14 ms·

Concorde

• Fuzzwah 10y ago
  For anyone else who didn't know that "normal" flight from JFK to Heathrow is just over 8 hours. Googling for this helped put the sub 3 hour 1996 concorde flight into perspective.
  • isostatic 10y ago
    Sadly not. 8 hours going west, 6 hours going east. An ideal flight is about 12 hours, giving uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep as well as time for a movie, dinner and breakfast. Even better if there's no jetlag. London to Joburg for example. East cost flights to Europe are horrible.
    • seszett 10y ago
      > An ideal flight is about 12 hours, giving uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep as well as time for a movie, dinner and breakfast. Even better if there's no jetlag. Well... after having done Paris/Réunion a couple of times, a 12-hour flight with little jetlag, I must say this was a pretty terrible experience. The problem with sleeping for me isn't the length of the flight, it's the general noisy environment and uncomfortable seats with little room for legs (even if I'm not that tall), the upright posture, etc. Also, you don't get time for a movie but for three or four of them. I've always liked the Paris/Montreal flights much better simply because they're short enough that you don't get bored as much.
      • kleiba 10y ago
        Couldn't agree more to the "uncomfortable seats with little room for legs" part. I always envy people who aren't as tall as me and seem to be able to actually get some sleep in. That said, after having done Europe<->Australia and North America<->Australia a couple of times, the prospect of a 12 hour flight doesn't really sound that bad any more ("Only 12 hours? Sweet!").
        • mcguire 10y ago
          6'5" (1955mm) here. I don't sleep on airplanes. I did get a lot of work done coming back from Amsterdam.
      • kzrdude 10y ago
        I've come to realize that to cope best with a long flight like that, you have to be well rested and have had enough food and so on. You tolerate stress much better if you are well prepared.
    • mikro2nd 10y ago
      Joburg-New York, on the other hand is a real killer at 16+ hours with a stop for crew change in the Canaries. I've been on that flight several times when they run out of drinking water, toilets overflow,... it's horrible. Once flew it with a colleague who was a cigarette smoker - he suffered terribly!
• CalChris 10y ago
  I knew a woman who worked for a Dot Com back in the day. She flew on the Concorde to Paris for meetings because it was important.
  • chiph 10y ago
    Dad got to fly it once. He had tickets on another Air France flight but because of a strike (it is France) it was cancelled. A German coworker started yelling at the ticket agent, who after a few minutes of this abuse, shrugged and upgraded dad, then walked off.
• idlewords 10y ago
  If you are interested in Concorde, this thread (which starts a little slowly) eventually ropes in some of the plane's original designers, pilots, and even a flight attendant. They talk about every aspect of the plane in the best aviation thread I've ever found online. It's amazing reading. CAUTION: huge timesink hazard. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html
  • cycomachead 10y ago
    Caution warning is very necessary! That thread is fascinating; thanks for sharing!
  • q-base 10y ago
    There are lots of strange abbreviations - BUT - Caution very much needed. Only a few pages in, but how extremely fascinating and interesting! Thanks a lot!
    • anexprogrammer 10y ago
      You're unlikely to escape until you reach the end, and it's probably longer than when I found it some years ago. :p
      • q-base 10y ago
        No there are many good hours of reading for sure. This made me laugh: Ancient tale. There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading "because of traffic at your altitude". Traffic at THEIR altitude ?? Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their flight path. Just imagine... two guys in bonedomes and full pressure suits, in a cramped cockpit, watching something like a hundred people in shirt sleeves or summer dresses, sipping their champagne and maybe just starting on their smoked salmon hors d'oeuvres, flying at their altitude and nearly their speed....
• dancek 10y ago
  > Taxiing to the runway consumed 2 tons of fuel. Wow. Just wow. These engines are obviously far from their designed power band when taxiing, but this is incredibly inefficient. So basically the travellers would cause more pollution in the 10 minutes of taxiing than in maybe 10 hours of driving a car...
  • netsharc 10y ago
    You'd think they come up with a better solution, like using the pull-vehicle all the way to the runway (or at least to the edge of it...)
    • DocTomoe 10y ago
      More vehicles on the runway equals more chances for FOD on the runway - which ironically caused the Air France accident and loss of one Concorde and all hands on board.
