12 ms·
The Revival of Concorde
- billiam 11y agoA sign of our imminent extinction, no doubt. Let's double down on JP-4! Party like its 1989, or til the seas are flooding the runway!
- johngalt 11y agoThe Concorde is one of those early implementations that is just big enough to barely work, yet never really succeeds, while also sucking all the air out of the room for any other ideas. The aviation fan side of me would love to see the Concorde fly again but my gut says that trying to resurrect the Concorde will only delay any chance of regular supersonic flights in the future.
- Turbo_hedgehog 11y agoReading the article, it's not headed back to commercial service but instead for air shows and private charters.
- idlewords 11y agoThere's nothing about Concorde that ruined it for anyone else. The problems that killed SST programs—high fuel costs and noise—remain unsolved. The plane was a pretty remarkable piece of engineering given the physical constraints.
- qq66 11y agoOne more thing that shut down the Concorde was the post-9/11 increase in security procedures at airports, greatly diminshing the relative advantage of supersonic flights. If getting on the plane takes an extra (unpleasant) 45 minutes on each end, then the percentage time savings from supersonic flight is reduced.
- zrail 11y agoConcorde tickets require global entry or your country's equivalent. Problem solved.
- 15155 11y ago> require global entry It's not a matter of people delaying or impacting flights, it's a matter of the flight being less appealing with inevitable security wait times. Requiring anything like this will only make an already niche service less accessible with no benefit.
- dalke 11y agoSome airports have special priority lines for the business and first-class passengers. There are no security wait times if you have the money to skip the lines. Eg, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101435.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08... and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11wwln-lede-t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11wwln-lede-t.htm... . And Concorde passengers had the money.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoGlobal entry is easy to get and cheap compared to the cost of concorde travel.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoStupid easy. $100 fee for five years, background check, and a digital record of your fingerprints are kept on file.
- darklajid 11y agoI hope you missed the /s tags. A background check and your fingerprints, because ..? I recently landed in Heathrow after a looong time staying in Europe (yes, England's not Europe) only. I was literally shaking when I saw all the people going through a random scanner, looking into a camera, providing their fingerprints. Ignoring that the system didn't even work half the time while I was watching and that it needed a supervisor that reset everything, brought the people back out of the 'check zone' to .. turn it off and on again: That's insane. This is the amount I'm willing to pay to a crappy government to go easy on me: This is the list of governments that are allowed to take my fingerprints outside of a criminal investigation(* ): Again, I really really hope you were just kidding and making fun of a bad situation. *: The next time my German ID runs out I _might_ have to do that for my own home country - and I still try to figure out ways to avoid that/let the ID run out (illegal) without a renewal etc. And I try to vote for the parties that aren't insane.
- greggman 11y agoIs the noise truly a probably or was that just lobbying by Boeing to make sure it didn't succeed?
- mshook 11y agoAt the time it was built, it was a little bit noisier than the 707. The only issue is that while planes got much quieter (as the 707 was retired for example and new ones appeared), Concorde kept on flying... So in a way, it got louder with age.
- protomyth 11y agoYep, it is a problem (though not on the ocean flight obviously). I'm pretty sure Boeing would have liked to sell a SST given what they spent back in the day and their teaming with NASA to figure out a way to reduce the sonic boom. http://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom.html http://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom.html
- idlewords 11y agoHere's what it sounds like to have a supersonic Concorde fly overhead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE And here's what it sounds like on takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ShTUVIzCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ShTUVIzCI Note that it sets off nearby car alarms.
- gsnedders 11y agoTurbojets are truly that much louder than the turbofans we're now used to. At the time it was only a bit louder than contemporary aircraft, but everything else got far quieter. Concorde is more comparable in engine noise to a modern fighter jet than it is to most commercial aircraft.
- brc 11y agoIt's always been seen to me as a supreme irony that a country that sells two-stroke leaf blowers and line trimmers by the chinese-container load was worried about a 4-times-day distant thunder-like rumble. Much more is understood about the noise footprint now than in the '60s.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> The problems that killed SST programs—high fuel costs and noise—remain unsolved. Reducing sonic boom noise is something we do understand.
- gsnedders 11y agoSonic booms are far better understood now than they were back then — the research done on the basis on the XB-70 (i.e., the Oklahoma City sonic boom tests) is arguably less relevant than ever, as we understand better than ever how to effect sonic booms, especially with shape of the aircraft.
- brc 11y agoThe fuel costs are just a function of ticket prices. The passenger pays the fuel prices. Once BA worked out that most Concorde passengers didn't buy their own tickets, they increased pricing dramatically. The passengers didn't drop off. In some markets, higher prices signal certain status which then allows even higher demand. Same with exclusive real estate, jewellery, artwork, etc. As long as supply is limited it's not necessarily a problem.
