A flying condition concord would be easier to achive in the US. No health and safety bs and the FAA is usally pretty nice to groups who restore historic planes.

As for sonic booms they wouldn't bother me but then again when ever I see a DC9 taking off I run outside to hear and feel the rumble. It makes me sad that planes are getting so quite. I remember being a kid and hearing the jet rumble when they were at cruise now its barely a wisper overhead.

Ray, did you also happen to look on the Tu-144 by the way? NASA had/has one running. http://www.nasa-usa.de/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html

 

And it surely is a very impressive machine when it comes to the historical context. It even flew before Concorde took to the skies. A German museum features both planes, side by side.

 

Nice vid in another language.

 

Here's one showing the installation.

It was a marvel of human accomplishment, lets hope we can find a way to do it again in a more eco-responsible and efficient process.

!

 

 

 

For every one like you who enjoyed it, there were thousands who didn't. That's why we have noise regulations at airports.

To hell with them they shouldn't have bought homes near the airport if they are gonna cry about noise. We have a guy in my home town who lives next to the airport and complianed about the noise from small prop planes. Everytime I fly I buzz(within legal limits) his house just to ###### him off.

 

 

I wouldn't give much on a mic recording that boom. There are all kinds of variables in between until the actual sound is saved. You have a point on the size of the planes but that 'click' you are hearing isn't what the F-18 or other fighters put out.

Okay, point taken.

 

As for the envisioned Concorde model B engines (from back then), their planning stage would indeed have offered enough dry thrust to take Concorde to the skies and also accelerate properly to M2.0. One may relate a huge thrust increase with the reheats running but it's a very poor tradeoff when compared to the enormous increase in fuel flow. Hence their 'special' character on that plane and also their topmost priority when it came to planning for a later version, without that help.

 

I understand that Conc B could have accelerated to M2 on dry heat but I guess it would have taken longer. You will know of course that reheat was turned off at M1.7 and she accelerated to M2 on dry heat alone. Concorde was alone in its ability to do that. Even military jets couldn't.

 

No doubt the engines could have been enhanced to increase performance. Sadly we'll never know how it would have played out for real.

To hell with them they shouldn't have bought homes near the airport if they are gonna cry about noise. We have a guy in my home town who lives next to the airport and complianed about the noise from small prop planes. Everytime I fly I buzz(within legal limits) his house just to ###### him off.

 

 

With friends like you aviation doesn't need any enemies.

 

Anyway, many people were living near airports before long Concorde was introduced, and before air traffic reached its present levels.

With friends like you aviation doesn't need any enemies.

 

Anyway, many people were living near airports before long Concorde was introduced, and before air traffic reached its present levels.

Hey that guy started it. He bought the house then like a month later started calling the airport complaining. On a busy day like 4 planes takeoff and land so I don't feel bad about making him mad. He should know that we are pilots making us far more important than everyone else.(Just kidding)

And to think it was all designed on slide rules and full size paper drawings.

 

Anyone who buys a house near an airport and then complains about the noise should be laughed at over the phone.

 

It's like poking yourself in the forehead with a pencil and then complaining that it hurts.

Also have a look here. A series of short films making up a documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Concorde+The+Early+Years&search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=

Ray, did you also happen to look on the Tu-144 by the way? NASA had/has one running. http://www.nasa-usa....S-062-DFRC.html

The TU-144 was just a rip-off of Concorde. No way could they have dreamt up that design without having sight of the Concorde blueprints. And it was ugly. Too angular to give it any beauty. And the seats look as though they're straight out of EasyJet. Hardly Connelly leather! :smile:

 

 

And it surely is a very impressive machine when it comes to the historical context. It even flew before Concorde took to the skies. A German museum features both planes, side by side.

 

If they'd come up with the design independently then yes, it would have been.

This DVD of a complete Concorde flight from LHR to JFK and back probably remains the definitive production. It was recorded back in 1998 when the world was a different place.

 

http://www.itvv.com/product/Concorde

 I'm looking forward to flying the FSLabs ConcordeX. A magnificent rendition as you quite rightly say Oliver.

best payware in my fleet, beautiful addon.

(...)

 

This DVD of a complete Concorde flight from LHR to JFK and back probably remains the definitive production. It was recorded back in 1998 when the world was a different place.

 

http://www.itvv.com/product/Concorde

 

 

That's one of those rare "cockpit videos" that's really worth its money, Ray!

 

They don't rush through the systems, they don't mouth platitudes like "pull the yoke and the houses get smaller", no, they really have something/a lot to say. The included return flight again provides a wealth of information, largely different from the presentation of the first flight.

 

(...)

 

This vid here is rarely on offer anymore. It's about the beginning of Concorde, the rivalling "Concordsky", disturbing crashes, and, of course, the kind of debate we're having in your topic, too ( ). It's only 60 min but it covers a lot:

 

http://www.amazon.de/The-Concorde-Story-UK-Import/dp/B00006L9UR/ref=sr_1_30?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1382644594&sr=1-30&keywords=the+concorde+story

 

 

That's one of those rare "cockpit videos" that's really worth its money, Ray!

They don't rush through the systems, they don't mouth platitudes like "pull the yoke and the houses get smaller", no, they really have something/a lot to say. The included return flight again provides a wealth of information, largely different from the presentation of the first flight.

 

Actually Olli the whole ITVV series are very good. I've borrowed a few off Pete Dowson and have really enjoyed them.

 

This vid here is rarely on offer anymore. It's about the beginning of Concorde, the rivalling "Concordsky", disturbing crashes, and, of course, the kind of debate we're having in your topic, too ( ). It's only 60 min but it covers a lot:

 

I only understood "The Concorde Story" on that link. My German is non-existent. :(  Last Christmas my nephew bought me "The Concorde Story" by Christopher Orlebar widely considered to be the definitive book about the development and life of Concorde. I can recommend it as an ideal Christmas present.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Concorde-Story-Seventh-General-Aviation/dp/1849081638/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382651803&sr=1-1&keywords=concorde+story

 

 

Anyone who buys a house near an airport and then complains about the noise should be laughed at over the phone.

 

You must have missed the point that many people bought their houses before Concorde and before the present noise levels..

 

Do they just have to put up with it?