Why didn’t it succeed?
Concorde flights came to a screeching halt after only 27 years of operation on October 24, 2003. The reason? Excessive cost, high fares, and loud noise. On a regular flight, Concordes consumed 6,771 gallons of fuel, which quickly exceeded the profit made from the flight. In addition to that, only a total of 20 Concordes were built and no airline ordered them except for Air France and British Airways, who had to as they were state-run airlines at the time.
Oh, and a 2000 crash that killed everyone on board (109 people) and four people on the ground.
Never have I felt as old online.
I flew on it . . twice. Round trip NYC - London and home a week later. BA obviously.
At altitude (60,000 feet) the sky was black, not blue. And for any flat-earth’ers out there . . sorry, but from 60,000 feet you could see the curvature of the earth.
The only interesting physical difference I remember was the difference in acceleration departing JFK vs. departing from Heathrow. Out of JFK you are instantly over the Atlantic, so it accelerated from 0 mph to Mach 2.0 in one continuous push. Whereas departing Heathrow, you are over land until the English channel. So it accelerated down the runway like any other plane, cruised until over water, then it felt like it was taking off a second time, with a much longer acceleration push.
Aw the Concord is a TIL now. They were really cool looking.
I loved how they looked down like a bird while landing.
Gotta droop the snoot
The snoot would droop.
d r o o p
D R O O P
It’s a very graceful machine that just happens to also sound like a volcano erupting
Yeah, until they flew over your house. If you think living near an airport is bad these days…. Concorde begs to differ
I never understood why they could not just go slow until they got up to cruising altitude and then gun it, wouldn’t that solve the sound problem?
It’s the whole “I’ll fall out of the sky if I go any slower with this delta wing” thing.
To create enough lift on a smaller wing you’ll have to go fast. A delta wing (v shape at the back) like on the Concord and almost all fighterjets makes it easier to go fast. They just suck at going slow.
Add to that the " go faster!" Engines and you’ll get a very loud plane.
A Concorde was for all intents and purposes just a very large fighterjet.
Weren’t they basically horribly inefficient at slower speeds? That’s how I understand most supersonic craft to be. In order to maximize their efficiency at their intended cruising speed, they sacrifice efficiency at slower speeds. Spend too much time at those lower speeds you end up not having enough fuel to get to your destination.
That may be true, but don’t forget about the aerodynamics. They have smaller, swept wings to lower any drag and to provide the proper lift at cruising speed.
At slow speeds they likely have the ailerons cranked near maxlift, just to stay aloft. (This likely causes or at least contributes to the fuel inefficiency, due to the increased drag.)
Museum of flight has one you can go it (not just a TIL, but also in a museum!). It is pretty cool and worth checking out if you are in the area.
Uh, you got a city, or a country for that museum?
Seattle, WA - it’s owned by Boeing.
A french-english plane ending up in Seattle 😁
My boss at the time, took one of the last flights on the Concord. I asked him if it was expensive, and he said he had to get back from Europe, and he figured he would never get another chance, so he wanted the adventure - and he could afford to pay for that sort of adventure.
British Airways used to sell these really nice double-sided leather bomber jackets at events that were imprinted with the British Airways logo on the black leather side and the Concorde sown into the quilted side. The reason I know this is because somebody found one in a thrift store and gave it to me as a gift, and I did a lot of digging to find out where it came from as they never sold them in stores or anything, only at events. The leather was worn thin and torn even when I got it like 20 years ago, but the Concorde looks just as good as it ever did:
No post on here has ever made me feel older. Just the thought that somebody might not know about Concorde because it’s so far in the past makes me want to hide in a closet.
I know, right? That was such a staple of aviation in general. Everybody knew about Concorde, just like how everyone can immediately recognise a Boeing 747. Maybe in thirty years time, some young’in will post about ‘I learned about an aircraft called a 747.’
Concorde was such an icon, they even made an entire disaster movie featuring it, Airport ‘79:
Not so fun fact: the aircraft used in the movie, F-BTSC, was also the actual Concorde that crashed in 2000, ultimately killing the type.
There are people having children right now who weren’t born yet when Borat came out
There are people who still do not know Borat was not real but staged and the actor Sasha Baron Cohens parents were some of the earlier Zionist colonists. His life work is spreading Islamophobia and promoting Israel.
Borat came out 19 years ago. Sure, 19 year olds have kids, but not many of them do. By that logic you can also say that there are people who were born after 9/11 who have kids in school.
IKR. I was in a costume hire shop a few years ago and asked the shop lady (age late ~20s), “do you have a Zorro costume?” She asked me, “What’s a Zorro?” Faaark I’m officially old!
True story. Antonio Banderas then ran into the store, yelled “Oi!” and stormed out.
And everybody clapped
That shop lady?
Albert Einstein.
Let’s have a few brewskis on the porch and yell at kids to get off our lawn.
One of today’s lucky 10000.
