48 ms·
Concorde ‘B’
- lowken10 9y agoMy 10-year-old son is obsessed with Concorde. I'm going to send him this article.
- russb 9y agoSend him the link below if you really want to blow his mind. 100 pages of discussion between pilots, designers, aerodynamicists, FAs, etc. CliveL was my favorite. https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.htm...
- throwaway_sst 9y agoOr he might like this, reorganised for his reading pleasure: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-concorde/docs/index.html https://paulross.github.io/pprune-concorde/docs/index.html
- EamonnMR 9y agoNone of this to address the major problem that plagued and ultimately ended its run though, the exploding tires and subsequent damage.
- MBCook 9y agoI thought they fixed the tire issue? The thing that killed it was runway debris.
- mshook 9y agoThey did, they got new tires which would be less likely to break into shards and installed liners in wing tanks so shock waves wouldn't pierce the fuselage. http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter4.html
- mshook 9y agoIt wasn't really the issue. Yes, that was a major problem but the real issue was the plane was old. The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. Yes, the airframe was aging slowly because high temperatures while flying would prevent humidity from building up but the maintenance on this aircrat was expensive as hell compared to more recent aircrafts. And it was a downward sliding slope. Anything was costlier on this thing because pretty much everything had to be custom built compared to other planes. And in the end, it stopped flying not only because AF and BA decided to retire their Concorde fleet but above all because Airbus retired the aircraft certificate of airworthiness. Is it political? Economical? Honestly, probably both. Airbus probably didn't want to get dragged in the mud again if anything else were to happen.
- gsnedders 9y ago> The newest model had been built in 78 (G-BOAF, Aircrat 216). Think about it, how many airlines back in 2000 were flying planes that were between 22 and 25 years old? Not that many. Just looking right now, AF and BA are around 12 to 13 years for their average fleet age. By way of comparison, the last BA 747-100 flight was late 1999, on G-AWNO, which had been delivered to BOAC in 1973. The last 747-200 flight was not much later (2001, G-BDXO), despite being a far, far newer airframe (delivered 1987).
- mshook 9y agoRight (I upvoted you actually) but by another way of comparison, it appears BA itself ended up having 19 747-100 altogether. Which is 5 more than the whole Concorde fleet. 167 747-100 were built says wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Model_summary Think about economy of scales for parts, training, maintenance, ...
- gsnedders 9y agoAlso worth noting that BA got rid of all of their aircraft that had flight engineers relatively close together around that time (Concorde was the last to go).
- esaym 9y ago>exploding tires Tires? As in plural? I thought it only happened once and that was due to parts from another plane being left on the runway. Any aircraft with tires mounted under a wing (fuel tank) will have the potential that if a tire blows, a piece with enough force could knock a hole through it.
- gvb 9y ago"During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, 7 of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic." Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previous_tyre_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Previou...
- esaym 9y agoI see. Ouch!
- zwieback 9y agoI have a hard time imagining SST making any sense given that we spend hours stuck in traffic, then stuck in the TSA line, customs, stuck in traffic again. The gain of a few hours from NY to London or Paris doesn't seem enough. If you could extend the range to where you can do really long-haul flights maybe it would be interesting to a tiny elite.
- tetrep 9y agoThere's a wealth of public transit options that will reliably get you from Manhattan to JFK in about an hour. I haven't waited in a security line at an airport for more than 30 minutes in years. When lines get long they drop the security theater and start letting people through very quickly. I imagine people who are willing to pay for SST would also pay the troll toll and spend comparatively very little time in security lines. For context, I fly (usually coast to coast) about a dozen or more times a year.
- mynameisvlad 9y ago30 minutes is still a hell of a long time to wait, especially for a TSA check which is next to worthless.
- jacquesm 9y ago> When lines get long they drop the security theater and start letting people through very quickly. Which airports? US domestic flights? Because internationally I've never seen this happen.
- jkaplowitz 9y agoUS airport security is not separated between international and domestic flights. I don't know what the parent poster meant but it can't be that, at least not for US airports.
- londons_explore 9y agoAny airport which doesn't fly to the USA. Generally, security rules are made and enforced by USA authorities. Any airport which doesn't fly to the USA only needs to follow local rules of the country they are in, which while typically are as strict as the USA rules, are typically not enforced. Some airports for example only xray one in 10 bags at peak times, or none at all if the machines broken. Source: Personal experience only, but I've been to a lot of airports.
- JanSolo 9y agoConcorde was a fantastic technological achievement; It's beautiful and revolutionary. My heart really wants it to be successful. However, my head tells me that no amount of tweaking or tuning will change the fundamental problem with Concorde. The root problem with this aircraft is that people prefer cheaper flights over faster flights. The real success that we can take from the Concorde program was that some of the technology found its way into the A300 program and its derivative, the A320. Cheap, reliable aircraft are what people want. Fast, expensive ones are cool, but not really economic.
