Disney\\’s Rude Secrets Exposed



Walt disney has consistently been a household name for decades. Walt disney remain a stable and also a dependable starting place for children\\’s movies and entertainment of all kind. As a result of the marvelous and secure amusement which is supplied by means of Disney, families have come to have confidence in them. The majority of parents would joyfully plonk their toddler down to view Alice in Wonderland\\’ or Robin hood\\’ and not think greatly regarding it. These videos are considered family movies and safe and sound for children. A lot of parents are however uninformed of the subliminal messages which are hidden in Disney videos. If their dad and mom were informed of these hidden messages would they still allow their kids to watch these cartoons?

One of the subliminal messages was on the front of the videotape case of \\’The Little Mermaid\\’. The box at a first look seems to be inoffensive with a good-looking golden tower like construction at the back of the key characters. Upon looking closer it will become clear that one of the gold structures has the appearance of a gentleman\\’s genitalia. The similarity of this structure is not just a mild similarity but it is so alike that a individual may well come to the assumption that it was premeditated. There does exist a rumour regarding The Little Mermaid\\’. It is that one of the employees had become angry at Disney and was soon to be quitting his post. To voice his anger he had thought it was a good idea to pencil in this rude structure in the backdrop of the image on the videocassette box. Regrettably there has never been any evidence to propose the cartoon was intentional. Nonetheless Disney made a different video cover soon after the dispute about the picture. This suggested they acknowledged that the picture was indeed perverted.

YouTube Preview Image

An additional one of Disney\\’s secret messages was from their movie The Rescuers\\’ though this time the picture seems to be much more intentional. As the two little mice zoom along inside a tin of sardines a point in the background of the cartoon might catch your gaze. If you slow it down and look closely into one of the windows of a apartment in the background you may observe a female who is entirely naked. The woman is leaning outwards and closing her drapes exposing her exposed breasts in open view. Undoubtedly this is noticeably relatively a shocking figure for any parent to catch a glimpse of. No parent wants their kid to be subjected to adult things such as nakedness whilst enjoying a movie that is produced for children. The most shocking part about this image is that the cartoonist who added it inside the film must have produced it on purpose, since there is no means to accidently add such a image into the cartoon.

The ending hidden message I know of is from the notorious movie The Lion King\\’. The subliminal message inside this movie is very debated as to if it was planned. After the lion Simba falls downward wearily on a rock next to the edge of a cliff, a quantity of dirt flies up into the air. If you pause the movie as the dust flies up, people may well spot that the dust spells the word \\”sex\\”. The claim of this spelling such type of a word within a children\\’s cartoon is relatively a big one in spite of this in view of Disney\\’s track record with such subliminal messages, like the one in The Rescuers\\’, would you be shocked? I think people ought to be very undecided as to if the dirt was in fact a mistake.

At the moment we have learned about three of the various concealed messages in Disney videos but there is something we can all reach agreement on. No matter if you think they are just a coincidence or whether or not you believe they are planted there on purpose. The truth is that they are still in the movie, in spite of of their causes for being there. Considering these reasons would you be ok with your kids viewing these motion pictures? Do you think that these concealed messages are filtered and ignored by the innocence of kid\\’s brains? Or do you think they could be able to disturb the youngster later on during life? These are questions that most people with kids may possibly ask themselves prior to watching a Disney cartoon with their young children. Maybe there are additional hidden messages which perhaps no one has even noticed yet? Time may reveal itself. However for several troubled parents, this will not put their uneasy minds at ease.

Find out extra info and see some of the photos from

Walt Disney secret messages

. There are a lot of secrets in Disney similar to

Tangled secret messages

. You will be even more surprised when you witness the picture evidence yourself!

Article Source:


The Best Way To Repair Sinkholes Near Your Residence:

By | July 7, 2014

Submitted by: Carlos Spinks

What Exactly Is a Sinkhole?

A sinkhole is a consequence of a physical or chemical disturbance beneath the earth or soil. It is usually brought on when the bedrock is weathered by the erosion or the lack and loss of land surface help, beneath the earth. This may well occur because of flooding or lack of water to support the sub-surface structures correctly.

In case you uncover a sinkhole close to your house, say for example, your backyard, you need to act appropriately and speedily to avoid any additional damage. This is mainly because, these sinkholes are an indication that some complications are occurring beneath your grounds, and it should be treated accordingly to mitigate any possible destruction.

Repair of Sinkholes:

YouTube Preview Image

You can’t repair massive sinkholes, and you should definitely seek skilled aid in that scenario, but you are able to surely repair the smaller ones – a minimum of you may do a thing with them, until the pros come to assist, and be temporary filled till then.

1. First of all, you need to get in touch with the authorities that take care of the utility infrastructure and services within your location. You need to determine and be sure that no utility cables i.e. gas lines, phone cables, or electricity cables, are not buried under or anywhere near the sinkhole. You should by no means start digging or tweaking with all the sinkholes, for anyone who is in any doubt that you may well encounter any of such utility cables inside there.

2. Immediately after your confirmation and precautions, you need to dig at the outer sides of the sink holes. You will be supposed to dig the edges for at least 1 to 2 feet in width. For the depth, you will need to dig as much as you may, just before touching the bedrock inside the earth. The bedrock is usually a solid, concrete kind surface, which will not be penetrated by the shovel in any way possible.

3. When you discover the bedrock, you will must fill significant rocks into that location. Rocks should be as significant as an typical cabbage. Make certain that you fill those rocks as dense and congested as possible for greater results. Fill the whole bottom in the similar manner.

4. Then you should create another layer of rocks, to be placed above the first layer. The second layer should consist of rocks as large because the size of oranges. Fill the rocks in the same manner as above – as dense as possible.

5. Spread at the least a 4 inch layer of gravel above these layers.

6. Make a layer of landscape fabric at the top of all these layers.

7. After the layers consisting of rock, gravel and landscape fabric, you will need to make 5 inch layer of sand, which will cover the complete arrangement of landscape fabric. The rest of the sinkhole should be filled with sand, and it needs to be tamped periodically to pack and fix it as much as possible, leaving no area for disturbance.

8. Soon after the whole procedure that is definitely mentioned above, lay sod more than the sinkhole and water it for 15 minutes, twice each day, for the first 2 weeks. You may start watering it later as per your normal watering schedule.

About the Author: I specialize in helping move in the state of Alabama and I love to help them pack and move.URETEK focuses on preventive upkeep and post-damage







Permanent Link:



By |

Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde /?k??k?rd/ is a retired turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner or supersonic transport (SST). It is one of only two SSTs to have entered commercial service; the other was the Tupolev Tu-144. Concorde was jointly developed and produced by Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.

Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport to New York JFK, Washington Dulles and Barbados; it flew these routes in less than half the time of other airliners. With only 20 aircraft built, the development of Concorde was a substantial economic loss; Air France and British Airways also received considerable government subsidies to purchase them. Concorde was retired in 2003 due to a general downturn in the aviation industry after the type’s only crash in 2000, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and a decision by Airbus, the successor firm of Aérospatiale and BAC, to discontinue maintenance support.[5]

A total of 20 aircraft were built in France and the United Kingdom; six of these were prototypes and development aircraft. Seven each were delivered to Air France and British Airways. Concorde’s name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusually for an aircraft—are known simply as “Concorde”, without an article. The aircraft is regarded by many people as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel.[6]

The origins of the Concorde project date to the early 1950s, when Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) asked Morien Morgan to form a committee to study the SST concept. The group met for the first time in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.[7]

At the time it was known that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing.[N 1] This led to the use of very short-span, very thin rectangular wings like those seen on the control surfaces of many missiles, or in aircraft like the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter or the Avro 730 that the team studied. The team outlined a baseline configuration that looked like an enlarged Avro 730, or more interestingly, almost exactly like the Lockheed CL-400 “Suntan” proposal.

This same short span produced very little lift at low speed, which resulted in extremely long takeoff runs and frighteningly high landing speeds.[8] In an SST design, this would have required enormous engine power to lift off from existing runways, and to provide the fuel needed, “some horribly large aeroplanes” resulted.[9] Based on this, the group considered the concept of an SST unfeasible, and instead suggested continued low-level studies into supersonic aerodynamics.[9]

Soon after, Dietrich Küchemann at the RAE published a series of reports on a new wing planform, known in the UK as the “slender delta” concept.[10] Küchemann’s team, including Eric Maskell and Johanna Weber, worked with the fact that delta wings can produce strong vortexes on their upper surfaces at high angles of attack.[9] The vortex will lower the air pressure and cause lift to be greatly increased. This effect had been noticed earlier, notably by Chuck Yeager in the Convair XF-92, but its qualities had not been fully appreciated. Küchemann suggested that this was no mere curiosity, and the effect could be deliberately used to improve low speed performance.[9]

Küchemann’s papers changed the entire nature of supersonic design almost overnight. Although the delta had already been used on aircraft prior to this point, these designs used planforms that were not much different from a swept wing of the same span.[N 2] Küchemann noted that the lift from the vortex was increased by the length of the wing it had to operate over, which suggested that the effect would be maximized by extending the wing along the fuselage as far as possible. Such a layout would still have good supersonic performance inherent to the short span, while also offering reasonable takeoff and landing speeds using vortex generation. The only downside to such a design is that the aircraft would have to take off and land very “nose high” in order to generate the required vortex lift, which led to questions about the low speed handling qualities of such a design.[11] It would also need to have long landing gear to produce the required angles while still on the runway.

