10 years since Concorde was grounded

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

Ray, did you ever see those concepts on the Concorde B model? With no reheats, extra lift devices and things? If she had sold well, that would most likely have been the next revision. Here's a rather optimistic take on it, still interesting to read and think. http://heritageconcorde.com/facts/concorde-b

 

Interesting article CoolP. I looked for cruise speed and LHR-JFK flight time but couldn't see it mentioned. Without reheats it would take far longer to reach optimum speed and cruise. More economical probably but slower.

 

 

Subsidising the rich so they can cross the Atlantic more quickly is pretty high on most peoples' list

 

Spoken like a true socialist! Yours is the one dissenting voice in this thread. :(

 

 

 

That's not surprising because its noise limits were tailored to suit it, and were much less restrictive than for other aircraft.

 

There was very fierce opposition in 1976 when BA was trying to get it cleared for flights into JFK. Obviously it would need different limits to sub-sonic aircraft but they were still very tight.

A plane for the rich is what I mostly saw the Concorde as.

 

Undoubtedly. But still a marvellous sight.

 

As far as being in a hurry to get somewhere, with video teleconferencing and internet so common place, physically getting somewhere fast is not that important any more.

 

 

That was its undoing I think especially for business people.

 

Also I feel the sonic boom restrictions would really hamper any attempt for another plane of its kind today.

 

 

It was incredibly loud. Check this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOyeuDKAlg

 

That's why there's never been another supersonic airliner.

[mgh 89]

 

 

Spoken like a true socialist! Yours is the one dissenting voice in this thread.

 

Being offensive is one way of avoiding the point.

 

There were plenty of dissenting voices even at the time. It would have been cancelled in 1964-1965 even before its first flight  the fools of politicians had included a break clause in the treaty.

[Paul Golding 92]

Whilst it may have had some government money funding it's development and then been sold to BA for £1 each, according to the interview on the BBC, even at the end of its life, Concorde was still making BA a profit of around £30M a year.  This doesn't seem like a commercial failure.

 

Whether or not it should have been paid for with tax-payer money doesn't come in to it as this still goes on today with both Airbus and Boeing benefiting from much the same thing, under the guise of spending on military hardware.

 

I do think that BA were wrong to not sell Concorde(s) to Virgin, and given that BA only paid the government £1 each for them, it should have been the government that stepped in and in some way force the sale.  Morally the right thing to do, even though it's probably not politically 'do-able'.

[VeryBumpy 272]

It was incredibly loud. Check this video. <delete>

That's why there's never been another supersonic airliner.

 

Seems you have to be there as no video I've found to date gives me a sense that its THAT loud. <shrug>

[Paul Golding 92]

Subsidising the rich so they can cross the Atlantic more quickly is pretty high on most peoples' list

How have you subsidised the rich, I wonder?  More likely that the rich are subsidising your medical care, community etc by virtue of the fact they pay more in taxes than the non-rich.  If they choose to spend their net income on expensive airline tickets that helped make an operational profit for BA, surely that's up to them.  And, for several decades, that has involved no contribution from you or I.

 

Obviously, if you were a tax-payer in the late 60's/early 70's, some of what I said is b***ocks.  Even so, you should really feel proud of the fact that some of your income taxes helped get Concorde built.

[steelman 3]

Hello, i almost never post in foruns but i`ve a story to tell.

Once upon a time in two diferent kingdoms, a Queen and King were born almost the same time, one flew fast and higher than the other, that was slower and flew lower. They never married because one ruled more people than the other with less money. So the King had is destiny fated since the beginning, he was setenced to death. Even now the Queen as her destiny fated to, to other princes and princesses.

Its a shame really, but money moves the world and when something doesnt make money, death is the way to go!!!

 

Regards

 

Alberto Freitas

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Being offensive is one way of avoiding the point.

 

There were plenty of dissenting voices even at the time. It would have been cancelled in 1964-1965 even before its first flight  the fools of politicians had included a break clause in the treaty.

 

 

+1: Criticizing politicians for wasting taxpayers' money isn't socialistic: It's necessary.

 

Even the most favourable Concorde coverage I'm aware of states the strong - and often well-founded - opposition of the project.

[Paul Golding 92]

There were plenty of dissenting voices even at the time. It would have been cancelled in 1964-1965 even before its first flight the fools of politicians had included a break clause in the treaty.

.......and then it could have joined the list of Labour government cancellations that spelled the demise of the UK aircraft industry.

 

I think that sometimes things that can be done, just have to be done.  I'm not sure what the benefit of going to the moon was, but I'm pleased the Americans spent a fortune doing it, just as I'm pleased we paid for Concorde.  Just a shame that TSR-2 got cancelled and that it was the Americans that took Barnes-Wallis' swing-wing designs because the UK thought them a waste of money........I don't suppose General Dynamics think that way.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

If we opposed every project that involved tax payers money, we would never make any progress.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

Being offensive is one way of avoiding the point.

The comment wasn't meant to cause offence. If you feel it did then I apologise.

 

 

There were plenty of dissenting voices even at the time. It would have been cancelled in 1964-1965 even before its first flight the fools of politicians had included a break clause in the treaty.

 

And there were probably dissenting voices in the US for the space programme and fracking. If governments listened to every protester nothing would ever get built.

 

On balance I believe Concorde was a success for the UK and aviation in general. if it wasn't we probably wouldn't be talking about it now.

[CoolP 283]

Interesting article CoolP. I looked for cruise speed and LHR-JFK flight time but couldn't see it mentioned. Without reheats it would take far longer to reach optimum speed and cruise. More economical probably but slower.

Nah, you have to read it like 'same speed, but without the need for reheats'. Mind you that the reheats weren't there to make it impressive or cool. Although they do. ^_^ But there was a thrust demand for the takeoff and parts of the acceleration regime. And the engines themselves, while already being a powerful pack at that time, weren't able to develop the thrust needed. Hence the rather unusual addition (for commercial passenger transport).

 

The economical factor being the cost of developing a completely new engine without reheats vs. sticking to the available basis (Vulcan 'derivative'). Now if the sales had shown a high demand and market for the plane, the more advanced engines and their development costs would have made sense. Most likely.

 

Important fact regarding the engine setup on Concorde of course is the role those intakes play, especially in the cruise regime. Only the combination rendered the supercruise operation feasible and, still, a benchmark. Similar projects like the Russian Tu-144 lacked this advanced intake setup. This doesn't necessarily stop you from reaching similar or even higher speeds, but severely impacts how much fuel you are burning per mile achieved. As pointed out, while at cruise, Concorde actually wasn't bad on the mileage. Don't ask for slower regimes though.

 

I think the low numbers of flying Concordes actually helped her with that. From reading the books, most airport surroundings could live with the special treatment for those few fast birds. 'No speed restriction'. With the later standard route just being the Paris/London to NY sector, this surely was the case. Maybe this even lead to the admiration in the first place. You wouldn't want a supersonic capable plane of her generation taking off or landing every 45 seconds, would you? ^_^

 

While I complained about little technological progress in previous posts, it's important to point out that the testing for a supersonic 'boom' suppression is ongoing and current by the way. Not sure if it's mainly for civil uses though.

 

 

Adding. There might be a very tiny market for biz jets being supersonic. The news on those come up here and there at times. One example. Well, none of them was/is aiming at Mach 2 though, they are mostly just above M1.5 or something. Surely avoiding the speeds lower than M1.2. Ok, some very enthusiastic concepts even go way beyond M2.0. But I think the materials being needed for those speeds still are a hurdle for, somehow, affordable commercial planes.

[mgh 89]

an operational profit for BA, surely that's up to them. And, for several decades, that has involved no contribution from you or I.

The only reason BA made an operational profit was because the taxpayers (you and I) ssubsidised it by giving it  Concorde for nothing.  Before then it made a loss. In February 1979, following a review of BA’s finances, it was concluded that the airline could not operate Concorde at a profit by normal, commercial standards and the Government decided to write off £160 million of public dividend capital associated with the acquisition of the Concorde fleet.

 

 

On balance I believe Concorde was a success for the UK and aviation in general. if it wasn't we probably wouldn't be talking about it now.

 

I disagree. Concorde sucked in all the development funds available for civil aviation in the UK and probably in France.

 

While the UK was wasting money on Concorde (and knowing it was wasting it), Boeing were developing the 747 in the same time frame.

 

First flight: Concorde 2 March 1969 - B747 9 Feb 1969 

In service: Concorde 21 January 1976 - B747 22 Jan 1970

Numbers: Concorde 14 - B747 1400+

 

Concorde development gave the American aircraft industry a free hand to develop wide bodied subsonic jet which was what the airlines wanted. As a consequence, Europe has been playing catch-up ever since.

 

Charles Tillinghurst, then President of TWA, hit the nail on the head when he said:

 

It must be the only airplane ever launched without some preliminary understanding with the airlines of what their requirements were and what the market for it might be.

 

A solution looking for a problem as they say, but Concorde never found it.

[DAL1850 51]

 

Once upon a time in two diferent kingdoms, a Queen and King were born almost the same time, one flew fast and higher than the other, that was slower and flew lower. They never married because one ruled more people than the other with less money. So the King had is destiny fated since the beginning, he was setenced to death. Even now the Queen as her destiny fated to, to other princes and princesses.

 

 

#####? :blink:

[Paul Golding 92]

A solution looking for a problem as they say, but Concorde never found it.

Unlike Apple, who seem to have kept on doing it.........do I really need an iPad?

 

As for the Concorde/747 comparison, I'm not sure that's fair Jerry.....kind of apples and oranges.  The UK lost all it's mainstream commercial aviation momentum with the Comet, though it's nice to us as a big contributor to Airbus......even if we (UK/BAe) don't own any of it any more.

 

All interesting stuff :Thinking:

[KSATRoadWarrior 91]

 

 

And there were probably dissenting voices in the US for the space programme and fracking. If governments listened to every protester nothing would ever get built.

 

Many times in order to advance you must "step off the edge"..........................

 

Interesting thread and a great aircraft that "stepped off the edge"...........................