      • willvarfar 10y ago
        Interestingly, the opening paragraph of the wikipedia article contradicts this: > The TaxiBot eliminates the use of airplane engines during taxi-in and until immediately prior to take-off during taxi-out, significantly reducing aircraft fuel usage and the risk of foreign object damage.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxiBot#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxiBot#cite_note-1 So which is it?
        • DocTomoe 10y ago
          This "Taxibot" seems to be designed mostly on the tarmac where engines are idling to keep the APU happy and reach operational temperature, a place where FOD is often caused by humans, not machines - it's not meant for operations to the runway, where engines usually are at full capacity and humans are absent. Most likely, in this different scenario, there actually is a FOD Advantage.
    • wibr 10y ago
• gaur 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement > It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically. Sad.
  • Reason077 10y ago
    If that was true, they would probably have been grounded far earlier. The aircraft were certainly approaching the end of their design life when service ended, some being almost 30 years old. Grounding them was also a very good thing from an environmental perspective!
    • gaur 10y ago
      The theory here is that if the airlines hadn't been forced to ground Concorde for a year following the 2000 crash, they never would have realized they could be bilking more money out of people by providing an inferior (conventional) air travel service.
      • Reason077 10y ago
        I'm sure the airlines were well aware that conventional first-class tickets were more profitable. Both British Airways and Air France made plenty of money selling those at the time, and they still do. But Concorde was a differentiated product that other airlines couldn't compete with. Despite it's high operating costs, it was profitable (at least for BA) and it also acted as a "halo" product that boosted to the image/prestige of the entire airline. In the case of BA, they were also given the aircraft (and spare parts) by the government at far below market value. There may have been some kind of unwritten agreement that they would keep operating them for as long as reasonably possible, basically as a matter of national pride.
  • SFJulie 10y ago
    It was withdrawn because USA had no such to this plane and they were pissed, so FAA forbid concorde to fly over their country, and always made clear they would revoke the tolerance for landing near the transatlantic anytime soon. USA is okay for being the first, but not the other country. They look like France (and UK) of the colonial times. So fun that a nation became what they fought against. https://www.contrepoints.org/2016/07/30/261731-usa-letat-a-tue-vol-supersonique https://www.contrepoints.org/2016/07/30/261731-usa-letat-a-t...
• cyberferret 10y ago
  An iconic aircraft. I was lucky enough to see one come into our local airport once, flanked by RAAF Mirage III fighters to mark the rare occasion. Apparently it was on a private charter by a group of extremely wealthy high rollers who were flying around the world visiting various casinos. I cannot imagine a life like that!
• jstoja 10y ago
  Nowadays we're on the edge to re-using rocket launcher and still not rethinking about how this Concorde could be improved and re-made viable... Too bad...
• DocTomoe 10y ago
  When I was a boy, I had a book. It featured the Transrapid (look it up!), the Shuttle, the Concorde ... as heralds of the future. The 2000s, when all of these things slowly were phased out, were a hard time, making me feel old for the first time. Sure, we got the Internet, we got vertically-landing rocket boosters, we got huge improvements in medical procedures ... but they all look so ... non-futuristic.
  • Tomte 10y ago
    Transrapid! I've ridden it in Shanghai, and I was lucky to be there at one of the time slots when it is going higher speed (430 km/h ~ 267 mph).
    • DocTomoe 10y ago
      Actually, I am toying with the idea to fly to Shanghai (instead of Hong Kong) once in my life just to be able to take the Transrapid... Can you tell me when those high-speed time slots happen?
      • xgk 10y ago
        The maglev station at Shanghai airport tells you clearly when the fast ones are going. The experience of going so fast so close to the ground is quite maginficent. I was wondering why the cars 'stop' on the nearby motorway.
      • Tomte 10y ago
        Unfortunately I can't and I don't remember. The German Wikipedia says that there are two 45 minute slots a day, but not when exactly. Maybe their web site tells it? I could find the information after a cursory look.
      • oevi 10y ago
        Actually, it's not that much of a deal. You will barely notice it. The whole transrapid ride from/to the airport is a bit.. underwhelming. For me, Hong Kong and especially its skyline was much more futuristic and fascinating. If you've never been there, go for it!
• markonen 10y ago
  I'm lucky enough to have flown on the Rocket once. A fun added benefit is that in any typical company I will still (after 13 years) retain the bragging rights for highest altitude (55500 feet / 17 km) and speed (Mach 2 at 1330 mph / 2140 km/h).