- yardie 11y agoI can confirm. My SO is cabin crew. One of her trips is London, UK to Lagos, Nigeria. The passengers manage to buy out all the duty free onboard. This is in addition to the gifts in the luggage hold. She has actually seen arguments take place over duty free, i.e. someone buys up all the Taittinger, others would like a few bottles but are now locked out.
- sandworm101 11y agoIs there any real advantage for 'regular supersonic flights' these days? Shaving an hour or two off the flying time is all well and good, but on nearly every trip I spend more time in the airports and taxis than in the air. Perhaps greater time savings could be made elsewhere and with far less effort.
- dalke 11y agoFWIW, this article doesn't concern regular supersonic flights but 'fly-pasts at air shows and made available for corporate and special events, as well as for private charter.' As to your question, it rather depends on the cost, doesn't it? To start with, it saved about 4 hours on the Paris/NYC connection, not "an hour or two." If it were only $400 more to save 4 hours of overseas travel, then many would jump at it, and find it a real advantage.
- mshook 11y agoI really wonder how they could even do fly pasts at air shows. The only technical reason (technical not economical) Concorde doesn't fly anymore is because the type certificate, aka the airworthiness of the aircraft, was surrendered by Airbus, hence grounding all the fleet and making it unlawful to fly it. So to fly it, they would need that to be reinstated. For the Avro Vulcan, they went through a different aerospace company for that. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt Airbus would let anyone fly one of its Concorde...
- dingaling 11y agoThey could still fly the aircraft within the UK on a restrictive Permit to Fly, rather than on a type certificate. That does not require manufacturer support, it's similar to US Experimental classification. But it would not permit carriage of passengers.
- gsnedders 11y agoAs far as I'm aware, XH558 flew on a Permit to Fly from the CAA, hence why it never left the UK. Note that being on a Permit to Fly restricts it to VFR.
- sandworm101 11y agoWith the increased number of ultra-rich these days, Concorde or another SST is probably more viable then ever. It's certainly less ridiculous than talk of suborbital rocket planes. The kid in me wants to see Concorde fly as an aircraft, but the working adult would see it as yet another toy for the very rich, undeserving of any special consideration from my ilk. When I see a ferrari drive by I think "cool car" but I certainly would be against any and all tax breaks or special treatment to keep it on the road. Mounting a Concorde on a special platform in the middle of the London Tames seems like a cheap tourist trap.
- vermontdevil 11y agoWhat about electric cars? At this point most of the wealthy get all the tax breaks from owning these cars. And they don't contribute to the upkeep of the roads since no gas tax.
- cma 11y agoMoney is fungible, through progressive taxation those people (unless they are hedge fund managers who pay lower tax than almost everyone else) heavily contribute to the tax base even if it isn't earmarked for roads to the extent gas is.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> (unless they are hedge fund managers who pay lower tax than almost everyone else) Everyone whose income is largely derived through long-term capital gains does this, really; hedge-fund managers just happen to be people who seem like they are working for someone else but manage to get paid for that work in a way that gets them taxed like capitalists. (Which might explain while a few notable actual major capitalists -- who don't favor general reform of taxation on capital -- have come out in favor of reforms that would tax hedge-fund manager earnings like normal income.)
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThe wealthy paying for expensive electric cars (I'm sure you're insinuating Tesla) are subsidizing the build out of charging infrastructure as well as a manufacturing base for electric vehicles and batteries. Those tax benefits the wealthy receive are a less risky subsidy than directly giving electric vehicle and charging infrastructure companies funds directly. Its a balance between doing nothing and doing something more drastic (full disclaimer: we aren't doing enough, and we should be pouring buckets of money into electrification of mobility, but that's an argument for another thread). With regards to gas taxes, most people already aren't paying their fair share of gas/road taxes (the US highway trust fund is completely broke). I'm not sure electric vehicles are contributing to the problem as much as the existing 253 million internal combustion vehicles already on the road (not counting heavy trucks, that contribute even more to road damage).
- idlewords 11y agoFor anyone with a few hours to spare geeking out about Concorde, I recommend this thread: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html It starts off slow with a technical question, but gradually pulls in some of the plane's designers (and even a flight attendant) discussing every aspect of the plane's design and operation. One of the most amazing aviation threads on the Internet.
- yitchelle 11y agoIt was fascinating to see the prototype drawings on the wing designs on this thread, plus many other design aspects of the Concorde. Thanks for sharing.
- disillusioned 11y agoThis is totally fascinating. This is one of those pure examples of how great the internet can be. Thanks for sharing.
- xvf33 11y agoI just "lost" a few hours reading that thread. Thanks!
- swehner 11y agoSomething called global warming? What I understood, this is quite a wasteful machine.
- Implicated 11y agoGlobal warming? I think not. Fuel costs, sure.
- andreasvc 11y agoAll manner of transportation and industry is contributing to global warming. Unfortunately, that is typically not an important factor in these kinds of decisions.
