Do you miss the concord

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nec208

Guest
Now that the concord is dead and supersonic flight is dead now and there will be no more supersonic flight now.

Has they moved to size not speed.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Do I miss the Concorde? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh no. That was one fiasco that the USA didn't get snookered into. Flying a few fat cat snobs over the oceans at a loss on every flight. Since I never had a fighting chance to get to ride in one I can't say that I miss it a bit. Better that Boeing spent it's money on the B-747 in which I did get to take a once in a lifetime trip to Japan all for less than a one way ticket to London would have cost in the Concorde.
 
S

SJQ

Guest
Never flew in the Concorde myself, but I did have a chance to crawl though the one parked in Toulouse France, which, retired as it is, still holds an FAI speed record. Nice toy..... I want! :D

Tehnologically, the Concorde was a successful aircraft, and they aged very well (atmospheric heating of the skin kept the interior dry, preventing corrosion). Financially, not so much a success. But I think that if the aircraft had been allowed to operate supersonically over the US, there would be more than enough demand to keep the aircraft in service today.

I would have thought that one or two aircraft would still be used for high-altitude/high-velocity research, though. The cabin volume isn't large compared to other aircraft, but any researcher would kill for that much in situ lab space. The Concorde could not be used for scramjet full-power test operations (not high-enough/fast-enough), for example, but the scramjet subsonic and start-up regimes could be more fully characterized, under actual conditions, using larger test articles - size does matter, and ground-based wind tunnels aren't all that common/representative. There's something called a Reynold's Number, which allows scaling, but nothing beats the real thing. CFD computer techniques are extremely useful during the design process, but eventually you have to cut metal to prove the CFD model really is valid.....
 
N

nec208

Guest
There is no plans for a new concord ? Is supersonic flight dead now

It seems they shift from speed to size now.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
There is some interest in a supersonic business jet. The French are looking at such a plane similar to the Falcon series. But building a supersonic jet with enough capacity for a commercial airline to make money is still a way off. Plus there is still that pesky ban on flying at supersonic speeds over populated land masses. Which Mythbusters proved is totally bogus
 
N

nec208

Guest
Plus there is still that pesky ban on flying at supersonic speeds over populated land masses. Which Mythbusters proved is totally bogus
Why is that ? Do to noise?



But building a supersonic jet with enough capacity for a commercial airline to make money is still a way off

What about other fuel than jet fuel?
 
N

nec208

Guest
nec208":15gzoyi3 said:
Plus there is still that pesky ban on flying at supersonic speeds over populated land masses. Which Mythbusters proved is totally bogus
Why is that ? Do to noise?



But building a supersonic jet with enough capacity for a commercial airline to make money is still a way off
What about other fuel than jet fuel?
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
I got to celebrate the turn of the century three times thanks to the Concorde. It was an amazing flight and an amazing bird.

What are you suggesting other than jet fuel? Wishes and unicorn dust maybe?
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
There is a widely held belief that ALL sonic booms result in broken glass and burst eardrums. The truth is that a supersonic airliner at 40,000 ft would generate a boom that would barely be perceptable on the ground. Heck mythbusters with the cooperation of the US Navy Blue Angels showed that even at 500 ft altitude very little damage is done at least in the form of broken glass.

And it's not just fuel that makes supersonic flight expensive. There is the small cabin and the high need for routine maintenance.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
As the pilot announced: "If you feel like you have more legroom now, it's because you do"

Streeeeetch! :D

That Raptor I photographed at the airshow wasn't breaking the sound barrier, but boy was he settin' off the car alarms, knocking squirrels out of trees, and otherwise rattling windows. But that was on the deck at full throttle. I doubt a supersonic boom at 50kft is going to be anywhere near that.
 
N

nec208

Guest
adrenalynn":bm9j9srx said:
I got to celebrate the turn of the century three times thanks to the Concorde. It was an amazing flight and an amazing bird.

What are you suggesting other than jet fuel? Wishes and unicorn dust maybe?