Küchemann presented the idea at a meeting where Morgan was also present. Eric Brown recalls Morgan’s reaction to the presentation, saying that he immediately seized on it as the solution to the SST problem. Brown considers this moment as being the true birth of the Concorde project.[11]

On 1 October 1956 the Ministry of Supply asked Morgan to form a new study group, the Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee or STAC,[12] with the explicit goal of developing a practical SST design and finding industry partners to build it. At the very first meeting, on 5 November 1956, the decision was made to fund the development of a testbed aircraft to examine the low speed performance of the slender delta, a contract that eventually produced the Handley Page HP.115.[11] This aircraft would ultimately demonstrate safe control at speeds as low as 69 mph, about ?rd that of the Starfighter.[13]

STAC claimed that an SST would have economic performance similar to existing subsonic types.[9] Although they would burn more fuel in cruise, they would be able to fly more sorties in a given period of time, so fewer aircraft would be needed to service a particular route. This would remain economically advantageous as long as fuel represented a small percentage of operational costs, as it did at the time. STAC suggested that two designs naturally fell out of their work, a transatlantic model flying at about Mach 2, and a shorter-range version flying at perhaps Mach 1.2. Morgan suggested that a 150 passenger transatlantic SST would cost about £75 to £90 million to develop to production, and be in service in 1970. The smaller 100 passenger short-range version would cost perhaps £50 to £80 million, and be ready for service in 1968. To meet this schedule, development would need to begin in 1960, with production contracts let in 1962.[9] Morgan strongly suggested that the US was already involved in a similar project, and that if the UK failed to respond it would be locked out of an airliner market that he believed would be dominated by SST aircraft.[14]

In 1959 a study contract was let to Hawker Siddeley and Bristol for preliminary designs based on the slender delta concept,[15] which developed as the HSA.1000 and Bristol 198. Armstrong Whitworth also responded with an internal design, the “M-Wing”, for the lower-speed shorter-range category. Even at this early time, both the STAC group and the government were looking for partners to develop the designs. In September 1959 Hawker approached Lockheed, and after the creation of British Aircraft Corporation in 1960, the former Bristol team immediately started talks with Boeing, General Dynamics, Douglas Aircraft and Sud Aviation.[15]

Küchemann and others at the RAE continued their work on the slender delta throughout, considering three basic shapes; the classic straight-edge delta, the “gothic delta” that was rounded outwards to appear like a gothic arch, and the “ogival wing” that was compound-rounded into the shape of an ogee. Each of these planforms had their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics. As they worked with these shapes, a practical concern grew to become so important that it forced selection of one of these designs.[16]

Generally one wants to have the wing’s center of pressure (CoP, or “lift point”) close to the aircraft’s center of gravity (CoG, or “balance point”) in order to lower the amount of control force that needs to be applied in order to pitch the aircraft. As the layout changes during the design phase, it is common for the CoG to move fore or aft, and it is normally easy to move the wing slightly fore or aft to account for this.[N 3] With a delta wing running most of the length of the fuselage, this was no longer easy. Studying the various layouts in terms of CoG changes, both during design and changes due to fuel use during flight, the ogee planform immediately came to the fore.[16]

While the wing planform was evolving, so was the basic SST concept. Bristol’s original Model 198 was a small design with an almost pure slender delta wing,[17] but evolved into the larger Model 223 with an ogival wing and canards as well.

By this time similar political and economic concerns in France had led to their own SST plans. In the late 1950s the government requested designs from both the government-owned Sud and Nord, as well as Dassault.[N 4] All three returned designs based on Küchemann’s slender delta; Nord suggested a ramjet powered design flying at Mach 3, the other two were jet powered Mach 2 designs that were similar to each other. Of the three, the Sud Aviation Super Caravelle won the design contest with a medium-range design deliberately sized to avoid competition with transatlantic US designs they assumed were already on the drawing board.[18]

As soon as the design was complete, in April 1960, Pierre Satre, the company’s technical director, was sent to Bristol to discuss a partnership. Bristol was surprised to find that the Sud team had designed a very similar aircraft after considering the SST problem and coming to the very same conclusions as the Bristol and STAC teams in terms of economics. It was later revealed that the original STAC report, marked “For UK Eyes Only”, had secretly been passed to the French in order to win political favour. Sud made minor changes, and presented it as their own work.[19]

The two teams found much to agree on. The French had no modern large jet engines, and had already concluded they would be buying a British design anyway (as they had on the earlier subsonic Caravelle).[20] As neither company had experience in the use of high-heat metals for airframes, a maximum speed of around Mach 2 was selected so aluminium could be used – above this speed the friction with the air warms the metal so much that aluminium begins to soften. This lower speed would also speed development and allow their design to fly before the Americans. Finally, everyone involved agreed that Küchemann’s ogive design (ogee shaped wings) was the right one.[18]

The only disagreements were over the size and range. The UK team was still focussed on a 150 passenger design serving transatlantic routes, while the French were deliberately avoiding these. However, this proved not to be the barrier it might seem; common components could be used in both designs, with the shorter range version using a clipped fuselage and four engines, the longer one with a stretched fuselage and six engines, leaving only the wing to be extensively re-designed.[21] The teams continued to meet through 1961, and by this time it was clear that the two aircraft would be considerably more similar in spite of different range and seating arrangements. A single design emerged that differed primarily in fuel load. More powerful engines, being developed for the TSR-2, allowed either design to be powered by only four engines.[22]

While the development teams met, French Minister of Public Works and Transport Robert Burton was meeting with the UK Minister of Aviation Peter Thorneycroft, and Thorneycroft soon revealed to the cabinet that the French were much more serious about a partnership than any of the US companies.[23] The various US companies had proved uninterested in such a venture, likely due to the belief that the government would be funding development and would frown on any partnership with a European company, and the risk of “giving away” US technological leadership to a European partner.[15]

When the STAC plans were presented to the UK cabinet, a very negative reaction resulted. The economic considerations were considered highly questionable, especially as these were based on development costs, now estimated to be £150 million, which were constantly being overrun in the industry. The Treasury Ministry in particular presented a very negative view, suggesting that there was no way the project would have any positive financial returns for the government, especially in light that “the industry’s past record of over-optimistic estimating (including the recent history of the TSR.2) suggests that it would be prudent to consider the £150 million [cost] to turn out much too low.”[23]

This concern led to an independent review of the project by the Committee on Civil Scientific Research and Development, which met on topic between July and September 1962. The Committee ultimately rejected the economic arguments, including considerations of supporting the industry made by Thorneycroft. Their report in October stated that it was unlikely there would be any direct positive economic outcome, but that the project should still be considered for the simple reason that everyone else was going supersonic, and they were concerned they would be locked out of future markets. Conversely, it appeared the project would not be likely to significantly impact other, more important, research efforts.[23]

After considerable argument, the decision to proceed ultimately fell to an unlikely political expediency. At the time, the UK was pressing for admission to the European Common Market, which was being controlled by Charles de Gaulle who felt the UK’s Special Relationship with the US made them unacceptable in a pan-European group. Cabinet felt that signing a deal with Sud would pave the way for Common Market entry, and this became the main deciding reason for moving ahead with the deal.[24] It was this belief that had led the original STAC documents being leaked to the French. However, De Gaulle spoke of the European origin of the design, and continued to block the UK’s entry into the Common Market.[24]

The development project was negotiated as an international treaty between the two countries rather than a commercial agreement between companies and included a clause, originally asked for by the UK, imposing heavy penalties for cancellation. A draft treaty was signed on 29 November 1962.[25]

Reflecting the treaty between the British and French governments which led to Concorde’s construction, the name Concorde is from the French word concorde (IPA: [k??k??d]), which has an English equivalent, concord. Both words mean agreement, harmony or union. The name was officially changed to Concord by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. In 1967, at the French roll-out in Toulouse the British Government Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to Concorde.[26] This created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed ‘e’ represented “Excellence, England, Europe and Entente (Cordiale).” In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: “[Y]ou talk about ‘E’ for England, but part of it is made in Scotland.” Given Scotland’s contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, “[I]t was also ‘E’ for ‘Écosse’ (the French name for Scotland)  — and I might have added ‘e’ for extravagance and ‘e’ for escalation as well!”[27]

Concorde also acquired an unusual nomenclature for an aircraft. In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as Concorde without an article, rather than the Concorde or a Concorde.[28][29]

