FE Hoppy

The theory is perfectly sound, but the application to a given situation might be inappropriate. The universe in general seems to run on using the minimum effort to achieve the maximum effect. Entropy will ultimately rule, but in the meantime efficiency and conservation of energy is what keeps everything going. That being the case, the most efficient design for a given circumstance will ultimately win out until the circumstances change and a better design is called for.

The laws of physics dictate that there is a rapidly diminishing return as the size of supersonic aircraft increase. It becomes too hard or too enviornmentally damaging to displace the air for very large craft. This is less of a problem at subsonic speeds, where even quite large increases in aircraft size are not accompanied by disproportionately large increases in drag or wing loading. In fact overall efficiency can be improved in many cases.

Geopolitical factors are just one of many things that need to be taken into account with analysis of this kind and it is right for you to point out that not everything is necessarily measurable as a physical quantity.

Well, the theory as presented *could* be argued to encompass that, but as far as I could tell from the original journal article, that's not what it was about - it did not distinguish supersonic from subsonic in terms of the conclusions drawn. This is why I pointed out that the mention of Concorde was almost a footnote in the original article, but for some reason bumped up to headline status in the phys.org article linked above.

Concorde was only mentioned in the original journal piece as it was (naturally) an extreme outlier on the general trend.

Of course - however the original journal article was not intended to be a historical precis of relative success of airliners - it was a purely scientific theory which showed that various equations regarding airliner specifications could be used to plot a trend showing how commercially successful they were based on the historical aspects (and presumably extrapolated for future reference if desired).

I just have a problem with studies that try to analyze human activities with reductionist statistics and math. Most of human achievement comes not from the masses (which perhaps can be studied that way) but from the outliers, the screwballs, the few who, through enhanced human cussedness and stubbornness, decide NOT to stay with the obvious, efficient or safe thing.

Concorde was a political animal, heavily subsidized because someone want it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

But then, ALL advances in transportation have been - and often still are - political animals, subsidized because someone with money and power wants it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

Columbus and Magellan were subsidized, to head straight out to sea when everyone else was sticking close to the coastlines. Look up the land grants to U.S. trans-continental railroads. Or the Air Mail contracts that supported the fledgling American air transport industry (and if you think "that was then, and this is now," - consider the budget of the FAA and NTSB and TSA, and the military contracts to Boeing and its suppliers.)

Cars? Consider how much tax money goes to build and maintain highway systems.

And consider the man who stood up in the U.S. Capitol and declared, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Concorde failed because it lost political support** - just like Apollo and the Space Shuttle. But most of the other aircraft on those charts would also be, or have been, far rarer in the skies (or never appeared) if they lost (or never had) their own political backing and subsidies, direct and indirect.

**If the French government had felt it was in France's interest for Concorde to continue, I'm sure money for, and political pressure on, Airbus would have been found to keep her flying.

And Concorde also faced substantial political opposition - its market viability would have been much higher if U.S. authorities had been as lenient with its "furrin" sonic booms as they had been with our own home-grown booms ("The Sound of Freedom!", it was called.)

Now - Concorde's technology was pushing 40, and no doubt that particular airframe would have faded away, just like the 727 and the other designs from the 1960's. To be replaced with something newer. But the future of supersonic transport in general was cut short not because of some statistical failing, but simply because it no longer shared the same political support as subsonic aviation.

Well if you leave out that bunch of points on the graph that presumably represent the post-Concorde slowpoke moneymakers, the remaining points would fit a line sloping upwards that passes quite close to the Concorde point.


Hindsight is wonderful, innit?

ross_M

787s are hardly 'behemoths'

totally agree with @pattern_is_full, but I wonder here why noone of those rich Arabs invests in one Concorde plane instead of endless goldening of huge hotel-like planes like A380 etc.? Sure it would be a sign of prestige?

Concorde size limits would still be enough for one man and his suite so that wouldn't be a problem, and coming anywhere in the world in 4-5 hours would come handy as time is something he couldn't buy with any money. If he does, say, 30 long flights in a year it's like he gets 6 totally free days.

It's not that simple. Political support didn't diminish for no good reason. When you talk about Concorde, or any supersonic vehicle, you cannot ignore what used to be called "the sound barrier".

In a sense, it really is a barrier; not so much physical, but financial. If the drag curve between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.8 was just a similar extension of the drag curve between Mach 0.5 and Mach 0.8 (i.e. a simple V squared relationship), then the political support along with the economic viability of supersonic airliners would mean rich folks could still buy a fast ride across the Atlantic. And, if there were no sonic boom either, then these fast airliners would be flying everywhere and be even more viable.