  • markonen 10y ago
    Here's a photo from the flight deck I snapped after that flight: http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1335572 http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-...
    • dan1234 10y ago
      To think, these days the flight crew would be disciplined for even allowing someone into the cockpit.
      • raverbashing 10y ago
        You can if the aircraft is on the ground (if you ask nicely), which seems to be the case of the picture
    • bambax 10y ago
      Really great photo! Thanks for sharing. Much less glamorous, an image of a Concorde that is sitting in the grass near Orly airport: http://imgur.com/a/U3KUI http://imgur.com/a/U3KUI
• cr1895 10y ago
  I was fortunate to fly on Concorde with my grandparents once when I was young, towards the end of its operating life. Things that I most remember: - it was tiny inside! the seats were comfortable, but small. 2 by 2. - the force with which you are pressed into your seat on takeoff - gladly being served a glass of port (I must have been 12-13 at the time) - leaving the flight with a bag full of good caviar that was served with the meal since quite a few people didn't eat theirs.
  • mhb 10y ago
    When you were 12, you could tell what was good caviar?
    • cr1895 10y ago
      Ha believe it or not yeah; it wasnt the relatively inexpensive black roe you find in grocery stores, but proper sturgeon caviar. My grandfather loved it and always used to share some with me when I'd visit. He especially liked malossal(?) Beluga. I don't think you can even get that anymore.
  • pchristensen 10y ago
    The Museum of Flight in Seattle has a Concorde you can walk through. I'm a big guy and I had to walk sideways down the aisle and stuck in my gut. I was shocked at how tight it was inside.
  • wbrinkley 10y ago
    Flew it once myself, must have 1986 or 1987. Some of the same memories: - Not just tiny, but claustrophobic: seemed like it had about 30 or 35 rows, so if you were in the back it was like looking down a long too-narrow tunnel. - The force, and the speed, of takeoff and landing. Ridiculously fast compared to today. Plus: - The view out of the too-small window: it was late morning, but the sky was a dark blue and you could see a couple stars. Also, I thought I could see a slight curve of the earth. As close to space as I'll ever come, I suppose! - Steve Martin and at least four other people I vaguely recognized were on my flight. - They offered (I think for free) transfers to LaGuardia or the World Trade Center by helicopter. I really regret not doing that! - And I remember being underwhelmed by the "Mach 2" speed: other than the flight being only a little over three hours, it didn't "feel" fast in the air at all. I forget how it much cost, but I remember using frequent flier miles to upgrade to Concorde from a paid first class ticket.
• Graham24 10y ago
  My brother used to work for BA ticketing (DBA) and he told me that Concorde was profitable towards the end of its life and always full. I think he said that it was the charter flights that brought it the money.
  • dingaling 10y ago
    One of the regular charters in the 1970s / 80s was by the Royal Air Force, hiring Concorde to perform supersonic runs off the east coast of Britain for radar calibration and interception trials. My uncle was involved from the radar side and recounts how amusing it was to watch the Lightning fighters try to scramble to perform a mock interception; they could peak at Mach > 2.2 but that wasn't anywhere near sufficient. They could only manage it if held airborne with a tanker ahead of the flight path and given lots of warning. Later the Lightnings were 'replaced' by the Tornado F3, which was so anemic in performance that they didn't even try for a firing solution. They used to have to engage partial reheat to keep-up with the turboprop Soviet 'Bears'!
  • djaychela 10y ago
    They ran them from Bournemouth Airport where I live, and they were always popular. I went down to watch it take off once, and the noise and jet blast was incredible - MUCH more than any other plane I've seen take off from there, like being blown by a hairdryer all over. My most lasting memory of it, though was the pollution - the air was brown behind it when it initially thrusted up, and the smell was really intense. A great machine, but not a friend of the environment, sadly!
    • Graham24 10y ago
      Blimey, I never thought I'd find someone on Hacker news that lives in the same town as me. Up the Cherries.
    • anexprogrammer 10y ago
      They struggled to get them in and out of regional airports. Can't remember runway minima etc, but I remember watching one leave Leeds-Bradford that also ran some charters near end of life. Right to the end of the runway, then full short takeoff tactics. Spin up engines and fire reheat on the brakes, then release. Noise and smoke as you'd expect - engines were in the power and on reheat before it even moves. One thing afterburners can never be is environmental. Still managed to look like it used most of the runway before unsticking!