At first the new consortium intended to produce one long-range and one short-range version. However, prospective customers showed no interest in the short-range version and it was dropped.[25]

The consortium secured orders (i.e., non-binding options) for over 100 of the long-range version from the major airlines of the day: Pan Am, BOAC, and Air France were the launch customers, with six Concordes each. Other airlines in the order book included Panair do Brasil, Continental Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, American Airlines, United Airlines, Air India, Air Canada, Braniff, Singapore Airlines, Iran Air, Olympic Airways, Qantas, CAAC, Middle East Airlines, and TWA.[25][30][31] At the time of the first flight the options list contained 74 options from 16 airlines:

The design work was supported by a preceding research programme studying the flight characteristics of low ratio delta wings. The supersonic BAC 221 was modified for flight tests of the high speed flight envelope,[33] the Handley Page HP.115 also provided valuable information on low speed performance.[34]

Construction of two prototypes began in February 1965: 001, built by Aerospatiale at Toulouse, and 002, by BAC at Filton, Bristol. Concorde 001 made its first test flight from Toulouse on 2 March 1969, piloted by André Turcat,[35] and first went supersonic on 1 October.[36] The first UK-built Concorde flew from Filton to RAF Fairford on 9 April 1969, piloted by Brian Trubshaw.[37][38] Both prototypes were presented to the public for the first time on 7–8 June 1969 at the Paris Air Show. As the flight programme progressed, 001 embarked on a sales and demonstration tour on 4 September 1971, which was also the first transatlantic crossing of Concorde.[39][40] Concorde 002 followed suit on 2 June 1972 with a tour of the Middle and Far East.[41] Concorde 002 made the first visit to the United States in 1973, landing at the new Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport to mark that airport’s opening.[42]

While Concorde had initially held a great deal of customer interest, the project was hit by a large number of order cancellations. The Paris Le Bourget air show crash of the competing Soviet Tupolev Tu-144 had shocked potential buyers, and public concern over the environmental issues presented by a supersonic aircraft – the sonic boom, takeoff-noise and pollution – had produced a shift in public opinion of SSTs. By 1976 four nations remained as prospective buyers: Britain, France, China, and Iran.[43] Only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders, with the two governments taking a cut of any profits made.[44]

The United States cancelled the Boeing 2707, its rival supersonic transport programme, in 1971. Observers have suggested that opposition to Concorde on grounds of noise pollution had been encouraged by the United States Government, as it lacked its own competitor.[45] The US, India, and Malaysia all ruled out Concorde supersonic flights over the noise concern, although some of these restrictions were later relaxed.[46][47] Professor Douglas Ross characterised restrictions placed upon Concorde operations by President Jimmy Carter’s administration as having been an act of protectionism of American aircraft manufacturers.[48]

Concorde had other considerable difficulties that led to its dismal sales performance. Costs had spiralled during development to more than six times the original projections, arriving at a unit cost of £23 million in 1977.[49] World events had also dampened Concorde sales prospects, the 1973 oil crisis made many airlines think twice about aircraft with high rates of fuel consumption; and new wide-body aircraft, such as the Boeing 747, had recently made subsonic aircraft significantly more efficient and presented a low-risk option for airlines.[50] While carrying a full load, Concorde achieved 15.8 passenger miles per gallon of fuel, while the Boeing 707 reached 33.3 pm/g, the Boeing 747 46.4 pm/g, and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 53.6 pm/g.[51] An emerging trend in the industry in favour of cheaper airline tickets had also caused airlines such as Qantas to question Concorde’s market suitability.[52]

Concorde is an ogival (also “ogee”) delta-winged aircraft with four Olympus engines based on those employed in the RAF’s Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. Concorde was the first airliner to have a (in this case, analogue) fly-by-wire flight-control system; the avionics of Concorde were unique because it was the first commercial aircraft to employ hybrid circuits.[53] The principal designer for the project was Pierre Satre, with Sir Archibald Russell as his deputy.[54]

Concorde pioneered the following technologies:

For high speed and optimisation of flight:

For weight-saving and enhanced performance:

Concorde needed to fly long distances to be economically viable; this required high efficiency. Turbofan engines were rejected due to their larger cross-section producing excessive drag. Turbojets were found to be the best choice of engines.[68] The engine used was the twin spool Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593, a development of the Bristol engine first used for the Avro Vulcan bomber, and developed into an afterburning supersonic variant for the BAC TSR-2 strike bomber.[69] Rolls-Royce’s own engine proposed for the aircraft at the time of Concorde’s initial design was the RB.169.[70]

The aircraft used reheat (afterburners) at takeoff and to pass through the upper transonic regime and to supersonic speeds, between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.7. The afterburners were switched off at all other times.[71] Due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel (almost 2% of the maximum fuel load) taxiing to the runway.[72] Fuel used is Jet A-1. Due to the high thrust produced even with the engines at idle, only the two outer engines were run after landing for easier taxiing.

The intake design for Concorde’s engines was especially critical.[73] The intakes had to provide low distortion levels (to prevent engine surge) and high efficiency for all likely ambient temperatures to be met in cruise. They had to provide adequate subsonic performance for diversion cruise and low engine-face distortion at take-off. They also had to provide an alternate path for excess intake air during engine throttling or shutdown.[74] The variable intake features required to meet all these requirements consisted of front and rear ramps, a dump door, an auxiliary inlet and a ramp bleed to the exhaust nozzle.[75]

As well as supplying air to the engine the intake also supplied air through the ramp bleed to the propelling nozzle. The nozzle ejector (or aerodynamic) design, with variable exit area and secondary flow from the intake, contributed to good expansion efficiency from take-off to cruise.[76]

Engine failure causes problems on conventional subsonic aircraft; not only does the aircraft lose thrust on that side but the engine creates drag, causing the aircraft to yaw and bank in the direction of the failed engine. If this had happened to Concorde at supersonic speeds, it theoretically could have caused a catastrophic failure of the airframe. Although computer simulations predicted considerable problems, in practice Concorde could shut down both engines on the same side of the aircraft at Mach 2 without the predicted difficulties.[77] During an engine failure the required air intake is virtually zero so, on Concorde, engine failure was countered by the opening of the auxiliary spill door and the full extension of the ramps, which deflected the air downwards past the engine, gaining lift and minimising drag. Concorde pilots were routinely trained to handle double engine failure.[78]

Concorde’s thrust-by-wire engine control system was developed by Ultra Electronics.[79]

Air compression on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight.[80] Besides engines, the hottest part of the structure of any supersonic aircraft, due to aerodynamic heating, is the nose. The engineers used Hiduminium R.R. 58, an aluminium alloy, throughout the aircraft due to its familiarity, cost and ease of construction. The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C (261 °F), which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02.[81] Concorde went through two cycles of heating and cooling during a flight, first cooling down as it gained altitude, then heating up after going supersonic. The reverse happened when descending and slowing down. This had to be factored into the metallurgical and fatigue modelling. A test rig was built that repeatedly heated up a full-size section of the wing, and then cooled it, and periodically samples of metal were taken for testing.[82][83] The Concorde airframe was designed for a life of 45,000 flying hours.[84]

Owing to air friction as the plane travelled at supersonic speed, the fuselage would heat up and expand by as much as 300 mm (almost 1 ft). The most obvious manifestation of this was a gap that opened up on the flight deck between the flight engineer’s console and the bulkhead. On some aircraft that conducted a retiring supersonic flight, the flight engineers placed their caps in this expanded gap, wedging the cap when it shrank again.[85] To keep the cabin cool, Concorde used the fuel as a heat sink for the heat from the air conditioning.[86] The same method also cooled the hydraulics. During supersonic flight the surfaces forward from the cockpit became heated, and a visor was used to deflect much of this heat from directly reaching the cockpit.[87]

Concorde had livery restrictions; the majority of the surface had to be covered with a highly reflective white paint to avoid overheating the aluminium structure due to heating effects from supersonic flight at Mach 2. The white finish reduced the skin temperature by 6 to 11 degrees Celsius.[88] In 1996, Air France briefly painted F-BTSD in a predominantly blue livery, with the exception of the wings, in a promotional deal with Pepsi.[89] In this paint scheme, Air France were advised to remain at Mach 2 for no more than 20 minutes at a time, but there was no restriction at speeds under Mach 1.7. F-BTSD was used because it was not scheduled for any long flights that required extended Mach 2 operations.[90]

Due to the high speeds at which Concorde travelled, large forces were applied to the aircraft’s structure during banks and turns. This caused twisting and the distortion of the aircraft’s structure. In addition there were concerns over maintaining precise control at supersonic speeds; both of these issues were resolved by active ratio changes between the inboard and outboard elevons, varying at differing speeds including supersonic. Only the innermost elevons, which are attached to the stiffest area of the wings, were active at high speed.[91] Additionally, the narrow fuselage meant that the aircraft flexed.[55] This was visible from the rear passengers’ viewpoints.[92]