I'm not going to spoon feed you look up starting with Bi -----.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Note to the op: It's "Concorde" not "Concord." ;)

And I certainly DO miss her - having worked alongside her for 28 years at British Airways. Such a photogenic aircraft as well:


Flying with the Red Arrows



We actually managed to perform the amazing feat at BA Engineering once, in getting FOUR Concordes serviceable at the same time in order to have them all flying together during a promotion.










 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Perhaps I seemed a little harsh with my first response. As a beautiful airplane I agree the Concorde had no equal and whether or not there will ever be another successful supersonic airliner, it holds a place in aviation history that the British and French can be proud of.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Dude. Four Concordes in formation? That is awesome.

I miss Concorde, even though I could never afford to fly in one. There was a brief time when they were talking about bringing them in to Rochester, MN for all the rich people using the Mayo Clinic. I'm not sure if it fell down because of the FAA or because of inadequate financing or what. It would've been awesome. I've only seen a couple of Concordes ever, apart from the one that's a static display at the French air & space museum at Orly. (That is an awesome museum, by the way. You really must go if you are ever in Paris.) And of course, a Concorde once appeared on Doctor Who, which earns some geek cred from me. But mostly, they're just such beautiful birds.

It was money that did them in, of course. There aren't enough passengers willing to pay that much. It makes me seriously wonder how Virgin Galactic is going to stay afloat, but time will tell, I suppose.
 
N

nec208

Guest
CalliArcale":1995t0h0 said:
Dude. Four Concordes in formation? That is awesome.

I miss Concorde, even though I could never afford to fly in one. There was a brief time when they were talking about bringing them in to Rochester, MN for all the rich people using the Mayo Clinic. I'm not sure if it fell down because of the FAA or because of inadequate financing or what. It would've been awesome. I've only seen a couple of Concordes ever, apart from the one that's a static display at the French air & space museum at Orly. (That is an awesome museum, by the way. You really must go if you are ever in Paris.) And of course, a Concorde once appeared on Doctor Who, which earns some geek cred from me. But mostly, they're just such beautiful birds.

It was money that did them in, of course. There aren't enough passengers willing to pay that much. It makes me seriously wonder how Virgin Galactic is going to stay afloat, but time will tell, I suppose.
It not really technology that is problem why it cost so much but jet fuel is very costly.So if the fuel problem is not fixed than well no new Concorde and all hypersonic planes are dead.Say goodbye to hypersonic planes .
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
It wasn't just fuel as it burned kerosene. It was fuel hungry engines needing that fuel to push it that fast. It was more the small cabin size compared to the overall size of the plane and it's engines. Newer technology engines still burning kerosene are more efficient for the same amount of thrust. But the overall shape of the airframe makes it difficult to make enough space for passengers. Whereas the B-747 and Airbus 380 have large spacious cabins with up to 800 passengers and can fly at about 90% mach 1. It's just a matter of economics.

From what I have read and heard the Concorde lost money on every flight, even with the cabin full.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
bdewoody":2dnz1ta7 said:
... From what I have read and heard the Concorde lost money on every flight, even with the cabin full.
Overall, during the whole time it was in service it did lose money. And quite a large amount of money as well.

However, I don't know about Air France but as far as British Airways was concerned, when Colin Marshall (now Lord Marshall) first took over as CEO in 1983 he really shook some life into Concorde, even to the extent of getting serviceable G-BOAG which had been sitting gathering dust in one of our hangers for several years without flying at all. For the whole of their time in service with BA after that until they retired, our fleet of seven concordes made a healthy profit from the London-New York route and from many charters for the rich.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
CalliArcale":2gvf40oi said:
Dude. Four Concordes in formation? That is awesome.

It was money that did them in, of course. There aren't enough passengers willing to pay that much. It makes me seriously wonder how Virgin Galactic is going to stay afloat, but time will tell, I suppose.
I got to poke around inside and outside the one in Seattle when it first got there, truly a work of art but up-close it wasn't that different then any other airplane and showed the wear and tear of many years of service. In the time Concorde was conceived it would have changed everything, by the time it finally came in to service things had changed, deregulation in the U.S. being the primary driver. Priorities changed, cheap fares and cheaper and more economical airplanes were the driving forcefor the airlines to stay alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY