Why Concorde failed?

By SM Mansoor, Gulshan, Dhaka
11 November 2003, 18:00 PM
Photo: AFP
Although I have never flown in a concord, I feel for the great aircraft that has now became history. As an aircraft fan since my school days in the 1940s, I have studied a lot about aircraft and my background in engineering and metallurgy has helped me tremendously in understanding aircraft's engines and airframes.

Both Concorde and the Comet stretched the envelope of material design beyond the edge of safety based on prevalent knowledge. Multiple accidents in both the aircraft were caused due to the limitation of knowledge in material science. The comet failed because of fatigue and micro crack failure of sophisticated airframe metals, which possibly were not fully understood at that time. Similarly, most of Concorde's accidents -- both fatal and non fatal -- could be attributed to failure of the airframe.

Thus the era of supersonic flight has had its setbacks. I firmly believe that in the days to come, supersonic passenger flight will be a routine matter. In this respect, the Douglas DC-10 may be considered lucky.

Despite rear cargo door and engine mounting failures, which were the causes of the two fatal accidents, the DC-10 survived. However, its adverse publicity might have been the reason for the unpopularity and the lower preference for this model.

Be that as it may. As an aircraft fan, I salute the Concorde and its designers, pilots and engineers, who all were the pioneers in opening the era of supersonic passenger flight.