I also think it’s the younger folks who may not know what older folks already knew. OP was maybe too young to remember about Concorde.
Im nearing 40 and never knew about it because:
- Never had an interest in flying to Europe until recently
- Age is making me delete memories to store new ones
Probably, I still remember my physics teacher using the Concorde as part of a quiz.
A fun fact about Concorde: there is one aerial photo of one of them flying at supersonic speeds, and the fighter jet that the photo was taken from could barely keep up long enough to take it. Here’s the pic.
The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985. Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption. Several attempts were made to take the photo, and eventually the Concorde had to slow down from Mach 2 to Mach 1.5-1.6 so that the Tornado crew could get the shot. The Tornado was stripped of everything to get it up to that speed as long as possible.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/
That is awesome.
Slow down so I can take your picture
No
Don’t make me use your middle name!
Sigh OK
Should have used an American F-15.
Probably would have had the same problem. Both the Tornado and the F-15 were capable of going fast enough, it’s just going fast enough for an extended period that becomes a problem. The F-15 is a bit faster but needs to carry a bunch of external fuel tanks to match the Tornado’s range. Neither of them is cruising the whole way across the Atlantic at more than mach 2 like Concorde could
IIRC the only fighters that can supercruise (go supersonic without gushing fuel out of afterburners) are super modern jets like the F22, and still not at Mach 2.
Some older specialized craft could go Mach 2 efficiently, like blackbird or the XB-70, but they’re all long retired.
Concorde was realistically the only plane that could do that.
The SR-71 Blackbird is the closest thing I’ve seen to evidence that we had alien technology in the 60s. That thing is fucking wild. It doesn’t even look real in photos, it looks like mediocre cg
The crash was caused by part of the engine cowl from the previous flight (continental DC10) falling off and remaining on the runway
Whilst taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, Air France Flight 4590 ran over debris on the runway dropped by an aircraft during the preceding departure, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate… five minutes before the Concorde departed, Continental Airlines Flight 55, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, took off from the same runway for Newark International Airport and lost a titanium alloy strip that was part of the engine cowl…Concorde ran over this piece of debris during its take-off…cutting the right-front tyre of its left main wheel bogie and sending a large chunk of tyre debris into the underside of the left wing… It did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, but it sent out a pressure shockwave that ruptured the number 5 fuel tank at its weakest point, just ahead of the left landing gear well.
To expensive to operate, you needed a lot of fuel to flew few passengers faster, they decided regular airliners were fast enough.
They needed 3x as much fuel as a 747 per passenger. The Concord was also banned from flying over cities because of the noise, this pretty much limited it to routes between east coast and Europe.
But now, I wonder if supersonic flight could work today. We know a lot more now than we did when the first Concordes were built. There have been numerous advances in the fields of engineering, materials science, avionics, and such since the last Concorde jet was grounded.
Boom supersonic is trying to bring supersonic passenger flight back. They have a test bed prototype that flies out of a Colorado airport. But last I heard they were in big trouble without an engine supplier.
Boom Supersonic is a private company working on it, with an eye towards better fuel efficiency than the Concorde. They’re still in the early stages, though, so who knows if they’ll actually be able to finish a design, much less manufacture a working model.
And NASA has been doing some research on sonic boom characteristics, to see if a plane can be designed to fly faster than the speed of sound without causing a sonic boom.
In the field of aviation there have been almost no innovations except better electronics and manufacturing techniques.
All old principles still hold. Going faster requires a ton more energy.
And dumbass musk and his followers said we’ll use rockets for intercontinental flights.
Never flew in a Concorde, but I’ve been inside a grounded one, at the Museum of Flight near Edinburgh. Not sure if they still have it or not, this was some years ago.
It’s so small inside! I mean, I’m a tall guy, but even allowing for that, it was horribly cramped and generally not very nice inside. IIRC it had a brown and cream colour palette, and not in a tasteful way.
Still beautiful from the outside, of course.
That is 1970’s designs and fashion vs designs today. What people liked back then isn’t liked a lot today, but surely will be popular again in about 30 years from now
The snoot drooped.
Boom Supersonic is essentially trying to bring it back.
They have a demonstrator flying which is honestly farther than I thought they would get. I still have a lot of doubts about the actual viability when all the engine manufacturers told them they could not supply an engine that meets their needs so they decided they would design and build their own engine, too. On the one hand, kudos for not giving up. On the other, how likely is it they’ll be able to do something the rest of the industry says can’t be done, or at least can’t be done economically? But I really hope they’re able to succeed!
My grandpa was a mechanic on one of these. Impressive plane it’s too bad it didn’t work out.
They flew for 27 years, partly thanks to your grandpa. I’d say they worked out just fine
The former president of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) had a Concorde-capable airport built at his home village, so that his wife could charter it to go shopping in Europe.
The CIA assassinated his predecessor and put him in power so that he would do their bidding and that of the American mining companies. It’s estimated that he was worth around $6 billion, $30-40 billion in today’s money.
