39 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Believe me if any head of state had access to a supersonic aircraft they would have found a reason to use it.

If we really wanted to we could probably convert a B1 to have 10-15 passenger seats and get the president his supersonic transport. But we wouldn't want to.

The real problem is that you'd have to sacrifice a lot of stuff that you can do at subsonic speeds unless you came up with a supersonic aircraft the size of a 747. And even then the logistics would be obnoxious, because, in the USA's case, it's not just AF1 taking that trip. There are cargo planes to carry the motorcade vehicles/etc, other passenger planes to carry press and members of staff not exalted enough to be on AF1, a foreign trip requirement that the Nightwatch nuclear aftermath command aircraft (another 747) travel with AF1, and so on. The reason the president doesn't need supersonic transport is because AF1 is a mobile White House. He can run the country from it, so whether he's 3 or 10 hours away from the White House doesn't really matter. You'd have to give up a lot of things today's AF1 can do to go supersonic because supersonic planes tend to be considerably smaller than 747s. 

@Paraffin, can’t see that project getting off the ground. Is there a need for supersonic travel for the President when most of his flights are internal to the US. Plus the travelling entourage which makes the 747 the best choice.

Unless the rules of physics change no chance of the sonic boom disappearing. Have you heard how loud Concorde’s was? This is in the English Channel with an AF Concorde enroute to the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE

 

@eslader, agree. The difference is the British PM had access to the national flag carrier’s Concorde so with a bit of arm twisting it was easy to get BA to supply one.

Would a B1 require the head of state to wear a pressure suit and bone dome? Tricky to drink champagne! 😁

Many people were surprised just how small Concorde was. 2x2 but plenty of leg room. Windows were necessarily tiny. But it still pulled people like no other. Imagine performance comparable to an F1 car on takeoff. 0-250mph in around 50 secs. 😳

46 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Imagine performance comparable to an F1 car on takeoff. 0-250mph in around 50 secs.

I definitely regret that I never got the chance to fly in it. Maybe my luck will change when/if they bring out the next-gen SST.

 

 

20 hours ago, Chock said:

......I have told that dispatcher that it was 'tough sh**' and not loaded the bags. Logistical problems are infinitely preferable to over one hundred people dead.

 

There had been previous incidents of AF Concordes shedding rubber on tire blowouts, but this was mostly as a result of AF having a tire replacement schedule which was not as strict as that at BA, including Air France using re-treaded tires on their Concordes.

This is why I get annoyed with people trying to dodge the max baggage allowance and annoyed at, shall we say, "large" people getting offended at having to pay for extra seating. Short story - overweight aeroplanes end up in a fireball beyond the end of the runway... 

The tyre issue is what happens when you fit Michelins instead of Dunlops...  

 

18 hours ago, SAS443 said:

the Concorde is (was?) a formidable gas guzzler, and could not contend with rising gas prices..

No other civilian airliner and not many military craft can supercruise at Mach 2 (no reheat). Who wants to fly for 8 hours or more with nothing much to see once you're 7 miles or more up? I would love to get from London to Tokyo in less than an hour should the opportunity arise...On the other hand I can perfectly understand a slow journey by rail taking in the views.

 

18 hours ago, Paraffin said:

..I hope we get a good XB-70 model in MSFS eventually to stash in the hangar of planes with amazing engineering that never made it into full use, along with things like the Horton Ho 229 (WW2 German flying wing)..

You might try asking Virtavia to see if they have any plans for their XB70? IOnteresting plane to fly in FSX IMHO. It is quite fussy in its operation - very easy to overstress the airframe!

17 hours ago, MatthewS said:

If you haven't already, give MSFS a try? $1 for 30 days on XBox Game Pass for PC.

My rig is Windows 7 with a 2Gig nvidia card so I cannot do that. I have no argument regarding the GA VFR side of things, in fact I think I posted somewhere about not having enough beers to cry into when I see some of the screenshots!  I don't need to try it out - it will be a major reason for getting a new PC should that situation arise (probably need a new car first!). Thank you anyway.

 

15 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

... Imagine performance comparable to an F1 car on takeoff. 0-250mph in around 50 secs. 

F1 cars would get that speed in about 10 seconds. They actually max out around 180, but get to that in just over 8 seconds. 

3 minutes ago, Dharma66 said:

F1 cars would get that speed in about 10 seconds. They actually max out around 180, but get to that in just over 8 seconds. 

Point taken. I couldn't think of another comparison that people could relate to.

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Point taken. I couldn't think of another comparison that people could relate to.

It’s still darned quick 🙂

1 hour ago, Dharma66 said:

It’s still darned quick 🙂

Absolutely! What’s the weight of an F1 car? I’d be guessing but the weight of Concorde with 100 pax and 95T of fuel is around 190T. Maybe the equivalent of 250 F1 cars. Passengers who’ve experienced the take-off generally describe it in one word... “wow”!

Even the BA pilots on their Concorde training over at Shannon we’re amazed at the performance. They’d flown it in the sim of course but nothing can match the actual thing. And when a seasoned pilot expresses such emotions you know it was special.

There is only one photograph of Concorde flying close to Mach 2. This was taken in 1985 over the Irish Sea from an RAF Tornado. Everything had been stripped out of it but despite that he could only keep up with Concorde for a few minutes because of the enormous fuel burn.

The Tornado pilot was in a pressure suit and a helmet. Concorde passengers were in normal clothes drinking champagne and dining on the finest food.

Nowadays we have bland boring but fuel efficient aircraft. Which would you rather fly? 😉

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/

On 9/9/2020 at 1:54 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

...This was taken in 1985 over the Irish Sea from an RAF Tornado.

I wonder if the Boeing 2707 had come to fruition that an SR-71 would have been sent to obtain a photo rendezvous?   A shame that a Blackbird was not sent out to do the task as an international PR exercise then Concorde wouldn't have had to slow down. Imagine the banter.. "OK, Speedbird....We'll Slow Down.. just so you can have your pretty picture" 

Mark, there was an occasion when an SR-71 was asked to change altitude when he was way up beyond 50,000ft. “Why, what else could be up here?” was the response.

”There’s a British Airways Concorde coming your way” was the reply. A somewhat surprised US pilot complied and BA001 continued without deviation. 😀

I suspect the RAF just happened to be in the area when the opportunity for a photo presented itself. Flights down the Irish Sea were not on any route Concorde would take on a commercial flight. I suspect it was a testing flight of some sort.

@Ray Proudfoot Thanks for sharing these insights regarding the concorde. A truly remarkable and beautiful aircraft.

@Ray Proudfoot It would have been funny if they (presumably ATC) had said something about "not wanting the passengers spilling their champagne" to the Sled crew cooped up in their spacesuits.   (I fully realise the necessity of such a spacesuit in a military aircraft where means of survivable escape in flight are required if things go wrong.)

I don't think any self respecting Tonka crew, nor the crew of any supersonic interceptor for that matter, would have passed up the opportunity to play catch with a Concorde either.

1 minute ago, HighBypass said:

@Ray Proudfoot It would have been funny if they (presumably ATC) had said something about "not wanting the passengers spilling their champagne" to the Sled crew cooped up in their spacesuits.   (I fully realise the necessity of such a spacesuit in a military aircraft where means of survivable escape in flight are required if things go wrong.)

I don't think any self respecting Tonka crew, nor the crew of any supersonic interceptor for that matter, would have passed up the opportunity to play catch with a Concorde either.

I’m sure they wouldn’t. Something out of the ordinary is probably a welcome relief. Plus the opportunity to go that bit faster perhaps after shooting a load of film to record the occasion. 😁