- clarkenheim 9y agoAccording to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc First/business class seats are where the airlines make all of their money, so Concord would be economically viable today.
- adolph 9y agoWouldn’t a more costly to produce product eliminate the large margin of existing first/business class?
- londons_explore 9y agoIf true, concord alone would be viable, but a combination of concord and regular planes on the same route would lead to all the business passengers taking concord, and the economy ones left in standard planes, which would no longer be viable.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIn that case you could raise the price of Concorde tickets to push surplus business customers back to regular planes. But this raises the question, why would you even want to bother with Concorde in the first place? It only makes sense if you could attract new business class customers, who would take the faster trip but wouldn't take the slower one at all.
- rwmj 9y agoIsn't this what Boom (a YC company, I think) are essentially doing? https://boomsupersonic.com/ https://boomsupersonic.com/
- matthewmcg 9y agoYes--there's a great discussion of their strategy on this podcast: http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/ http://www.airplanegeeks.com/2017/08/02/463-boom-supersonic/
- syncsynchalt 9y ago(See also elidourado's post in this thread)
- Theodores 9y agoIt would be nice to make one of these much like a resto mod car or how one might make a space invaders game cabinet with a Raspberry Pi on board. Imagine if you could 3D print the thing, slap in the dashboard from an A340 and the engines from some retired Eurofighter Typhoons.
- defterGoose 9y agoThis guy gets aeronautical engineering.
- inteleng 9y agoAre you high?
- VeejayRampay 9y agoTGV, Concorde, Leclerc tank, Rafale, it's almost like the cliché of the French not being good engineers is inaccurate. Yes I'm French, yes I'm salty.
- inglor 9y agoUh, there was never such a cliché? I've never heard anyone say French people were bad engineers.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- andr 9y agoAn interesting aspect in the demise of the Concorde has nothing to do with the Concorde, but how other long haul airplanes changed with time. By the late 90s, you had lay-flat business class seats, in flight entertainment, and even fancier service in first class. The Concorde, on the other hand, was a small plane (2 by 2, single aisle), and while it cost more than first class, seats were similar to premium economy today (38" seat pitch). As you had to pay much more for a crappier seat, it is rumored that as much as half the passengers on each flight were just free upgrades and award flights.
- ksec 9y agoIs there any reason why people don't buy Concorde for Private jet? Surely there are lot more people who can afford this compare to what was 20 years ago. And those who buy private jet are likely to care about the much shorter trip. Or is it Concorde, due to its thrust and speed aren't / can't be as comfortable ?
- dasmoth 9y agoI believe Airbus have let the type certificate lapse. Nobody is allowed to fly them...
- dogma1138 9y agoActually I don’t think there is anyone who can afford it tbh. You’ll need to build a whole supporting infrastructure around it which doesn’t exist. No pilots, no crew to serve no parts, it can’t land or take off from most airports and it can’t fly over most areas due to ban on supersonic flight. At this point you’ll need to start a whole aerospace company to support it, recertify it with civilian air transport authorities and possibly even build new airports or runways for it. Even if you have 50 billion net worth that would be out of your reach.
- jonknee 9y agoThere are certainly people who can afford it, but at that level there is literally no reason to. With that kind of cash people come to you, there's no reason to try and rush across the globe in a cramped jet to make a meeting. The uber rich tend to like jumbo jets outfitted to the max and get to set their own schedules.
- _ph_ 9y agoIt is really sad that this design wasn't built. The Concorde was a great design, but obviously, you don't hit perfection on the first attempt. The Concorde "B" shows, that as with any design, it is important to have enough iterations to get real efficiency. The Shuttle was a great design for the late 70ies. If it had at least a significant design iteration every 5-10 years, it could have been a bigger success. Similarly if the Concorde hat gotten 2-3 design iterations over its life, it could have been very successfull. SpaceX is successful, because they are not trying to fly the initial F9 - it is said that they actually didn't built the exact same rocket twice, but always added small improvements.
- semessier 9y agoConcorde was iterated 3 times, each carrying substantial modifications. From flying prototype to a preproduction version to the production version.
- _ph_ 9y agoI was explicitly talking about iterations after the production version. As the linked article shows, there were significant updates possible relative to the production version.
- aj7 9y agoWith an impractical or uneconomic product, the best version, often a mini tour de force, comes out just before cancellation.
- ggm 9y agoFuture engine economics would have been interesting, as well as digital design models once there was a market for Concorde B+, C and so on. Current engines for commercial jets are bypass fan designs. If the same efficiency gains had been achieved for the type of engine in a concorde... (who knows? maybe military jets are now significantly more efficient)