When any aircraft passes the critical mach of that particular airframe, the centre of pressure shifts rearwards. This causes a pitch down force on the aircraft if the centre of mass remains where it was. The engineers designed the wings in a specific manner to reduce this shift, but there was still a shift of about 2 metres. This could have been countered by the use of trim controls, but at such high speeds this would have caused a dramatic increase in the drag on the aircraft. Instead, the distribution of fuel along the aircraft was shifted during acceleration and deceleration to move the centre of mass, effectively acting as an auxiliary trim control.[93]

In order to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean, Concorde was developed to have the greatest supersonic range of any aircraft. This was achieved by a combination of engines which were highly efficient at supersonic speeds,[N 5][55] a slender fuselage with high fineness ratio, and a complex wing shape for a high lift to drag ratio. This also required carrying only a modest payload and a high fuel capacity, and the aircraft was trimmed with precision to avoid unnecessary drag.[10][93]

Nevertheless, soon after Concorde began flying, a Concorde “B” model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions.[94] It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy reheat. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593.[95] This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible. This was cancelled due in part to poor sales of Concorde, but also to the rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s.[96]

The high altitude at which Concorde cruised meant passengers received almost twice the flux of extraterrestrial ionising radiation as those travelling on a conventional long-haul flight.[97][98] Upon Concorde’s introduction, it was speculated that this exposure during supersonic travels would increase the likelihood of skin cancer.[99] Due to the proportionally reduced flight time, the overall equivalent dose would normally be less than a conventional flight over the same distance.[100] Unusual solar activity might lead to an increase in incident radiation.[101] To prevent incidents of excessive radiation exposure, the flight deck had a radiometer and an instrument to measure the rate of decrease of radiation.[98] If the radiation level became too high, Concorde would descend below 47,000 feet (14,000 m).

Airliner cabins were usually maintained at a pressure equivalent to 6,000–8,000 feet (1,800–2,400 m) elevation. Concorde’s pressurisation was set to an altitude at the lower end of this range, 6,000 feet (1,800 m).[102] Concorde’s maximum cruising altitude was 60,000 feet (18,000 m); subsonic airliners typically cruise below 40,000 feet (12,000 m).

A sudden reduction in cabin pressure is hazardous to all passengers and crew.[103] Above 50,000 feet (15,000 m), in the event of a sudden cabin depressurisation, the lack of air pressure would give a “time of useful consciousness” in even a conditioned athlete of no more than 10–15 seconds.[104] At Concorde’s altitude, the air density is very low; a breach of cabin integrity would result in a loss of pressure severe enough so that the plastic emergency oxygen masks installed on other passenger jets would not be effective and passengers would quickly suffer from hypoxia despite quickly donning them. Concorde was equipped with smaller windows to reduce the rate of loss in the event of a breach,[105] a reserve air supply system to augment cabin air pressure, and a rapid descent procedure to bring the aircraft to a safe altitude. The FAA enforces minimum emergency descent rates for aircraft and made note of Concorde’s higher operating altitude, concluding that the best response to a loss of pressure would be a rapid descent.[106] Continuous positive airway pressure would have delivered pressurised oxygen directly to the pilots through masks.[105]

While commercial jets took eight hours to fly from New York to Paris, the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours. Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft) and an average cruise speed of Mach 2.02, about 1155 knots (2140 km/h or 1334 mph), more than twice the speed of conventional aircraft.[107]

With no other civil traffic operating at its cruising altitude of about 56,000 ft (17,000 m), dedicated oceanic airways or “tracks” were used by Concorde to cross the Atlantic. Due to the nature of high altitude winds, these SST tracks were fixed in terms of their co-ordinates, unlike the North Atlantic Tracks at lower altitudes whose co-ordinates alter daily according to forecast weather patterns.[108] Concorde would also be cleared in a 15,000-foot (4,600 m) block, allowing for a slow climb from 45,000 to 60,000 ft (18,000 m) during the oceanic crossing as the fuel load gradually decreased.[109] In regular service, Concorde employed an efficient cruise-climb flight profile following take-off.[110]

The delta-shaped wings required Concorde to adopt a higher angle of attack at low speeds than conventional aircraft, but it allowed the formation of large low pressure vortices over the entire upper wing surface, maintaining lift.[111] The normal landing speed was 170 miles per hour (274 km/h).[112] Because of this high angle, during a landing approach Concorde was on the “back side” of the drag force curve, where raising the nose would increase the sink rate; the aircraft was thus largely flown on the throttle and was fitted with an autothrottle to reduce the pilot’s workload.[113]

“The only thing that tells you that you’re moving is that occasionally when you’re flying over the subsonic aeroplanes you can see all these 747s 20,000 feet below you almost appearing to go backwards, I mean you are going 800 miles an hour or thereabouts faster than they are. The aeroplane was an absolute delight to fly, it handled beautifully. And remember we are talking about an aeroplane that was being designed in the late 1950s – mid 1960s. I think it’s absolutely amazing and here we are, now in the 21st century, and it remains unique.”

Because of the way Concorde’s delta-wing generated lift, the undercarriage had to be unusually strong. At rotation, Concorde would rise to a high angle of attack, about 18 degrees. Prior to rotation the wing generated almost no lift, unlike typical aircraft wings. Combined with the high airspeed at rotation (199 knots indicated airspeed), this increased the stresses on the rear undercarriage in a way that was initially unexpected during the development and required a major redesign.[115] Due to the high angle needed at rotation, a small set of wheels were added aft to prevent tailstrikes. The rear main undercarriage units swing towards each other to be stowed but due to their great height also need to retract telescopically before swinging in order to clear each other when stowed.[116] The four main wheel tyres on each bogie unit are inflated to 232 lb/sq in. The twin-wheel nose undercarriage retracts forwards and its tyres are inflated to a pressure of 191 lb/sq in, and the wheel assembly carries a spray deflector to prevent standing water being thrown up into the engine intakes. The tyres are rated to 250 mph. The starboard nose wheel carries a single disc brake to halt wheel rotation while the undercarriage is being retracted. The port nose wheel carries speed generators for the anti-skid braking system which prevents brake activation until nose and main wheels are rotating at the same rate.

Additionally, due to the high average takeoff speed of 250 miles per hour (400 km/h), Concorde needed upgraded brakes. Like most airliners, Concorde has anti-skid braking – a system which prevents the tyres from losing traction when the brakes are applied for greater control during roll-out. The brakes, developed by Dunlop, were the first carbon-based brakes used on an airliner.[117] The use of carbon over equivalent steel brakes provided a weight-saving of 12,000 lb (5,443 kg).[118] Each wheel has multiple discs which are cooled by electric fans. Wheel sensors include brake overload, brake temperature, and tyre deflation. After a typical landing at Heathrow, brake temperatures were around 300-400 °C (572-752 °F).

Concorde’s drooping nose, developed by Marshall Aerospace,[119] enabled the aircraft to switch between being streamlined to reduce drag and achieve optimum aerodynamic efficiency, and not obstructing the pilot’s view during taxi, takeoff, and landing operations. Due to the high angle of attack the long pointed nose obstructed the view and necessitated the capability to droop. The droop nose was accompanied by a moving visor that retracted into the nose prior to being lowered. When the nose was raised to horizontal, the visor would rise in front of the cockpit windscreen for aerodynamic streamlining.[119]

A controller in the cockpit allowed the visor to be retracted and the nose to be lowered to 5° below the standard horizontal position for taxiing and takeoff. Following takeoff and after clearing the airport, the nose and visor were raised. Prior to landing, the visor was again retracted and the nose lowered to 12.5° below horizontal for maximum visibility. Upon landing the nose was raised to the five-degree position to avoid the possibility of damage.[119]

The Federal Aviation Administration had objected to the restrictive visibility of the visor used on the first two prototype Concordes and thus requiring alteration before the FAA would permit Concorde to serve US airports; this led to the redesigned visor used on the production and the four pre-production aircraft (101, 102, 201, and 202).[120] The nose window and visor glass needed to endure temperatures in excess of 100 °C (212 °F) at supersonic flight were developed by Triplex.[121]

Scheduled flights began on 21 January 1976 on the London–Bahrain and Paris–Rio (via Dakar) routes,[122] with BA flights using the “Speedbird Concorde” call sign to notify air traffic control of the aircraft’s unique abilities and restrictions, but the French using their normal call signs.[123] The Paris-Caracas route (via Azores) began on 10 April. The US Congress had just banned Concorde landings in the US, mainly due to citizen protest over sonic booms, preventing launch on the coveted North Atlantic routes. The US Secretary of Transportation, William Coleman, gave permission for Concorde service to Washington Dulles International Airport, and Air France and British Airways simultaneously began service to Dulles on 24 May 1976.[124]

When the US ban on JFK Concorde operations was lifted in February 1977, New York banned Concorde locally. The ban came to an end on 17 October 1977 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn a lower court’s ruling rejecting efforts by the Port Authority and a grass-roots campaign led by Carol Berman to continue the ban.[125] In spite of complaints about noise, the noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing VC-137, was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during takeoff and landing.[126] Scheduled service from Paris and London to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport began on 22 November 1977.[127]

In 1977, British Airways and Singapore Airlines shared a Concorde for flights between London and Singapore International Airport at Paya Lebar via Bahrain. The aircraft, BA’s Concorde G-BOAD, was painted in Singapore Airlines livery on the port side and British Airways livery on the starboard side.[128][129] The service was discontinued after three return flights because of noise complaints from the Malaysian government;[130] it could only be reinstated on a new route bypassing Malaysian airspace in 1979. A dispute with India prevented Concorde from reaching supersonic speeds in Indian airspace, so the route was eventually declared not viable and discontinued in 1980.[131]

During the Mexican oil boom, Air France flew Concorde twice weekly to Mexico City’s Benito Juárez International Airport via Washington, DC, or New York City, from September 1978 to November 1982.[132][133] The worldwide economic crisis during that period resulted in this route’s cancellation; the last flights were almost empty. The routing between Washington or New York and Mexico City included a deceleration, from Mach 2.02 to Mach 0.95, to cross Florida subsonically and avoid creating a sonic boom over the state; Concorde then re-accelerated back to high speed while crossing the Gulf of Mexico. On 1 April 1989, on an around-the-world luxury tour charter, British Airways implemented changes to this routing that allowed G-BOAF to maintain Mach 2.02 by passing around Florida to the east and south. Periodically Concorde visited the region on similar chartered flights to Mexico City and Acapulco.[134]

From 1978 to 1980, Braniff International Airways leased 10 Concordes, five each from Air France and British Airways.[135] These were used on subsonic flights between Dallas-Fort Worth and Washington Dulles International Airport, flown by Braniff flight crews.[136] Air France and British Airways crews then took over for the continuing supersonic flights to London and Paris.[137] The aircraft were registered in both the United States and their home countries; the European registration was covered while being operated by Braniff, retaining full AF/BA liveries. The flights were not profitable and typically less than 50% booked, forcing Braniff to end its tenure as the only US Concorde operator in May 1980.[138][139]

A noteworthy detail of Concorde operations is that, in its early years, the British Airways Concorde service had a greater number of “no shows” (passengers who booked a flight and then failed to appear at the gate for boarding) than any other aircraft in the fleet.[140]

Following the launch of British Airways’ Concorde services, Britain’s other major airline, British Caledonian (BCal), set up a task force headed by Gordon Davidson, BA’s former Concorde director, to investigate the possibility of their own Concorde operations.[141][142][143] This was seen as particularly viable for the airline’s long-haul network as there were two unsold aircraft then available for purchase.[144][145][146]

One important reason for BCal’s interest in Concorde was that the British Government’s 1976 aviation policy review had opened the possibility of BA setting up supersonic services in competition with BCal’s established sphere of influence. To counteract this potential threat, BCal considered their own independent Concorde plans, as well as a partnership with BA.[147][148] BCal were considered most likely to have set up a Concorde service on the Gatwick–Lagos route, a major source of revenue and profits within BCal’s scheduled route network;[149][150] BCal’s Concorde task force did assess the viability of a daily supersonic service complementing the existing subsonic widebody service on this route.[145][148][151]

BCal entered into a bid to acquire at least one Concorde.[144][146][151] However, BCal eventually arranged for two aircraft to be leased from BA and Aérospatiale respectively, to be maintained by either BA or Air France. BCal’s envisaged two-Concorde fleet would have required a high level of aircraft utilisation to be cost-effective; therefore, BCal had decided to operate the second aircraft on a supersonic service between Gatwick and Atlanta, with a stopover at either Gander or Halifax.[145] Consideration was given to services to Houston and various points on its South American network at a later stage.[151][152] Both supersonic services were to be launched at some point during 1980; however, steeply rising oil prices caused by the 1979 energy crisis led to BCal shelving their supersonic ambitions.[148]

By around 1981 in the UK, the future for Concorde looked bleak. The British government had lost money operating Concorde every year, and moves were afoot to cancel the service entirely. A cost projection came back with greatly reduced metallurgical testing costs because the test rig for the wings had built up enough data to last for 30 years and could be shut down. Despite this, the government was not keen to continue. In 1983, BA’s managing director, Sir John King, convinced the government to sell the aircraft outright to British Airways for £16.5 million plus the first year’s profits.[153][154]

King recognised that, in Concorde, BA had a premier product that was underpriced. Market research had revealed that many customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was; thus ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions.[55] It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit, unlike their French counterpart.[155][156]

Between 1984 and 1991, British Airways flew a thrice-weekly Concorde service between London and Miami, stopping at Washington Dulles International Airport.[157][158] Until 2003, Air France and British Airways continued to operate the New York services daily. Concorde routinely flew to Grantley Adams International Airport, Barbados, during the winter holiday season.[159]

Prior to the Air France Paris crash, several UK and French tour operators operated charter flights to European destinations on a regular basis;[160][161] the charter business was viewed as lucrative by British Airways and Air France.[162]

In 1997, British Airways held a promotional contest to mark the 10th anniversary of the airline’s move into the private sector. The promotion was a lottery to fly to New York held for 190 tickets valued at £5,400 each, to be offered at £10. Contestants had to call a special hotline to compete with up to 20 million people.[163]

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, registration F-BTSC, crashed in Gonesse, France after departing from Paris Charles de Gaulle en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, killing all 100 passengers and nine crew members on board the flight, and four people on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde.

According to the official investigation conducted by the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la Sécurité de l’Aviation Civile (BEA), the crash was caused by a metallic strip that fell from a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off minutes earlier. This fragment punctured a tyre on Concorde’s left main wheel bogie during takeoff. The tyre exploded, and a piece of rubber hit the fuel tank, which caused a fuel leak and led to a fire. The crew shut down engine number 2 in response to a fire warning, and with engine number 1 surging and producing little power, the aircraft was unable to gain altitude or speed. The aircraft entered a rapid pitch-up then a violent descent, rolling left and crashing tail-low into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel in Gonesse.[164]

Prior to the accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in terms of passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero, but had a rate of tyre damage some 30 times higher than subsonic airliners from 1995 to 2000.[165][166] Safety improvements were made in the wake of the crash, including more secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining on the fuel tanks and specially developed burst-resistant tyres.[167] On 6 December 2010, Continental Airlines and John Taylor, one of their mechanics, were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter,[168] but on 30 November 2012 a French court overturned the conviction, saying mistakes by Continental and Taylor did not make them criminally responsible.[169]

The first flight after the modifications departed from London Heathrow on 17 July 2001, piloted by BA Chief Concorde Pilot Mike Bannister. During the 3-hour 20-minute flight over the mid-Atlantic towards Iceland, Bannister attained Mach 2.02 and 60,000 ft (18,000 m) before returning to RAF Brize Norton. The test flight, intended to resemble the London–New York route, was declared a success and was watched on live TV, and by crowds on the ground at both locations.[170] The first flight with passengers after the accident took place on 11 September 2001, landing shortly before the World Trade Center attacks in the United States. This was not a revenue flight, as all the passengers were BA employees.[171]

Normal commercial operations resumed on 7 November 2001 by BA and AF (aircraft G-BOAE and F-BTSD), with service to New York JFK, where passengers were welcomed by then mayor Rudy Giuliani.[172][173]

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year.[174] They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was dated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747.[175] By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in British Airways’ fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role.[176]

On 11 April 2003, Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing British Airways’ Concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £1 (US$1.57 in April 2003) each.[177][178] British Airways dismissed the idea, prompting Virgin to increase their offer to £1 million each.[179][180] Branson claimed that when BA was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another British airline to operate Concorde if BA ceased to do so, but the Government denied the existence of such a clause.[181] In October 2003, Branson wrote in The Economist that his final offer was “over £5 million” and that he had intended to operate the fleet “for many years to come”.[182] The chances for keeping Concorde in service were stifled by Airbus’s lack of support for continued maintenance.[183][184][N 6]

It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically.[185] A lack of commitment to Concorde from Director of Engineering Alan MacDonald was cited as having undermined BA’s resolve to continue operating Concorde.[186]

Air France made its final commercial Concorde landing in the United States in New York City from Paris on 30 May 2003.[187][188] Air France’s final Concorde flight took place on 27 June 2003 when F-BVFC retired to Toulouse.[189]

An auction of Concorde parts and memorabilia for Air France was held at Christie’s in Paris on 15 November 2003; 1,300 people attended, and several lots exceeded their predicted values.[190] French Concorde F-BVFC was retired to Toulouse and kept functional for a short time after the end of service, in case taxi runs were required in support of the French judicial enquiry into the 2000 crash.[191] The aircraft is now fully retired and no longer functional.[192]

French Concorde F-BTSD has been retired to the “Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace” at Le Bourget (near Paris) and, unlike the other museum Concordes, a few of the systems are being kept functional. For instance, the famous “droop nose” can still be lowered and raised. This led to rumours that they could be prepared for future flights for special occasions.[193]

French Concorde F-BVFB currently rests at the Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim at Sinsheim, Germany, after its last flight from Paris to Baden-Baden, followed by a spectacular transport to Sinsheim via barge and road. The museum also has a Tu-144 on display – this is the only place where both supersonic airliners can be seen together.[194]

British Airways conducted a North American farewell tour in October 2003. G-BOAG visited Toronto Pearson International Airport on 1 October, after which it flew to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport.[195] G-BOAD visited Boston’s Logan International Airport on 8 October, and G-BOAG visited Washington Dulles International Airport on 14 October.[196] It has been claimed that G-BOAD’s flight from London Heathrow to Boston set a transatlantic flight record of 3 hours, 5 minutes, 34 seconds.[197] However the fastest transatlantic flight was from New York JFK airport to Heathrow on 7 February 1996, taking 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds; 90 seconds less than a record set in April 1990.[198][199]

In a week of farewell flights around the United Kingdom, Concorde visited Birmingham on 20 October, Belfast on 21 October, Manchester on 22 October, Cardiff on 23 October, and Edinburgh on 24 October. Each day the aircraft made a return flight out and back into Heathrow to the cities, often overflying them at low altitude.[200][201][202] On 22 October, both Concorde flight BA9021C, a special from Manchester, and BA002 from New York landed simultaneously on both of Heathrow’s runways. On 23 October 2003, the Queen consented to the illumination of Windsor Castle, an honour reserved for state events and visiting dignitaries, as Concorde’s last west-bound commercial flight departed London.[203]

British Airways retired its Concorde fleet on 24 October 2003.[204] G-BOAG left New York to a fanfare similar to that given for Air France’s F-BTSD, while two more made round trips, G-BOAF over the Bay of Biscay, carrying VIP guests including former Concorde pilots, and G-BOAE to Edinburgh. The three aircraft then circled over London, having received special permission to fly at low altitude, before landing in sequence at Heathrow. The captain of the New York to London flight was Mike Bannister.[205] The final flight of a Concorde in the US occurred on 5 November 2003 when G-BOAG flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Seattle’s Boeing Field to join the Museum of Flight’s permanent collection. The plane was piloted by Mike Bannister and Les Broadie who claimed a flight time of three hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds, a record between the two cities.[206] The museum had been pursuing a Concorde for their collection since 1984.[207] The final flight of a Concorde world-wide took place on 26 November 2003 with a landing at Filton, Bristol, UK.[208]

All of BA’s Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn. Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again.[193] BA maintain ownership and have stated that they will not fly again due to a lack of support from Airbus.[209] On 1 December 2003, Bonhams held an auction of British Airways’ Concorde artifacts, including a nose cone, at Kensington Olympia in London.[210][211] Proceeds of around £750,000 were raised, with the majority going to charity. G-BOAD is currently on display at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York.[199] In 2007, BA announced that the advertising spot at Heathrow where a 40% scale model of Concorde was located would not be retained; the model is now on display at the Brooklands Museum.[212]

Although only used for spares after being retired from test flying and trials work in 1981, Concorde G-BBDG was dismantled and transported by road from Filton then restored from essentially a shell at the Brooklands Museum in Surrey.[213]

One of the youngest Concordes (F-BTSD) is on display at Le Bourget Air and Space Museum in Paris. In February 2010, it was announced that the museum and a group of volunteer Air France technicians intend to restore F-BTSD so it can taxi under its own power.[214] In May 2010, it was reported that the British Save Concorde Group and French Olympus 593 groups had begun inspecting the engines of a Concorde at the French museum; their intent is to restore the airliner to a condition where it can fly in demonstrations.[215]

The only supersonic airliner in direct competition with Concorde was the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144, nicknamed “Concordski” by Western European journalists for its outward similarity to Concorde.[216] It had been alleged that Soviet espionage efforts had resulted in the theft of Concorde blueprints, ostensibly to assist in the design of the Tu-144.[217] As a result of a rushed development programme, the first Tu-144 prototype was substantially different from the preproduction machines, but both were cruder than Concorde. The Tu-144S had a significantly shorter range than Concorde, due to its low-bypass turbofan engines.[218] The aircraft had poor control at low speeds because of a simpler supersonic wing design; in addition the Tu-144 required braking parachutes to land while Concorde used anti-lock brakes.[219] The Tu-144 had two crashes, one at the 1973 Paris Air Show,[220][221] and another during a pre-delivery test flight in May 1978.[222][223]

Later production Tu-144 versions were more refined and competitive. They had retractable canards for better low-speed control, turbojet engines providing nearly the fuel efficiency and range of Concorde[224] and a top speed of Mach 2.35. Passenger service commenced in November 1977, but after the 1978 crash the aircraft was taken out of service. The aircraft had an inherently unsafe structural design as a consequence of an automated production method chosen in order to simplify and speed up manufacturing.[225]

The American designs, the Boeing 2707 and the Lockheed L-2000, were to have been larger, with seating for up to 300 people.[226][227] Running a few years behind Concorde, the Boeing 2707 was redesigned to a cropped delta layout; the extra cost of these changes helped to kill the project.[228] The operation of US military aircraft such as the XB-70 Valkyrie and B-58 Hustler had shown that sonic booms were quite capable of reaching the ground,[229] and the experience from the Oklahoma City sonic boom tests led to the same environmental concerns that hindered the commercial success of Concorde. The American government cancelled the project in 1971, after having spent more than $1 billion.[230]

The only other large supersonic aircraft comparable to Concorde are strategic bombers, principally the Russian Tu-22, Tu-22M, M-50 (experimental), T-4 (experimental), Tu-160 and the American XB-70 (experimental), B-1.[citation needed]

Before Concorde’s flight trials, developments in the civil aviation industry were largely accepted by governments and their respective electorates. Opposition to Concorde’s noise, particularly on the east coast of the United States,[231][232] forged a new political agenda on both sides of the Atlantic, with scientists and technology experts across a multitude of industries beginning to take the environmental and social impact more seriously.[233][234] Although Concorde led directly to the introduction of a general noise abatement programme for aircraft flying out of John F. Kennedy Airport, many found that Concorde was quieter than expected,[55] partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise during overflight of residential areas.[235] Even before revenue flights started it had been claimed that Concorde was quieter than several aircraft then in service.[236] In 1971 BAC’s technical director was quoted “It is certain on present evidence and calculations that in the airport context, production Concordes will be no worse than aircraft now in service and will in fact be better than many of them.”[237]

Concorde produced nitrogen oxides in its exhaust, which, despite complicated interactions with other ozone-depleting chemicals, are understood to result in degradation to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes it cruised.[238] It has been pointed out that other, lower-flying, airliners produce ozone during their flights in the troposphere, but vertical transit of gases between the layers is restricted. The small fleet meant overall ozone-layer degradation caused by Concorde was negligible.[238] David W. Fahey, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that to produce a drop in stratospheric ozone of 1 to 2% would require a fleet of 500 supersonic aircraft to be operated. Dr. Fahey stated that this would not be a limiting factor for further supersonic transport development.[239]

Concorde’s technical leap forward boosted the public’s understanding of conflicts between technology and the environment as well as awareness of the complex decision analysis processes that surround such conflicts.[240] In France, the use of acoustic fencing alongside TGV tracks might not have been achieved without the 1970s controversy over aircraft noise.[241] In the UK, the CPRE has issued tranquillity maps since 1990.[242]

Some sources say Concorde typically flew 17 miles per U.S. gallon (14 L/100 km; 20 mpg-imp) per passenger (100 passengers were maximum capacity).[243]

Concorde was normally perceived as a privilege of the rich, but special circular or one-way (with return by other flight or ship) charter flights were arranged to bring a trip within the means of moderately well-off enthusiasts.[244]

The aircraft was usually referred to by the British as simply “Concorde”.[245] In France it was known as “le Concorde” due to “le”, the definite article,[246] used in French grammar to introduce the name of a ship or aircraft,[247] and the capital being used to distinguish a proper name from a common noun of the same spelling.[246][248] In French, the common noun concorde means “agreement, harmony, or peace”. [N 7] Concorde’s pilots and British Airways in official publications often refer to Concorde both in the singular and plural as “she” or “her”.[250][251][N 8]

As a symbol of national pride, an example from the BA fleet made occasional flypasts at selected Royal events, major air shows and other special occasions, sometimes in formation with the Red Arrows.[252][253] On the final day of commercial service, public interest was so great that grandstands were erected at Heathrow Airport. Significant numbers of people attended the final landings; the event received widespread media coverage.[254]

In 2006, 37 years after its first test flight, Concorde was announced the winner of the Great British Design Quest organised by the BBC and the Design Museum. A total of 212,000 votes were cast with Concorde beating design icons such as the Mini, mini skirt, Jaguar E-type, Tube map and the Supermarine Spitfire.[6]

Heads of France and the United Kingdom flew Concorde many times.[255][256][257] Presidents Georges Pompidou,[258][259] Valéry Giscard d’Estaing[260][261][262][263] and François Mitterrand[264][265][266][267] regularly used the Concorde as French flagman aircraft in foreign visits. British Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Ministers Edward Heath, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair took the Concorde in some charter flights such as Queen’s trips to Barbados on her Silver Jubilee in 1977, in 1987 and in 2003, to Middle East in 1984, to the United States in 1991, etc.[268][269][270][271][272]

Pope John Paul II flew Concorde in May 1989.[273] Both the French President, as well as the British Prime Minister flew Concordes to San Juan for the second G-6 Economic Summit, held in the United States and hosted by President Gerald Ford at the Dorado Beach Hotel in Dorado, Puerto Rico on June 27-28, 1976.[citation needed]

The Concorde sometimes made special flights for its demonstration, for exhibit on airshows (Farnborough, Paris-LeBourget, MAKS, etc.) and other expositions, for taking part in parades and celebrations (as ex., of Zürich airport anniversary in 1998), for private charters (as ex., many times by President of Zaire Mobutu Sese Seko), for promo-advertising of companies (OKI, etc.), for Olympic torch relays (1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville), for observing of solar eclipse, etc.[274][275][276][277][278]

The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways’ G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown aided by a 175 mph tailwind.[279] Concorde also set other records, including the official FAI “Westbound Around the World” and “Eastbound Around the World” world air speed records.[280] On 12–13 October 1992, in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ first New World landing, Concorde Spirit Tours (USA) chartered Air France Concorde F-BTSD and circumnavigated the world in 32 hours 49 minutes and 3 seconds, from Lisbon, Portugal, including six refuelling stops at Santo Domingo, Acapulco, Honolulu, Guam, Bangkok, and Bahrain.[281]

The eastbound record was set by the same Air France Concorde (F-BTSD) under charter to Concorde Spirit Tours[278] in the USA on 15–16 August 1995. This promotional flight circumnavigated the world from New York/JFK International Airport in 31 hours 27 minutes 49 seconds, including six refuelling stops at Toulouse, Dubai, Bangkok, Andersen AFB in Guam, Honolulu, and Acapulco.[282] By its 30th flight anniversary on 2 March 1999 Concorde had clocked up 920,000 flight hours, with more than 600,000 supersonic, much more than all of the other supersonic aircraft in the Western world combined.[283]

On its way to the Museum of Flight in November 2003, G-BOAG set a New York City-to-Seattle speed record of 3 hours, 55 minutes, and 12 seconds.[284]

Data from Wall Street Journal,[176] The Concorde Story,[285] The International Directory of Civil Aircraft,[57] Richard Seamen aircraft museum[286]

General characteristics


President Bush to limit congressional oversight in PATRIOT amendment act

By |

Sunday, April 2, 2006 

President Bush signed the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006” into law. In the signing statement, Bush averred that he could withhold information about the administration’s controversial use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act powers and National Security Letters if he deemed that they impaired foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties. Lawmakers and Legal experts have questioned the president’s authority to contravene the Congress’s intent in such a way.

The Patriot Act reauthorisation bill specifically mandates the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to audit the administration’s use of investigative authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and National Security Letters and requires these audits to be submitted for congressional review.

In the signing statement, President Bush wrote “The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

This follows on the heels of the signing of the congressional ban on torture issued in January of this year, when the President declared that he would view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. A senior white house official told a Boston Globe reporter that “Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case.” The official added “We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”

Lawmakers tried to get a handle on President Bush’s use of signing statements in 2003, by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying “If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived,”

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said “On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism.”

Sen Arlen Specter, (R-Pa) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee argued “He (Bush) can say whatever he likes, I don’t know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent,”

Sen Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Ver) said in a prepared statement: “The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.

The signing statement is a written proclamation, issued by the president of the United Sates that accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law.

The use of signing statements started with the US’s fifth President James Monroe (1817-1825) and from that time was used sparingly. In fact from Monroe to Jimmy Carter (39 th President 1977-1981) there were a total of a 109 signing statements issued, 75 of which were to protect presidential prerogatives and 34 were to instruct the executive branch agencies on the interpretation of sections of the law. Whereas from the Reagan administration through the Clinton administration there were a total of 396 signing statements made with 322 to protect presidential prerogative and 74 to instruct on presidential interpretation of the law. Following along this sharp increase the Bush administration issued 435 statements almost entirely objecting to encroachments upon presidential prerogatives.

The key argument involved here is in the interpretation of the constitution. The Bush administration is acting from on an idea called the Unitary Executive theory – you may have noticed it is mentioned twice in his signing statement – this theory holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and that the meaning of the Constitution is determined through the dynamic interaction of all three branches.

This idea gained strength during the Reagan administration as a response to the presidency having been severely weakened by Vietnam and, Watergate and is mainly championed by the “Federalist Society,” a group of conservative lawyers who nearly all worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan white houses. It largely claims its authority from two sources within the Constitution—the “Oath” and “Take Care” clauses of Article II. The “Oath” requirement acts as a sort of shield, protecting the president from enforcing things he independently determines are unconstitutional, and the “Oath” clause directs the president to “faithfully execute the Office of the President and [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Acting on this theory, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito wrote a draft memo On a Feb. 5, 1986 outlined a strategy for strengthening presidential authority. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law. He explained his thoughts this way:

“Since the president’s approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,” He later added that “by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.”

Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University states his objection to this; “It’s nothing short of breath-taking. In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.

The office of legal consul under President Clinton declared: “If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.”


By | July 6, 2014

The original description page is/was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.

Klicke auf einen Zeitpunkt, um diese Version zu laden.

Die folgende Seite verwendet diese Datei:

Die nachfolgenden anderen Wikis verwenden diese Datei:

Weitere globale Verwendungen dieser Datei anschauen.

The Venue Of The Famous Championships

By |

Submitted by: Randy Randd

SW19, home of the postcode for Wimbledon Tennis. This famous summer tournament is played out on TV, worldwide for all to witness the highs and lows and more often then not, England s demise. Want to visit the Wimbledon tennis lawns in person? During the tennis summer season you can take a trip to the legendary Henman Hill. On a lovely day, this is the perfect place to watch the matches, drink Pimms and eat strawberries and cream with your Wimbledon escort. Yummy. However, if you want to see the venue when the tournaments aren t in full swing then it s open all year round. Visit the lawn s museum and learn all about the history of the grounds, past winners and all the facts and figures. You can also take a behind the scene s tour of the grounds and experience the venue of the famous championships. Pick up a sovereign from your trip from the Wimbledon Tennis gift shop, covering all types of official merchandise.

Love the experience of a sporting environment? Well, why not visit Wimbledon dogs. Known as one of South West London s spectator event, this is a great place to visit one a date with a Wimbledon escort. Whatever your age or gender, experience the thrilling, excitement and anticipation of a day or night at the races. The Greyhound racing stadium is a great for special occasions; Christmas parties, stag and hen nights, birthday parties or perhaps an office/work do. With bets starting from 50p this is a cheap and cheerful place to spend some time and have lots of fun.

YouTube Preview Image

The area itself is split between two levels. The main part of Wimbledon, where the rail and tube station is situated is the high street or the Broadway as it is known. There are plenty of places where you can hit the high street shops with the Centre Court Shopping Centre right by the station. A short walk up the hill is Wimbledon Village, a more affluent part of the area. There are still a few places to shop in the village, but things are a little more pricey. Want to eat out? Wimbledon has plenty of good restaurants and pubs that serve food. In Wimbledon Broadway there are a few chain restaurants to choose from but if you head up the hill then there a few more upmarket places. Looking to go somewhere for a special occasion? Happy to splash the cash? The Butcher & Grill is a great informal place to eat out. It combines a modern style butchers with an laid-back and simple bar and grill area. The butcher shop stocks some of the finest meat, poultry and game to purchase for your home cooking or to enjoy in the restaurant. Locale, quality cooked fare is always a delicious treat but don t be fooled in to thinking this isn t going to cost. This is a fantastic setting in the heart of Wimbledon Village. You and an escort in Wimbledon can dine on the finest foods with the freshest ingredients.

About the Author: RandyRand is a professional writer with experience contributing to editorial pages, online blogs and writing short articles. She is the author of this article on


. Find more information on




Permanent Link:


La Liga fixtures face delay due to players’ strike

By | July 5, 2014

Sunday, August 21, 2011 

A proposed players’ strike could postpone the start of La Liga, the top professional association football division of the Spanish football league system.

Spanish football functionaries and players will hold last minute talks on Friday to avert a strike that could see the start of the Spanish football season postponed. If the talks fail, the strike would be first strike of its kind since 1984. The strike was called due to the growing issue of unpaid wages. The disagreement rises from Spain’s bankruptcy laws, which allow for the payment of wages to be delayed like any other debt. Six teams in Spain’s top flight are currently bankrupt and owe over 200 players close to US$72 million.

