Comments by "Alan hat" (@alanhat5252) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

  1.  @jeffk464  the wing was derived from Supermarine's racing experience, the 'plane was faster & more manoeuverable. I expect the pilots considered this advantageous in dogfights, certainly the video states that Spitfires went against fighters & Hurricanes against bombers when both were on the same scene.
    12
  2.  @Marcus51090  wrong type of opener. They open easily with the modern disc type openers or the spike type that was available when they were first designed.
    7
  3.  @Marcus51090  think yourself lucky, at least you've got an opener you can struggle with, openers weren't even invented till cans had been on the market for 5 years or more!
    5
  4.  @the.parks.of.no.return  the wheel spacer was not critical to takeoff or flight but would have caused problems on landing. The overweight issue did not prevent takeoff or flight & was reduced by the aircraft sitting on the apron for an hour with 4 very large & powerful engines consuming fuel. The fatal problem was that wing tank 5 was overfilled so that there was no airgap (probably because the Captain had transferred the aft tank's fuel because the aircraft was tail-heavy due to all tanks being filled to maximum on the Captain's orders). When 9.9lbs of rubber struck the tank at 310mph the shockwave that should have dissipated in the airgap instead split the tank, spraying fuel across an electric arc & lighting it. At this point it was too late to abort the takeoff & flight had to be attempted.
    4
  5.  @kristinesharp6286  no, this is documentary not propaganda.
    3
  6. @moi2833 no need to take the p1ss, just learn what bad government can do to people
    2
  7. many of the survival skills were taught at school
    2
  8. "untold" because it was & is widely seen as a propaganda campaign to keep Mrs Thatcher in power at a time when she was doing enormous harm to the British people, harm from which we have never recovered. It was widely understood that if Thatcher's position wasn't so fragile the islands would have been left to their fate.
    1
  9.  @the.parks.of.no.return  you may wish to check your sources. It seems several things went wrong that day but the most critical was the damage following striking the debris, debris that was not a lie, was very real & was lying on the runway. I found this on Heritage Concorde website but Wikipedia & several other knowledgeable websites state the same details gleaned from the accident investigation report "Account of the accident Post-accident investigation revealed that the aircraft was at or over the maximum takeoff weight for ambient temperature and other conditions, and 810 kilograms (1,790 lb) over the maximum structural weight. As it left the gate, it was loaded such that the centre of gravity was excessively far aft. Fuel transfer during taxiing may have overfilled the number five wing tank. A twelve-inch spacer that normally keeps the left main landing gear in alignment had not been replaced after recent maintenance; however, the French Bureau for Accident Investigation concluded that this did not contribute to the accident. The wind at the airport was light and variable that day, and was reported to the cockpit crew as an eight knot tail wind as they lined up on runway 26R. Over an hour delayed, the crew proceeded with the tailwind takeoff rather than taking the time to taxi to the other end of the runway to make the takeoff into a headwind, as is normally done. Five minutes before the Concorde, a Continental Airlines DC-10 departing for Newark, New Jersey, had lost a titanium alloy strip (part of the engine cowl, identified as a wear strip), 435 millimetres (17.1 in) long, 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 in) wide and about 1.4 millimetres (0.055 in) thick, during takeoff from the same runway. French authorities acknowledged that a required runway inspection was not completed after the Continental takeoff, as was protocol for Concorde takeoff preparation. During the Concorde's subsequent takeoff run this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, cut a tyre, rupturing it. A large chunk of tyre debris (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 pounds) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing at an estimated speed of 140 metres per second (310 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the undercarriage. Leaking fuel gushing out from the bottom of the wing was most likely ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but engine one slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a fire warning and the Captain's command. Air traffic controller Gilles Logelin noticed the flames before the Concorde was airborne, however with only 2 km of runway remaining and travelling at a speed of 328 km/h, its only option was to take off. The Concorde would have needed at least 3 km of runway to abort safely. Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the takeoff, but the plane did not gain enough airspeed with the three remaining engines, because the severed electrical cables prevented the retraction of the undercarriage. The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, maintaining a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, which began to disintegrate—melted by the extremely high temperatures. Engine number one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four in an attempt to level the aircraft, but with falling airspeed they lost control and the aircraft stalled, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport."
    1