Re: CONCORDE VS DELOREAN

["Dan" <danielpwillis@xxxx>]

I find it hard to compare the two in either financial or technological 
terms.

After all... the Concorde was a success regardless of money.

Also the development of the Concorde helped development of future 
supersonic aircraft (design/engines etc) whereas the DeLorean helped..
. well, us to be enthusiasts.

Maybe I'm missing the point... ;oP

Dan
Hoping to be Vin-less soon...


"yellowmanwell" <andymabbitt@xxxx> wrote:
> Ok - and this may have been mentioned before but I felt it 
> particularly pertinent at the moment since everyone is banging on 
> about Concorde's final flight. I made an interesting discovery 
today. 
> I was talking to a guy who worked in financial circles in the past 
> and he reckons that when taking into account research, development 
> etc, each Concorde cost the government about £1.32billion. (I 
believe 
> they sold each Concorde to BA for about a pound). During their 
> working lives each Concorde brought in about £600 million. Which 
> leaves about a £700 million gap on EACH OPERATING CONCORDE. Does 
> anyone notice anything significant about people continually moaning 
> about a few quid that DMC (ok ganted, a few million quid) blew away 
> in the few years it was operating. I am quite willing to agree that 
> these figures may be approx. but even so there is a hefty deficit.
> 
> Yeah ok, so Concorde might look cool, but does it have gull wing 
> doors? I think not.