Spain’s footballers will go on strike from Friday to Monday, canceling the start of both the first and second divisions. Top clubs, Barcelona and Real Madrid will be the high profile casualties of this postponement. There has been almost universal support for the strike with coaches and players of many clubs supporting the strike. Barcelona forward David Villa said: “We have made clear that all the players support the players’ association, if a solution is not found, we won’t play.” When Mallorca coach Michael Laudrup was asked to comment, he made his stance clear by saying “I think it’s ok what the players are doing now,” pointing to the discrepancies between the riches of Barcelona, Real Madrid and the rest of Spanish football.

Espanyol captain Luis García told El Mundo Deportivo on Thursday that the time for all the players to unite had come and enough is enough. “We aren’t asking for more money – only that the contracts that have been signed are fulfilled. Either this is resolved once and for all or we don’t play. We cannot continue like this,” he added. Hércules striker Tote echoed the players’ position: “If necessary, there will be no football in Spain throughout the whole year. If we have to maintain our stance until May, we will.”

Real Zaragoza striker Ikechukwu Uche told the BBC’s African sports programme Fast Track: “Not all the players are owed, but there is solidarity. I don’t think the strike is good for anybody – it’s not good for us, it’s not good for the federation, it’s not good for the fans. We had expected that we were going to start [the league] this weekend but we can’t – they have to resolve the issues. Once they have resolved everything, then we will start.”

Further talks are expected to take place on Saturday and Monday.

Dior Shoes Time To Try And Do It Now!

By | July 4, 2014

Dior Shoes Time To try and do It – Now!


Zachariah Cipponeri

There might be quite a few frustrations in company and more particularly in management.

Plenty of us, in these roles, get irritated from the smallest points – typically these things seem to be to generally be about people and, in reality, are just about ourselves.

Receiving sincere about this really is one particular with the greatest difficulties we\\’ve got.

Occasionally, it can be very important to cast all our doubts and fears to a person aspect and get on with it.

Slightly more polite shortening of that is \\’JDI\\’ – in any other case referred to as \\’Just Do It\\’.

On this very little article, we\\’ll explore far more about JDI and how this weekend, it made a magnificent big difference with a tiny town within the Scottish/English borders.

YouTube Preview Image

Manager Rowan Alexander says he never wants to abandon Gretna.

In four several years, this little Scottish football workforce have moved from the incredibly unfamiliar non-skilled league named the Unibond League, on the Scottish Initially Division (subsequent season) and as of this weekend, their three or more-0 win more than Dundee led them to the Scottish Cup Last.

Never ever ahead of incorporates a workforce in the Scottish 2Nd Division obtained there. And they may be not expecting to discontinue progressing till they accomplish Premier League standing, hopefully someday in 2007.

Currently, resulting from their win and that of Hearts inside moment semi-last on Sunday, Gretna are assured of European football up coming season (as prolonged as Hearts remain 2nd from the Scottish Premier League!)

When requested how they acquired accomplished this, Alexander, supervisor since those heady days back within the Unibond, says,

\\”We really don\\’t talk about factors right here, we do it. Very little negative, almost everything is optimistic.\\”

If ever there was a time when a point out of expectations, assembly with software and wonderfully supportive, encouraging and developmental administration came to fruition, then absolutely Gretna is it.

Occasionally the seemingly \\’unachievable\\’ is so extremely achievable. We just get within our personal way, prevaricating with explanation following motive why we shouldn\\’t, can\\’t or mustn\\’t.

We worry doable outcomes which could possibly not attain our desired goals – blindly forgetting that if we don\\’t look at, we are particular of failure.

I the moment worked using a customer who instructed me that he prevaricated mainly because at the least if he failed to try out, he wouldn\\’t fall short along with the hope and ideal he experienced would still be there.

It acquired taken years of practice to reach this condition of inertia – it took but a few coaching sessions to encourage him that employing a JDI technique wouldn\\’t be living-threatening.

This weeks time you might have the chance to maneuver on individuals things you might have been placing away from, for what ever motive.

Enable\\’s call it an amnesty.

Give oneself permission for slipping out within your convenience zone and into motion. It may possibly not be as chilling an practical experience as you may consider.

If you will need more details just follow this :

Gucci Outlet Online Multicultural Marketing and advertising – Taking Treatment of Business At Hand

Coach Coupons How you can Be part of a Group on Myspace

Gucci Sneakers Lookup Motor Optimization Initiatives – How Search Engine Optimisation Overkill Can Kill Your Web Based Business

Article Source:


Becoming A Fashion Designer

By | July 3, 2014

Submitted by: Jacynth Twila

It looks like everyone is leaping found on the designer bandwagon these days. And why not? The fashion industry is sexy – fashion shows, parties, stars, recognition, plus actually fame go together with a job inside fashion.Now herein lies the question: do you go to design school or go directly with starting a company? Not all fashion designers go the standard path with design school, instead drawing on entrepreneurial spirit, some “designers” change their head for company into a successful fashion enterprise.Ralph Lauren is a good example of a fashion designer whom bypassed the sewing maker plus headed directly for the market. Which path you take depends on your individual motivation. If you decide to love sewing plus pattern creating, the standard path will bring the many satisfaction. If you decide to love the fashion planet however don’t have the patience for needle plus thread, a job inside the fast-paced plus exciting fashion biz remains possible … read on.So you should venture out on your obtain, what’s initially?You’ve usually admired fashion designers plus their ability to design fashionable, special plus wearable fashions season after season, because when by wonder. But it’s not magic; it’s a company. And to achieve company, nobody is an island (meaning that everyone desires a small assistance to accomplish their dreams). And it’s not all glitz plus glamour. Being a fashion designer means you may have to really run a company.Before you print upwards those company cards, determine when you’re willing to roll upwards the sleeves plus tackle the not-so fun areas of fashion.At initially, running a fashion company might signify satisfying orders oneself (i.e., packing containers till the early hours of the morning), steaming clothing repeatedly throughout fashion shows, plus bookkeeping. You can spend merely a small percentage of your time really designing; instead you’re networking, schmoozing plus negotiatingwith suppliers plus vendors.If you’re intending to take the direct-to-consumer path, you’ll have to produce a webpage plus keep it (plus probably need to pay somebody with handle these tasks), get a merchant account with process credit card dealings plus handle charge back cycles. If you’re not interested in understanding what this stuff mean, you might opt to suit a large fashion apartment with find out the ropes.But in the event you have the endurance plus sufficient friends with skills or services you can trade for, you might venture out on your obtain plus succeed. Today is age entrepreneurship, why shouldn’t you get a part of the pie? The fashion biz: a truth check Exciting industries are rife with competition-some that can reduce away as well as others that offers you a run for your money. You need to compete from the big names on the market plus fashionable emerging designers fresh from the best design schools or veterans of big fashion houses-not with mention all the stars popping upwards with their obtain brands.Running the own fashion biz might require you to achieve out to suppliers plus potential shoppers all around the planet, meaning you greater be arranged. Are you presently willing to coordinate the procurement of raw materials like fabric, trim plus hardware, thus that the maker gets what they require at the appropriate time to provide a completed product on deadline?Think of oneself because a entrepreneur initially plus a fashion designer second. If your fashion company fails, you’re the one that suffers. Keep the business aspect inside the forefront of your attention. Some people find this prospect exhilarating, while some can’t think of anything more horrifying. Still interested inside starting the own fashion company?I’m not a designer, can I nevertheless function inside the fashion industry?Yes … with no. For those who have the structure vision, you can pay peoplewith take the idea plus change it into a real pattern or design. This is sort of like what a creative director does. If this matches the situation, then you’d better have the business chops with get your company off the ground plus you’d better have a solid Core Value Proposition.What this means is that you must have a powerful company proposal plus offer a product that’s valuable plus sought after. That does not mean you may have to sell high-end couture clothing with rich people. Clothiers H&M plus Zara focus on quick ready-to-wear fashion at affordable pricepoints.There is more than one path with becoming a fashion designer. You can figure out how to sew plus go with design school with find out the ins-and-outs of the business. But not everyone learns with draw patterns plus stitch together garments. The keys with succeeding inside the fashion company are creativity, a superior company sense plus determination.Stay tuned for more advice on becoming a fashiondesigner.

YouTube Preview Image

About the Author: cursos de dise o moda




Permanent Link:


Online retailers in Canada experience strong growth

By | July 2, 2014

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 

Comscore Media Metrix Canada has reported that Online Retailers in Canada have seen significant increase in traffic to their websites. In December 2005, 17.9 million shopped retail web sites, an increase of 13 percent over December 2004.

At the top of the list is eBay with 10.9 million visitors, an increase of 16 percent over December 2004. Amazon was next with 6.5 million, an increase of 21 percent.

Best Buy, Canadian Tire, Apple, Sears, and Walmart are among the retailers who all saw an increase in online retail sales.

Flowers and home furnishings purchases also showed big increases from a year ago.