But that huge spike in the real-world drag curve as you pass through transonic air-speeds and the steep power-required curve beyond that forms what amounts to a really big spike in the money required to operate at high Mach numbers both from an initial hardware point of view but, more importantly, in the money required to both fuel and maintain such exotic airplanes. Pile the sonic boom issues on top of those costs, and it's no suprise very few people have ever gone supersonic.

Political support for the Concorde didn't simply go out of fashion. It faded for very good reasons, mostly related to good old Mother Nature and the odd shape of the real-world drag curve.

Concorde simulator at Brooklands
 

Nice to see this thread still active!

I wonder is there is a Concorde expert who could help me with a question please. I have booked some time in the Concorde simulator at brooklands in September and was wondering how I should best use the time I have (30 mins). What do you think would be the most interesting and enjoyable use of my time? I have read most of this thread, and gather that the JFK departures were spectacular. Is that what you think I should try?

I have spent a bit of time in other simulators (purely for fun), so what I am hoping to try in the Concorde simulator is something unique to Concorde.

@mozella

I guess my point would be that the same problems of supersonic flight existed in 1963-1976 as did in 2003. It was a technological challenge, and it was expensive.

The physics of the sound barrier did not change over that time. Nor did the constituent gases in Concorde's exhaust plume*, nor did the volume of the sonic booms.

However, in 1976, going supersonic was considered worth the costs, and in 2003 it was not, and that was a political (or if you prefer, cultural) calculation.

*Actually, I think the engines were tweaked to be less "smoky", but that may have been before commercial ops began.

I think you should try an outside loop, I'm sure Kennedy One departure, CRI climb will pale in comparison.

Evolution: Survival of the fittest.

An often misunderstood expression.
Fittest does not mean the most athletic or physically strong, it means fit for it's environment.

When the environment changes the animal/plant/aircraft needs to evolve to best fit that changing environment.
Living organisms take many generations to change due to the randomness of genetic mutation. Aircraft design, in comparison, changes relatively quickly as new technology and ideas develop.

The environment changed in the seventies, fuel prices exploded. The 747, and continued lines of fuel efficient wide bodies thrived, Concorde only continued due to political will. If the price of fuel was still $20/barrel Concorde (and probably a couple of successors) would be going strong as it would still "fit" the political and economic environment. (The greens may have put a bit of pressure on though:eek:)

Simples eh?

I see that average figure for planes is 49 mpg per passenger and Concorde is at 17, although it's almost 3 times more I can't see it as drastical figure as I thought it would be? Especially since it's very similar to a business jet.

Wasn't Concorde extremely fuel-efficient at M2 and 60,000', but the horrendous fuel consumption getting up there more than offset that?

Smokey engines were a feature of the pre-production machines. The production Concordes with a change in combustion chamber design had a much cleaner exhaust.

Turin has it on why Concorde didn't sell - massive increases in oil prices and perhaps more importantly, the advent of the wide body airliner in 1969 that changed the airlines' focus from speed to per-seat operating cost reduction, where it remains today.

oh well, make bigger Concorde then :)

Airworthiness Directives - Return to Service
 

Dear all,

I am looking for a .pdf copy of the AD issued at the time of the return to service of the Concorde, describing the package of modifications.

CAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 001-09-2001 of 5 Sept 2001
and
DGAC Consigne de Navigabilité N° 2001-390-144(B) of 3 Oct 2001

I have already found a summary of the contents here, but I would like to have the documents in their original format.

If anybody has any of those, I would appreciate if he/she could send me a copy (please contact me via PM for the email address).
Thanks in advance!

Concorde Captain recent interview
 

For those willing to search out a podcast:
166 ? Flying the Concorde | omega tau

This time we talk with former Concorde pilot John Hutchinson about flying this Mach 2 airliner. We discuss the cornerstones of the design and construction of the aircraft, its operation (mostly with British Airways), flying characteristics as well as the infamous accident in Paris in 2000 (on which John has some very specific opinions).

After the crash a former president of the French Women Pilots association requested from the French Minister Gayssot to allow flights again, and to have a first French woman qualified on the type. That was done between may 2001 and the end of the flights.

Doing that, French women pilots wanted to express their confidence in Concorde and their wonderful British/French teams.:D

Foud it, but...
 

Duh? Is there a button to start PLAY?:ugh:

Scroll about a third of the way down the page and you will see a bar with the "Play" triangle on the left.

It's over two hours long... Probably best downloading it!!

Then look around the site, similar on the SR-71 and U-2 as well as the space shuttle..