FSLabs Concorde on the way (Beta testing for P3D first)

[gb09f 298]

Ray, please give us one of your famous "Did you know...." Concorde facts.

We like these!❤️

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

42 minutes ago, gb09f said:

Ray, please give us one of your famous "Did you know...." Concorde facts.

We like these!❤️

Reading a magazine in the garden about Concorde I imagine many of you thought “Fly by Wire” was first used on the Airbus.

Wrong. It was first used on Concorde showing it to be a world leader back then. First passenger aircraft to use carbon fibre brakes too.

[SAS443 1,723]

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Wrong. It was first used on Concorde showing it to be a world leader back then

Asterisk required. It was the first airliner.  Concorde was 10 years or so behind the Avro Arrow. (Experimental airframes not included in the mix). FBW was n-o-t a novelty when Concorde entered service.  It had already been around for a Quarter of a decade 😉

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

23 hours ago, Cognita said:

The Concord while a marvel when it went into service -- 54 years ago -- today is archaic and given its complexity I just can't see me dedicating the time to learn it well; and buying an aircraft at this level and just jumping in an kind of flying does not seem right.

It still is a marvel. Just because world events ended its service far too early doesn’t make it “archaic”. That means antiquated. How can you possibly apply that term to Concorde? In the time it takes a modern Boeing or Airbus to fly LHR-JFK Concorde could fly there and back and still arrive at Heathrow nearly an hour before the subsonic aircraft landed at JFK. Analogue instrumentation doesn’t make something archaic.

Presumably the same term will soon apply to the 747. I suspect not for reasons I’ll leave for others to imagine.

What a boring sim world it would be with only twin-engine subsonic Boeing and Airbus aircraft. Concorde will come to MSFS. As to when, who could possibly say.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

10 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Asterisk required. It was the first airliner

I stand corrected.

[The Flight Level 2,113]

Supersonic development is crazy expensive (billions). Unfortunately, Aerion Supersonic closed operations 2 years ago due to insufficient capital funding. Boom Supersonic pushes on for supersonic commercial flight https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1. Go to about 12:30 of the video below for a summary.
The Concorde was certainly way ahead of its time given decades have elapsed without a viable supersonic option. While flight deck operations may be considered archaic by towards standards, I often wonder what the Concorde program would be like had that tragic flight not occurred.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by The Flight Level

[F737MAX 5,604]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

What a boring sim world it would be with only twin-engine subsonic Boeing and Airbus aircraft.

Whaddya mean?! We have the Mach 10 'Darkstar'. It can go across the Atlantic five times in the same time Concorde takes to do one. 🤪

 

51 minutes ago, The Flight Level said:

Boom Supersonic pushes on for supersonic commercial flight

If Boom create a supersonic airliner that enters commercial service, I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

[The Flight Level 2,113]

6 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

If Boom create a supersonic airliner that enters commercial service, I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

A little closer!

United Airlines' announcement that it plans to buy 15 supersonic aircraft from the startup Boom Supersonic is raising questions about the future of ultra-fast plane travel.

 

[F737MAX 5,604]

14 minutes ago, The Flight Level said:

A little closer!

United Airlines' announcement that it plans to buy 15 supersonic aircraft from the startup Boom Supersonic is raising questions about the future of ultra-fast plane travel.

I feel that's an optimistic viewpoint.

Just the first 6:30 of this podcast will give you a more balanced view.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/avtalk-episode-115-is-boom-all-noise/

[Cognita 1,081]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Just because world events ended its service far too early doesn’t make it “archaic”.

I suppose it comes down to notions of progress. For me, just because it could go fast does not mean it is modern. Was it well designed for the 1950s and 1960s, maybe; but it is hard for me to view it that way by todays' designs and operations. It also had a limited mission profile -- most airlines that originally ordered it backed out before taking delivery -- and was terribly inefficient. I do not mean this as a slight, it was as I said a marvel of achievement, but I find myself far more impressed by the advances in navigation technology than an aircraft that can go Mach 2. I am more impressed by advances in jet engines that have made them incredibly efficient and able to carry large numbers of people long distances. Sure, Concord could make JFK EGLL and back in the time it takes 1 380 make the one-way journey -- but it would have to make that round trip 5 times to transport the same number of people! Concord had a fuel burn of 17 passengers per gallon; An A380 has a fuel burn of 78 passengers per gallon! That for me is development, is progress. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

34 minutes ago, Cognita said:

Concord had a fuel burn of 17 passengers per gallon; An A380 has a fuel burn of 78 passengers per gallon! That for me is development, is progress. 

You don’t pay for fuel in a simulator. And do forget the e on the end. 😉

[Cognita 1,081]

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You don’t pay for fuel in a simulator.

No, you don't! And there are not environmental impacts! 

Really, I am so pleased that FSL has seemingly done such a superb job modelling the Concord and I really understand the allure of wanting to learn how to manage such an aircraft. I completely understand how salifying it must be to figure it out and complete a flight successfully. For me I am just motivated to sim by completing real world, current routes on current aircraft -- but as I responded to someone else, there is a very real danger I will give in and get it because of how well FSL has likely modelled it all.

[The Flight Level 2,113]

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

I feel that's an optimistic viewpoint.

Just the first 6:30 of this podcast will give you a more balanced view.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/avtalk-episode-115-is-boom-all-noise/

I would put that $100 in a safe location 😉

That podcast was 2 years ago. United has since put money down, and construction has started on the factory in Greensboro, N.C. 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boom-supersonic-begins-construction-on-overture-superfactory-301731274.html

Just a matter of time 😉

[Steve Dra 7,588]

14 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

not in operation today

and with virtual crew (CP and Engineer), we will only concentrate on our part, something the DC6 did not offer.

Actually the DC-6 is still in commercial service...Everts Air in Alaska still operates them daily.

The PMDG DC-6 has a virtual FE (Flight Engineer) that handles most of the non-flying tasks in the aircraft if you decide to turn it on (suggested for new pilots until they get comfortable with the complex procedures in her)

[qqwertz 781]

IMHO, the P3D forum would be a better fit for this topic.