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.