9 hours ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

To be honest, I've often wondered how the USA ATC system gets to do some of the things they do, and his story emphasises the point... Another one I'm not keen on is the practice of clearing multiple aircraft to land on approach as a kind of "unless you hear otherwise, you're clear".  The runway should be empty before receiving a clearance. 

That sounds unusual to say the least. Clearance should be specific to each aircraft so there is no ambiguity.

37 minutes ago, Canine Crew said:

@Ray Proudfoot Obviously tempted now! 🙂 Still find it mind blowing that I could choose whether to do a London-Athens rotation in the 320 or London-JFK rotation in the Concorde, and it takes the same amount of time.

Maybe now I would be interested in learning a "full-on" Concorde...........

I should be a salesman! 😁 Even though it's a sim there is still an element of excitement when you start the take-off roll given there's no such thing as a derated take-off - even on the shortest flights. Reheats armed, throttles slammed forward and off you go like a Formula 1 car.

There are so many routes that the real Concorde didn't fly that I have created. How about the entire length of the Med from Ben Gurion, Israel to Malaga in around 2 hours.

Overtaking a 747 at Mach 1.15 is also interesting. That's faster than his cruise speed! 😁 Would the sonic boom be audible inside the 747? Frazz would know.

Wow, this thread about Concorde is more active than the whole Concorde-X section of the FS-Labs forum during the last few months... 👍

As tempting as it might be for some to buy and fly Concorde, it's too bad that the product is no longer sold by FS-Labs, which is a shame. I have no clue why they "decommissioned" the plane the same way it was done to the real counterpart in 2003. It's ironic, though, that you can still buy SSTSIM for FS9 (!)  (Imagine, a product that was released as far back as in 2005).

As impressive as the exterior model and the virtual cockpit of the AH Concorde may look, it is no viable option for serious fans of this plane if the system lacks the depth provided by FSL (and even FSL did not the fuelburn implementation quite correctly - hence why I modified the files). If FSL are worried about whether to make the plane for FS2020 or P3D, is that relevant in light of the information that FS2020 will be able to handle legacy airplanes?  Also, if a sim aircraft developer makes a good exterior model and everything else, don't they end up having a good template that can be used for any sim?

I hope FSL will be motivated to overhaul the Concorde after FS2020 will be released, but that is not set in stone. Maybe after they will have produced all versions of the Airbus and they won't know what to do next...

30 minutes ago, Afterburner said:

Wow, this thread about Concorde is more active than the whole Concorde-X section of the FS-Labs forum during the last few months... 👍

If FSL are worried about whether to make the plane for FS2020 or P3D, is that relevant in light of the information that FS2020 will be able to handle legacy airplanes?  Also, if a sim aircraft developer makes a good exterior model and everything else, don't they end up having a good template that can be used for any sim?

I hope FSL will be motivated to overhaul the Concorde after FS2020 will be released, but that is not set in stone. Maybe after they will have produced all versions of the Airbus and they won't know what to do next...

You may have spotted another Concorde fan from the FSL forum here. 😃 Once I'm on a roll I find it hard to stop.

There's an interest comment from Andrew over on the A330 topic in the General section. If they had wanted to do a compatibility version it would already have been done. That's a curious statement which suggests they have MFS already since there's no compatibility mode for P3D v5. Unless of course he just meant no change to the graphics. I suspect it was that on reflection. He also said they're well aware there is a strong interest in a 64-bit version.

I feel it's important to keep discussion on Concorde going. Yes, strange decision to withdraw the FSX/P3D version when for very little effort it could have been made freeware and allowed people to have a free trial which could well have boosted sales when / if the 64-bit version is released for a platform yet unknown.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That sounds unusual to say the least. Clearance should be specific to each aircraft so there is no ambiguity.

A Concorde SEO who once flew the DC10 said he hated flying into LAX because of this.  In his words "they just prattle out instructions and hope the crews keep up!".  This business of clearing two or three to land before the first is on the runway is allegedly to reduce time between landings, but then you've got to ask exactly how close are they...?

It leads to a lot of go-around calls by ATC after being cleared to land, which can lead to confusion and danger.  

49 minutes ago, Afterburner said:

Wow, this thread about Concorde is more active than the whole Concorde-X section of the FS-Labs forum during the last few months... 👍

As tempting as it might be for some to buy and fly Concorde, it's too bad that the product is no longer sold by FS-Labs, which is a shame. I have no clue why they "decommissioned" the plane the same way it was done to the real counterpart in 2003. It's ironic, though, that you can still buy SSTSIM for FS9 (!)  (Imagine, a product that was released as far back as in 2005).

As impressive as the exterior model and the virtual cockpit of the AH Concorde may look, it is no viable option for serious fans of this plane if the system lacks the depth provided by FSL (and even FSL did not the fuelburn implementation quite correctly - hence why I modified the files). If FSL are worried about whether to make the plane for FS2020 or P3D, is that relevant in light of the information that FS2020 will be able to handle legacy airplanes?  Also, if a sim aircraft developer makes a good exterior model and everything else, don't they end up having a good template that can be used for any sim?

I hope FSL will be motivated to overhaul the Concorde after FS2020 will be released, but that is not set in stone. Maybe after they will have produced all versions of the Airbus and they won't know what to do next...

I think we've all de-camped for a change of scenery! 