- userbinator 11y agoInteresting trivia: the maximum external dimension of the Concorde's fuselage is 3.32m, whereas the overall diameter of the GE90-115B, the engine used on some 777s, is 3.429m. It's a very narrow plane.
- privong 11y agoFor another point of reference, the max cabin width of a Boeing 737 is 3.53m and the fuselage width is 3.76m[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications
- brc 11y agoSo you could fit a Concorde fuselage inside a 737? wow.
- dankohn1 11y agoI flew Concorde right after it came back into service in late 2001, right after the crash. Highlights were feeling the heat on the windows and seeing the curvature of the Earth. Downsides were tight seats, and the fact that it didn't save that much time vs. a conventional jet. But, it was amazing, and I still wear my Concorde cufflinks. It still seems complete uneconomic.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoIt's really weird to see a frequent fliers' club come together and open their wallets with the sort of dollar values normally seen at, say, alumni events for a major university, or perhaps a charity fundraiser for an ongoing natural disaster. Then again, when one reads things like "A particularly extravagant excursion was a one-day visit to the pyramids in Cairo in 1982; priced at £780, it was marketed as the most expensive day trip in the world," and ponders the sort of mindset where "most expensive in the world" is considered a marketing point, F. Scott Fitzgerald does come to mind: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."
- grecy 11y ago"To see the future, go to a museum and look at the Concord" - Jeremy Clarkson
- cstross 11y agoSupersonic commercial passenger travel is almost certainly dead for the foreseeable future. (Small supersonic bizjets are another issue entirely.) Here's why: To start with, Concorde was a high-maintenance airframe, more like a military aircraft than an airliner. Each airliner averaged about a day of maintenance in the hangar per two hours of flight, so made one return trans-Atlantic crossing per week. It also burned roughly 100 tons of fuel shipping 100 passengers between NYC and London in 3h30m, compared to a 747 burning the same amount of fuel to ship 450 passengers between London and San Francisco; about 5-10x the fuel burn per passenger-mile. But the reason it eventually tanked in the market ... Suppose you're flying London-NYC, post-9/11. You can queue up for security checks 2 hours before you take your seat, then either fly on a regular subsonic airliner or Concorde. After your flight you spend 1 hour getting through immigration and customs at JFK. Total time on security/queueing: about 3 hours. Total time in flight: 3h30m or 7h. So Concorde only cuts your end-to-end travel time from 10h to 6h30m. Note that a Concorde seat is a cramped, narrow coach-class seat. Okay, there's first-class food and drink and a buffet in the departure lounge: but it's still coach-class leg-room. Meanwhile, a first class seat on a 747 gets you a lie-flat bed along with your posh nosh ... But if you have the money to fly Concorde, you have the money to pay for a seat on a private bizjet or a charter service like Netjets. It's still subsonic, but you by-pass the entire check-in/security/boarding/immigration/customs mess. Just drive through a gate and up to your bizjet, board it, and it takes off when you're ready for it, not vice versa. And on arrival, an immigration officer comes out to meet you and stamp your passport (if you pay extra -- part of the service). Travel time: 7h. The takeaway is that the super-rich/first class jet-set passengers deserted Concorde because they could get the same travel time for the same money on private business jets, without being treated like cattle by the TSA. Even if you could wave a magic wand and streamline the queueing/bureacracy for Concorde passengers, there remains the fact that if you re-started services tomorrow they'd only be able to manage one flight in each direction per day (if they had a fleet of six hulls magically preserved and ready to fly). Whereas the bizjet is ready to fly whenever the passenger wants it. Upshot: mass supersonic jet travel is dead for the time being. A market may exist for supersonic bizjets (and indeed Aerion claim to be bringing a Mach 1.5 bizjet to market within the next 5 years -- but someone or other has been saying some variation on this theme since about 1990). The only way we'll see supersonic passenger airliners the size of or larger than Concorde again is if we get a propulsion technology breakthrough that makes it feasible to run a scheduled daily-or-more-frequent service across distances that make it desirable -- LAX to Tokyo or Beijing, London to Sydney, and so on. Nuclear, anyone?
- VeejayRampay 11y agoThe French and the English built the Concorde in the late 60's and the French also built the HST known as "TGV" in the early 70's, a train that to this day (with newer iterations) holds speed records for a conventional train (proof that the initial design was excellent). After all this, people still like to joke about how the French are "not good engineers".
- maus42 11y agoWell, usually people who are saying that are thinking about the everyday results of French engineering, like the electronics of Renaults and Citroens.
- bambax 11y ago> the club is aiming to purchase a Concorde currently stationed near Orly Airport in Paris Here it is on Street View: https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.715764,2.3727748,3a,75y,274.58h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1mVqhC-jLCt-tdB-SaKOQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.715764,2.3727748,3a,75y,274.5... and here's a picture I took of it a year ago: http://imgur.com/UtD294i http://imgur.com/UtD294i It doesn't appear to be in great shape.