# The Concorde



## Alejandro_MEX (Aug 23, 2005)

*Hey everyone!

I would like to make a thread about the fabulous Concorde and some supersonic aircraft like the one that is beeing made mainly by Japan and will fill that space the Condorde left.

This image is ABSOLUTELY MAJESTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

Isn't the USA making one too. I wish i could have rode in one of these while they were still around granted i got cheap tickets.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Boeing and others have designs more or less ready to take to production within 5 years or less, but nobody wants to buy them. They're too expensive to run, and there's no economically and politically-viable route between the east and west coasts of the US where they could run at supersonic speeds. International flights aren't much better. If you add up all the really, REALLY rich people who fly between two specific international destinations on a regular basis, there aren't many that have enough demand to justify regular service. Even the New York - London Concorde regularly flew with lots of empty seats... and that's just about the most heavily-traveled city pair with lots of wealthy residents in the world.

The only overland route that's politically viable for flights between the east and west coasts of the US is extreme northern Canada. The problem is that they'd need Canada's permission (far from assured), they'd have to pay the few people who lived there to compensate them for putting up with an occasional sonic boom, and (the deal-killer) the actual travel distance would almost double. Even at supersonic speeds, a flight from New York to LA would take at least 3 hours when you factor in the 3,000 mile detour to the arctic circle. NOBODY is going to pay a $5,000 premium to get to L.A. in 3 hours instead of 5.

If a direct 5-hour flight from New York to Seattle were available, I doubt even Bill Gates would willingly pay that much extra just to save 2 hours. Seattle to Miami in 3 hours... maybe. Especially if the alternative were a 9-hour flight with layover. But definitely not for 3 hour Seattle-NYC.

Boeing also has a semi-spaceplane designed that goes high enough to allow supersonic overland travel. The problem is, it would STILL have to fly offshore at subsonic speeds to take off or land. New York - Los Angeles or Miami - Seattle might still be viable, but city pairs at similar latitudes would involve an expensive thousand-mile (or more) detour at the other end for the final descent.


----------



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

What is the purpose of drafting designs for an aircraft that is not economically viable and mentioning it to potential customers, other than embarrassing themselves within their own market? :?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make an SST design work, it must eliminate the two major pitfalls of Concorde:

*1 - Sonic Boom.* A new design must utilize modern theory that can significanly reduce the noise level, or with possible future research [Busemann] eliminate it completely.

*2 - Petrol & Other Fossil Fuels.* Prices fluxuate far too much to warrant their utilisation in an aircraft where profit margin is so delicate.

:grouphug:


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Many companies have worked on designs. Few have gotten them to the point where they could be built iwithin five years. But tha fact is that supersonic planes do exist - in teh military at least, and they COULD be built for comercial uses.

I think the Sound Effect is a bit of a red herring - the only three cities in the US that would likely be able to support the type of clientel who would benefit from such a fast flight are New York, Los Angeles, and Miami. All of which sit onthe cost. Likewise, most of the routes would take them to other costal cities, and there would not be a huge amount of over-land travel. And of those few routes, many of those would be over non-inhabited areas (circle routes to Asia going over Canada and Russia). 

Large scale supersonic transports are out, but large aircraft are really more about budget flying that luxury anyway. When it comes to the market for supersonic flights, they are going to be more interested in small planes, even private planes. the airline that next gets supersonic planes will be looking at more of an air charter/taxi service than anything else.

So what it comes down to is less a matter of technological limits than of buisiness practice limits and fear of the traditional airlines to try new approaches.


----------



## Luis regio+tapatio (Oct 19, 2004)

I have a quesiton. If the concorde is soo expensive to run

why did the concordes flight for about 30 years??


----------



## Erebus555 (Apr 21, 2006)

It was a symbol and it was expected to take over all other forms of air travel but the problem is, it was way ahead of its time. We are still developing the jet engine and this was like running a marathon right after taking your first step.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Aside from fuel, the Concorde's other problem was its insanely loud engines. Even at subsonic speeds, its engines were loud enough to make your ears bleed if you were nearby, didn't have ear protection, and were exposed for more than a few moments (think: 727 or L-1011 circa late 1970s). The first time I even became aware of occasional Concorde flights to Miami was once when I lived out a few miles west of the airport (~15 years ago), and one early evening (Sunday, I think) a jet flew over that was *so* loud (compared to even 727s) that I thought for sure it was just a few hundred feet above the roof and was going to crash a few blocks away. As in, the closed windows were rattling, the TV was totally drowned out, and every single car alarm in the parking lot went off. It was the only one I ever heard... but _damn_, it was loud. For comparison, 727s were loud enough to hear indoors... but not so loud that it would ever wake you up, or drown out what was on TV.


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

^^ So there were two noise problems that the Concorde had: that of its' engines and that of the sonic boom?


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Well, in Concorde's defense, I think *all* jet engines from its era were loud. Concorde's were louder than the rest, but I suspect a new SST jet engine would probably be a LOT quieter at subsonic speeds.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

On take off, yes, when afterburners were turned on (reheats, to those in Europe). 

The Concorde technology really may have been a little too far ahead of itself. While we have now solved many of those issues, at the time Concorde was deisgned we had barely begun researching them. We had never really had anything like - anything that would lfy that fast for that long with that much weight. I think it was just one step beyond capabilities at the time. I would be very curious as to what things would turn out to look like now given the experience and knowledge we have built up over hte last 30 years. Anyone have any developments from these new projects?


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

What was the lowest altitude at which Concorde flew at supersonic speed?


----------



## cinosanap (Aug 10, 2004)

I heard that concorde was a harder achievement than getting a man on the moon.
True?


----------



## FallenGuard (Nov 2, 2006)

Mr. Fusion said:


> *1 - Sonic Boom.* A new design must utilize modern theory that can significanly reduce the noise level, or with possible future research [Busemann] eliminate it completely.
> :grouphug:


How can a Sonic Boom possibly be eliminated !? I know of active noise-reduction techniques that are applied in modern Turboprops (the noise is recorded, and an exact opposite of it is projected, which eliminates the noise), but the Sonic Boom is a completely different thing.


----------



## wiki (Mar 30, 2006)

to the only south, central america and the caribbean that the concorde flew was to barbados here in the caribbean and it was amazing seen that plane into that sunny island, amazing


----------



## Escoto_Dubai2008 (Mar 14, 2006)

The Concorde has a place in history, I hope that maybe in the future the engineers will design a new fastest plane, and when that happens the people will tell about this wonderful plane the Concorde.

I'll always remember the Concorde although I didn't have the oportunity to flight in it.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Me too

but Paris New York was expensive 
5000 € I think.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

a lot more as far as i know


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)

*(photo, Carl Ford), Air France Pepsi Concorde (photo, APG)*


----------



## Don Porfirio Díaz (May 8, 2015)

12


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)

*Aerospatiale BAC Concorde Full-throttle Takeoff Aircraft Wallpaper 3182*


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)

*(G-BOAE Aisle on G-BOAE with 2001 designed Connelly Leather Seats, and Joe H. Mitchell next to Bulkhead readout at Mach 2 and 56,500 feet.*


----------



## gentem (Apr 19, 2010)

actually concorde will be useful only for long distance flights.. like dubai-ny or singapore-la... for london or paris to new york, existing flight time of 9 hours is very much bearable. 

they can wait for sonic boom speed until it moves over sea, and slow it down before it comes over land..


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Alas, it only had a 3900nm range, so could not do those routes. It was a plane before it's time.


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)

Beautiful.


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)

There is no Concorde thread in aviation board. Please move this thread there.










https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#/media/File:ConcordeCockpitSinsheim.jpg


----------



## mrsmartman (Mar 16, 2015)




----------