I think they'll do something with it eventually, but when is an open question.

23 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You may have spotted another Concorde fan from the FSL forum here. 😃 Once I'm on a roll I find it hard to stop.

There's an interest comment from Andrew over on the A330 topic in the General section. If they had wanted to do a compatibility version it would already have been done. That's a curious statement which suggests they have MFS already since there's no compatibility mode for P3D v5. Unless of course he just meant no change to the graphics. I suspect it was that on reflection. He also said they're well aware there is a strong interest in a 64-bit version.

I feel it's important to keep discussion on Concorde going. Yes, strange decision to withdraw the FSX/P3D version when for very little effort it could have been made freeware and allowed people to have a free trial which could well have boosted sales when / if the 64-bit version is released for a platform yet unknown.

Who might that be??

Your second point here is EXACTLY what I have said several times is it not...? 🤔

It was always their plan (when they surveyed interest) to revamp Concorde if making a 64-bit version, mainly because it will be the last development from them of the aircraft, so I believe their thinking was to make it as good as it possibly could be then that's it. 

Been over the freeware thing many times and it links to another topic in this thread - should not be made free when people have invested so much time and money, and I think in a business sense the number of people viewing it as a trial would be minimal.  If anything, folk might not spend the money on a new version when they have a very good version for free. 

@trumpetfrazz1, on your ATC point that sounds like a while back. It would be interesting to hear from an American ATC whether that was still current practice although we are drifting away from the topic.

On your next post there was certainly clamour from several for a quick conversion to 64-bit and leave the graphics untouched. All people can do is ask. Hopefully their refusal to do that means they are serious about a totally new version... eventually.

Regarding giving away software previously charged for just look at Radar Contact v4. No complaints about it being free now. Sometimes it just works.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 

Overtaking a 747 at Mach 1.15 is also interesting. That's faster than his cruise speed! 😁 Would the sonic boom be audible inside the 747? Frazz would know.

I’ve only been overtaken in the 747 by Concorde the one time that I know of ,coasting in over Newfoundland. We heard him on the radio so knew to look out.

It was way higher than us, just a little dot really but still going very fast in comparison to our M.85 so possibly still supersonic ... we didn’t hear a thing

Ref American ATC,” cleared to land “over there basically means ATC give you permission to legally land at the airport.  Unlike in the U.K. where it basically means you have permission and the runway is indeed physically clear.

So in the states you could be number 5 to land but still be given a  “ cleared to land’  call

30 minutes ago, jon b said:

I’ve only been overtaken in the 747 by Concorde the one time that I know of ,coasting in over Newfoundland. We heard him on the radio so knew to look out.

It was way higher than us, just a little dot really but still going very fast in comparison to our M.85 so possibly still supersonic ... we didn’t hear a thing

Thanks for that Jon, much appreciated. He would have been at Mach 2.0 around FL550 depending on the upper air temp and still drifting upwards. 20,000ft above you. Given he was visible to you the sonic boom would have been very audible indeed had you been outside. Just goes to show how well sound-proofed your aircraft is given how loud the boom is.

Concorde would start the deceleration and descent into JFK around 55nm inbound to KENDA on the special Concorde routing. So still a long way to go for him. Another 30mins probably.

Hope you and your family are keeping well up there in th’ills. 👍

@Ray Proudfoot am I right in thinking Radar Contact will never be upgraded now?  Years since I used it. 

As has been confirmed by another poster, it still happens, plus over the pond there can be local procedures as opposed to national etc.  I think it's a silly system, but like Chicago, it won't be till a significant incident is attributed to it that rules will change.  The number of runway incursions per day used to be appalling (haven't looked for a while) but no wonder...

It was possible to be boomed in a subsonic by a Concorde and has happened, as has one Concorde boomed another near New York when spacing/timing of the arriving flight and departing flight was too close.  The passengers were warned because of course the flights were close in altitude and the acceleration boom is of a higher intensity than the cruise boom.  

@trumpetfrazz1, RC4 was released back in 2006 and won an AvSim award that year. There will never be a RC5. We started work on SIDS and STARs but the effort was monumental and John gave up. Pity but RC4 can be downloaded from the top pinned topic on the RC Forum here at AvSim.

Interesting fact about the pax being warned about the boom. Not much would phase a Concorde passenger I would imagine.

Incidentally, that video of the boom was recorded in the English Channel near the waypoint TESGO, due south of Southampton. The AF Concorde enroute to JFK I imagine.

I also really think it could be cool is some people made basic retro versions of airports (even freeware), with airports like Stapelton, older JFK and LHR and Templeholf. Something feels odd to me about taxiing a Concorde past Terminal 5 at LHR. You can always dream...

I think there's a lot larger market for retro things than people think. Just imagine a Landor Concorde into Templeholf... 

@Ray Proudfoot Why don't you work some magic in the FSL forums........😁 really interesting thread here though!

@Canine Crew, at Heathrow Concorde operated out of T4, stand 421. The closest to the check-in and also the road outside. If it was still operating I imagine it would remain there and not T5. The taxi to 27L was very short too. I always thought T5 was at the wrong end of the airport.

Similarly, the BA terminal is still at the NE corner of JFK and very close to 31R where she invariably landed.

I’ve said all I can over at FSL. This discussion started because of the AH announcement but has grown far more than I imagined. 👍