• gambiting 10y ago
  "Taxiing to the runway consumed 2 tons of fuel." This always bothered me - how come it's easier/cheaper to burn 2 tonnes of fuel, than just tow the damn thing to the runway?
  • LukaAl 10y ago
    The concord didn't have an auxiliary power unit to provide energy with the engine off. So it needs to rely on energy from the gate or a special external unit. This unit was also necessary to provide the energy to start the engine. Obviously, it could start the engine but don't use them for taxiing, except that the 4 engines were so powerful that at idle produced enough thrust to move the plane (and they were burning a lot of gas). So better to taxi on it's on power than been towed. P.s: the 2 tons figure was the higher estimation, not the regular consumption...
  • yaakov34 10y ago
    2 tons of fuel cost around $2000 (obviously this would vary, but that's the sense of it), a single seat on the Concorde cost $6000+ one-way towards the end of its service. Apparently the economics of a) retrofitting an auxiliary power unit to the Concorde so that it could be towed with engines off and b) adding personnel to the ground crew for towing the airplane did not make sense. And even if the airline cared greatly about the environmental impact, 2 tons for a few Concorde flights is a tiny fraction of even a single airline's fuel usage.
• makerofthings 10y ago
  I never got to fly on one, but I live near to one. You can go and sit in the pilot's seat if you want : http://book.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/runwayvisitorpark http://book.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/runwa...
• Ne02ptzero 10y ago
  Here's a video about the Concorde history, especially why did it commercially failed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE
• Tepix 10y ago
  So, is there a replacement coming for the Concorde? Here's a related obligatory Elon Musk quote from his talk at the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico last month: "Actually, I was sort of thinking, like, maybe there is some sort of market for really fast transport of stuff around the world, provided we can land somewhere where noise is not a super-big deal — rockets are very noisy — but we could transport cargo to anywhere on earth in 45 minutes, at the longest. So most places on Earth would be maybe 20, 25 minutes. So maybe if we had a floating platform out off the coast of the USA, off the coast of New York, say 20 or 30 miles out, you could go from, you know, from New York to Tokyo in — I don't know — 25 minutes. Cross the Atlantic in 10 minutes. Really, most of your time would be getting to the ship. And then it'd be real quick after that. So there's some intriguing possibilities there, although we're not counting on that."
  • wobbleblob 10y ago
    That's great, but didn't Concorde show that there's really not that big a market for shaving a few hours off an intercontinental flight? Wouldn't it be more future proof to invest in "fast enough" ultra low fuel, low cost intercontinental means of transport, that's still viable after peak oil?
    • gozur88 10y ago
      Pretty much. Airliners have actually gotten slower since the 1960s because it saves a nontrivial amount of fuel. That said, there probably is a market for supersonic commercial aircraft. The problem is it's not large enough to develop the hardware. When Boeing or Airbus comes out with a new subsonic mid-sized widebody they're expecting to sell thousands to the commercial market, plus an air freight version, plus tanker variants for military use.
  • masklinn 10y ago
    > So, is there a replacement coming for the Concorde? Unlikely. Flying supersonic is expensive, and the larger the jet the more expensive it is. The market for people willing to pay significantly more for a somewhat shorter flight is way too small, people much prefer cheaper flights (hence the success of Ryanair and similar) and those who would/could be willing to pay for it will use private or shared charter jets instead. Note that even the POTUS doesn't care, Air Force One is a militarised 747-200.
• Tomte 10y ago
  At the technics museum in Sinsheim (Germany) there are a Tupolew Tu-144 and a Concorde on exhibit. Raised steeply into the sky, and you can walk through the aisle up to the cockpit! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_%26_Technik_Museum_Sinsheim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_%26_Technik_Museum_Sinshe... and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde_und_Tu-144_Auto-_und_Technikmuseum_Sinsheim.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Concorde...
  • ant6n 10y ago
    And nearby there's the other aviation museum that has a 747 and the Buran.
• bboreham 10y ago
  I lived and worked within ten miles of London Heathrow airport when Concorde was flying; not under the flight path but off to the side. Every time Concorde took off you had to cease conversation until it passed; it was that loud.
