I just love that lower picture, HM! So illustrative. Any idea what alpha that is, and what the 'white' ?vortex? is which appears to start 'nowhere'?
Being well out of touch with modern aerodynamics like the ogive, has the 'stall' been re-defined for these shapes? Obviously there is no clear point where flow 'separates' since it is pretty well 'separated' at most angles and the classic 'nose-drop' and sudden onset of sink rate are no longer there. Do you know what the trigger is for the ultimate breakdown of the 'attached' vortex?
BOAC
It looks like the white is a trace started from a smoke cannister or similar, set some distance above the wing surface, presumably to show the flow in that plane, which if so, looks interesting (caused by the vortex picking it up being much expanded by then)
I think one way of defining a 'stall ' for these types of wings, could be simply maximum Cl, attainable, regardless of drag and thus thrust required for stable unaccelerated flight.i.e. A lot!
Another 'limit' might be buffeting 'G' - Concorde would shake about at lower speeds noticeably, I believe at anything much below 250 kts, and buffet badly during landing flare - have never flown on it, but think that pax were told/warned not to worry
PS. Green smoke is indicating fuselage vortices, as these can upset things quite a bit, apparently.
The ideal shape for M 2.0 cruise is a straight taper leading edge, with span roughly half the root chord. This is not ideal for subsonic flow, flaring the wing into the fuselage and reducing sweep at the tip creating that ogive or gothic shape, and then some further wing/body refinements made enormous difference, and much work went into the engine nacelle interaction with the wing's flow too, let alone the marvel of the whole intake system (26 feet long?). Reducing trim drag was a very importnat engieering goal, and together with fore/aft fuel management, gave the range required.