[temphn]

Technological cul de sac and subsidized investment, yes.

But looks like the Air France Concorde crash was due to debris on the runway rather than the plane itself. Or were you thinking of something else?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Air_France_Fl...

A Continental Airlines DC-10 departing for Newark, New Jersey, lost a titanium alloy strip, 435 millimetres (17.1 in) long and about 29 millimetres (1.1 in) to 34 millimetres (1.3 in) wide, during takeoff from the same runway.

During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, cut a tyre causing rupture and tyre debris to be hurled by centrifugal force. A large chunk of this debris (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 pounds) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at an estimated speed of 500 kilometres per hour (310 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear.

[jberryman]

> But looks like the Air France Concorde crash was due to debris on the runway rather than the plane itself. Or were you thinking of something else?

I know nothing about the Concorde, etc. but that the crash was triggered by debris does not really refute that it was a poorly designed or dangerous aircraft, as that should be a design consideration of any aircraft (I assume).

[zb]

Exactly. If a blown tyre is enough to kill everyone on board, it's not an especially safe design. Note that tyres had burst on at least 4 previous occasions, so that was not exactly unforeseeable.