  • alan_cx 10y ago
    Me too, and I still miss it.
    • gaius 10y ago
      And the Vulcan. Beautiful sound, beautiful plane. Its said that once a USAF pilot saw the Vulcan manoeuvring and remarked that it was awfully big for a fighter...
      • pjc50 10y ago
        I was lucky enough to see one of the last two flights and capture it doing a lazy turn at low altitude: https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21457421183/in/album-72157659274166079/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21457421183/in/a...
      • arethuza 10y ago
        Saw a Vulcan doing aerobatics fairly low over the wee Scottish village where I grew up probably late 70s - an absolutely unforgettable sight and the NOISE - like a thousand tormented demons howling at once. Not sure if the Vulcan was supposed to deter the Soviets with its nukes or simply scare them to death. Edit: The Vulcan wasn't just loud in the "strategic bomber" sense of loud - it also sometimes generated a completely unearthly howl that it is famous for. Combine the engine noise and the howl and it really was quite a monster.
        • mathw 10y ago
          I think awareness of the Vulcan's purpose coupled with that howling was the big thing for me when I saw it fly after they restored one. What an incredible machine. Just a shame it was originally built to kill millions of Russians. I know military investment produces all kinds of awesome technology, but... we could be better than that. And that's something Concorde felt like it represented.
• reacweb 10y ago
  For me, the sad part of the story of Concorde is that Boeing has failed to build a supersonic plane and as a revenge has lobbied to prohibit the Concorde flying over the USA. This protectionism and the petrol crisis have caused its commercial failure.
  • Fuddh 10y ago
    Supersonic flights over land is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve, as the noise levels are very high. This is a major reason behind why the Concorde only flew across the ocean. Nonetheless I did not know Boeing was lobbying against it - that kind of protectionism does indeed hinder innovation.
    • caf 10y ago
      Concorde did actually fly over land - Braniff Airways operated it between Washington DC and Dallas Fort Worth under a short-lived, strange 'tag flight' arrangement (where the aircraft would continue on from Washington to London / Paris under BA / AF crews). This segment was sub-sonic, though.
      • dingaling 10y ago
        And for each US domestic rotation each individual aircraft was reregistered onto the US N-register, and then back onto the UK or French register for the Atlantic crossing. At that time only N-reg aircraft were pemitted to operate internal commercial US flights. To simplify the process the BA Concordes were allocated unique-for-the-UK alpha-numeric registrations which could have their 'G-' prefix hidden by speed-tape: http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg
      • jrnichols 10y ago
        Here's a link to an old Braniff schedule showing the Concorde as a route out of DFW... http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html
    • mabbo 10y ago
• cstross 10y ago
  > BA's service had a greater number of passengers who booked a flight and then failed to appear than any other aircraft in their fleet. All Concorde tickets were first class; first class tickets on flag carriers are fully exchangable without rebooking fees, and the carriers will honour each others tickets -- if you have a first-class ticket on Air France and the flight's cancelled they'll ensure that some other (any other) airline with a free first class seat will carry you instead. So first-class tickets are popular with people who really need flexibility, and if you were flying JFK-LHR you might as well book a Concorde seat because if you missed the speedbird you could just waltz aboard the next departing 747.
  • yitchelle 10y ago
    Lifetime first class ticket by American Airlines would allow you unlimited flight on the concorde? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAirpass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAirpass
    • cstross 10y ago
      US internal first class is not the same as full-fat intercontinental first class on a flag carrier. (It's barely up to regular business class.) I do know a guy who was booked JFK-LHR in business class in the 90s and whose flight was overbooked; BA offered free first class upgrades to anyone who was willing to travel on the next departing flight with seats so he volunteered, and was most surprised to get home two hours early!
• cstross 10y ago
  Another little-known fact: prior to 2000, the three organizations in the world racking up the highest number of supersonic flight hours each year were, in descending order: 1) British Airways 2) Air France 3) The United States Air Force Military jets don't go supersonic very often or for very l0ng, and virtually never cruise at Mach 2+. (The striking exception being the SR-71, which -- like Concorde -- is now retired.)
