13 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

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

Exactly, not sure why this thread is here since is mainly for P3D (nothing about MSFS testing or whatever) 

11 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Exactly, not sure why this thread is here since is mainly for P3D (nothing about MSFS testing or whatever) 

Ask the OP - @Bernard Ducret.

I hope it will have an AI flight engineer. I would imagine it's just too much for one person to manage without one.

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I hope it will have an AI flight engineer. I would imagine it's just too much for one person to manage without one.

yep  the hardest  aircraft  to master 🙂

 

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I hope it will have an AI flight engineer. I would imagine it's just too much for one person to manage without one.

It will and it won’t be once you’ve got familiar with procedures. The 32-bit FSL Concorde also had it. For a few years I left fuel management to the VFE. But around 4 years ago I decided to try it myself. After a couple of occasions when things didn’t go well I eventually worked it out.

Set it up for takeoff with a CG of 53 or 53.5. The next time you touch it is at Mach 0.7 when you start pumping rearwards from 9 and 10 into 11.

Stop when it reaches 55 if you’re still subsonic.

At the Accel point (slightly before on shorter flights) start pumping rearwards again. By the time 9 and 10 are empty you’ll have 10.5T in 11 with any extra having been fed to 5 and 7. CG will then be 59 where it should stay until the decel and descent has started.

CG should be 53 for landing. Easy peasy! 😁

1 hour ago, pete_auau said:

yep  the hardest  aircraft  to master 🙂

 

But the most satisfying when you master it. 😉

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It will and it won’t be once you’ve got familiar with procedures. The 32-bit FSL Concorde also had it. For a few years I left fuel management to the VFE. But around 4 years ago I decided to try it myself. After a couple of occasions when things didn’t go well I eventually worked it out.

Set it up for takeoff with a CG of 53 or 53.5. The next time you touch it is at Mach 0.7 when you start pumping rearwards from 9 and 10 into 11.

Stop when it reaches 55 if you’re still subsonic.

At the Accel point (slightly before on shorter flights) start pumping rearwards again. By the time 9 and 10 are empty you’ll have 10.5T in 11 with any extra having been fed to 5 and 7. CG will then be 59 where it should stay until the decel and descent has started.

CG should be 53 for landing. Easy peasy! 😁

But the most satisfying when you master it. 😉

Will be a great time ahead Ray with FSL stuff and you're favorite aircraft 🙂

P3D who stills uses that seriously basically FSX in a nice dress old news.

2 minutes ago, bhx22 said:

P3D who stills uses that seriously basically FSX in a nice dress old news.

I do.

Also XP.

5 minutes ago, bhx22 said:

P3D who stills uses that seriously basically FSX in a nice dress old news.

P3D that in its latest iteration is completely stable and reliable.

Just now, IanHarrison said:

P3D that in its latest iteration is completely stable and reliable.

So is a flip phone. 

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

So is a flip phone. 

You’ve already said Concorde is of no interest to you so why are you still posting on this topic? 🤔

4 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Exactly, not sure why this thread is here since is mainly for P3D (nothing about MSFS testing or whatever) 

In case you missed this information 😎, the release of the FSL Concorde in P3D (first as indicated in the title) will precede the MSFS version. All we now know is that the Beta testing for the P3D version will start imminently.

Will the MSFS version immediately follow and will it be ready for Beta once the P3D bugs will be quashed? Only FSL can answer that. In any case, this is an important milestone for this simulation and for those awaiting it, hence this topic

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I hope it will have an AI flight engineer. I would imagine it's just too much for one person to manage without one.

Yes a flight engineer AND a Copilot (see below Andrew Wilson post this morning on FSL site)

"The Virtual Crew System (VCS) enhances the simulation experience by focusing on the First Officer/Engineer Officer roles, while allowing the user to assume the position of Captain. While it is possible to disable the VCS, I strongly believe the majority of customers will leave the system enabled. 

Our new Concorde title takes a different approach to the VFE feature that customers of Concorde-X were familiar with. By utilising the VCS, which now provides a more authentic representation of crew responsibilities and interactions, users can fully immerse themselves in their primary role while relying on the virtual crew for assistance with other crucial tasks."

 

2 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

will precede the MSFS version. All we now know is that the Beta testing for the P3D version will start imminently.

Saw this but I am still confused, what the article has anything to do with MSFS. So Concorde beta testing for P3D, congrats. What has anything to do with MSFS? Sure they wrote "later it will come to MSFS", later means days, months, years, decades. So the main point of that article is P3D and hence IMO this post is more suitable in P3D section rather than MSFS section. 

23 hours ago, The Flight Level said:

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.

You basically answered your own question. It would still be out of service, because that crash had nothing to do with its economics, which would simply crush any airline. Given how little the profit margin is at airlines - if it exists at all - which has been exacerbated with deregulation and privatization while the Concorde was in service, any airline CEO would have to have an agenda against his own business to operate any supersonic commercial airliner. The fact there's no supersonic commercial flights so long after Concorde did it despite the advancement in technology tells you all about the costs. What United is doing is investing into a future potential they think might have enough of a chance to make it worth exploring, but that's still an awful long way from economically viable and mainstream. I wouldn't hold my breath on UAL ever taking delivery of any of the orders.

Edited May 22, 20233 yr by Nixoq

14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

So is a flip phone. 

And that has exactly what to do with the subject?