autogyro wrote:Where is the Concorde now?????
Concorde simply wasn't commerically viable. It was technically brilliant, there was just no profit in the market for a supersonic airliner.
Why would a company run something that lost them money when jumbos were raking it in?
This is totally different to plugging a technology with inherent flaws because it has a feel good green factor.
Not using somthing that does work is not the same as trying to use something that doesn't.
Not using something that does work is exactly the point.
If money, politics and greed had not controlled aviation development, the aircraft in use now for public air transport would not be Jumbo,s but developed versions of the Fairey Rotodyne, with no need for runways.
It is the same with vehicle development,motor sport and F1.
It is simple to maintain and develop the status quo but far more difficult to search and find credible alternatives.
The most effective course is hardly ever the technical route chosen in any human activity, simply because the final decision is not ever solely a technical one.
Unfortunately in F1 highly complex technical data is practically all that is used to make decisions and it stultifies development.
Disclaimer: This is not to say wind power/EV/etc etc don't have a place or will become viable in the future. It's just at the moment they arent the most effective courses to pursue.