• Gravityloss 10y ago
  When USA and Soviet Union were building more impressive fighters and bombers to threaten each other, Britain and France collaborated on a craft that in some ways was so much better than anything else, and it was for peaceful purposes. I think the most fascinating part was making it really operational and reliable. That's a very hard problem. AFAIK it has more supersonic time collected than all the other aircraft combined. And if you look at military jets, they have a mind boggling amount of maintenance hours for every flight hour.
  • newjersey 10y ago
    I have no idea what ratio is a good ratio and what's a terrible ratio so I googled it and the first link said the Boeing C-17 globe master iii specs say only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16121/how-should-the-number-of-maintenance-hours-per-flight-hour-for-the-c-17-be-inter https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16121/how-shoul... I don't know anything about flying but I assume there's a limit to amount of the parallelization you can do? Can twenty technicians finish the maintenance in an hour? More importantly, how long can you put off this maintenance? Do I have to spend this before each flight or can I delay this as a batch process later in the week? Sorry for stupid question
    • Gravityloss 10y ago
      I think it's a very good question. For commercial aircraft, this article would suggest massively less wall clock hours in maintenance than in flight, about a ratio of one to ten (assuming 12 flight hours per day and 16 hour days in maintenance). Maintenance man-hours would be about three per flight hour. So comparable to the cockpit crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks A check: 500 hours of flying, 20 hour, 200 man-hour (0.04 h/h, 0.4 mh/h) C check: 2 years of flying: 2 weeks, 6000 man-hours (0.03 h/h, 0.7 mh/h) D check: 6 years of flying: 2 month, 50,000 man hours (0.03 h/h, 1.9 mh/h) EDIT: this doesn't include unscheduled maintenance.
      • Gravityloss 10y ago
• pseingatl 10y ago
  Don't forget that Richard Branson offered to keep Concorde flying under the Virgin colors, but this was too much for BA to stomach. Didn't Sukhoi have a project for a supersonic business jet? Concorde flew briefly into Miami as well. I don't know how long it took them, but LHR-MIA is something like 10 hours subsonic. They also flew to someplace in the Caribbean regularly.
  • peteri 10y ago
    Used to fly to Barbados from Heathrow, which is why I had my honeymoon there. When we booked it's retirement hadn't been announced if I wasn't already travelling by Concorde I would done the LHR-JFK Concorde with QEII back round trip. I think flight time was around 4 hours, looking at the other folks arriving in reception hours after us all looking shattered after a 9ish hour flight was a great experience. Would do it again tomorrow if I could worth every penny.
    • robotresearcher 10y ago
      There's a Concorde on permanent display at the airport in Barbados.
      • peteri 10y ago
        Didn't know that if I'm ever back there again I'll make a point of visiting, Thanks
• sarreph 10y ago
  > The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996 by British Airways' G-BOAD in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from takeoff to touchdown. It was aided by a 175 mph tailwind. 0_O - I think they invented the first commercial, non-viable time-travel.
• manish_gill 10y ago
  Here's a tour inside the cockpit of the Concorde: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeqH8YEviA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOeqH8YEviA
• skykooler 10y ago
  > To prevent excessive exposure, the flight deck comprised of a radiometer; if the radiation level became too high, pilots would descend below 45,000 feet. I don't think that's the proper wording; I'm pretty sure there were other things on the flight deck besides a radiometer.
  • LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Sure, but at least they got to use the word "comprised"!
    • fnj 10y ago
      Used it grammatically wrongly.
• arnold_palmur 10y ago
  If you are interested in the Concorde, do yourself a favor and listen to this Omega Tau episode http://omegataupodcast.net/166-flying-the-concorde/ http://omegataupodcast.net/166-flying-the-concorde/
• mrfusion 10y ago
  I've always been curious to see the fuel usage numbers between a normal jet and a vehicle that goes into space on a ballistic trajectory? It seems like the latter would need less fuel because it only fights the atmosphere on launch and then glides through a near vacuum most of the way. But perhaps the additional speed requirements cancel the drag savings?
• costcopizza 10y ago
  Any recommendations for a great documentary on this fascinating plane?
• lstodd 10y ago
  Volunteer Tu-144 restoration project http://77106.livejournal.com/ http://77106.livejournal.com/
• spitfire 10y ago
  If you go look on your nearest bay of pirates you can find a 3 hour video covering an entire flight of Concorde from the cockpit. Details preflight, taxi takeoff, fuel management, flight stages and everything.