Concorde Documentary

Unfortunately Concorde just didn't have the range to make it to LAX non-stop. As noted in the post above, fell 1,000 NM short, and the Government wouldn't have any impact there.

As much as I'd like to have seen Concorde service LAX, outside of a sales visit (during the round the world tour), no regular (or even irregular) service.

 

Is that a Great Circle Route distance?

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

"Wishful thinking" I guess...... [Optimistic press releases? / Rose tinteds? / Old age? ]

Remains about the only plane that always turned even the most jaundiced of heads though......

Cheers,
Ian

 

Hmmmm... I think the 747 and now the A380 did and do that now.

However, just on the look of sure power masked by elegance, the Concorde wins by a country mile.

Quite frankly, it pisses me off royally that the British government allowed Airbus to terminate the flight certificate of Concorde. All because Airbus didn't want to support the aircraft any longer. A marvel of aviation and until recently the only flying supersonic transport. Outside of the 747, the Concorde was the only other revolutionary aircraft in decades. And sadly the Russians failed miserably with the Tu-144, another amazing (and faster than Concorde carrying more passengers). Fuel burn on the other hand....

 

Not really a flight path I was giving...just the shortest straight shot between the two. Too complicated for me to figure out a path that would allow supersonic travel most of time.

 

I sort of looked up a GCR... you're correct... was about 5,440 miles LAX to LHR.
Thanks.

 

From memory, JFK had a dedicated check-in area and security check which led only to the lounge, located just to the left of the main terminal lobby. I think you walked perhaps a few hundred feet from curbside to the gate.

 

I think one was painted Braniff on one side and singapore on the other on a sales tour. Simple google search brings up lots of images.

something they all conveniently forgot when the shuttle (Boeing built ??) had to land at Edwards and woke up all of southern California with its sonic boom..as a glider no less..impressive.

Was that actual physical range or just as far as it normally flew, i understood that the LHR-JFK didn require nearly full tanks, and remember the higher and faster she went the less fuel she used.

I think the only heads the A380 turns are those who are turning to vomit...I'm a Boeing guy for sure, think the 747-8 is as sexy and sleek as an airliner gets..

Could not agree more about the British government and Airbus re-the Concorde cert..British Aerospace offered to take up the program but the French said that would make them look bad. If Maggie was still PM she would have told the French to F...OFF, given BAE the engineering contract and told airbus to build their own wings and told Rolls Royce not to supply airbus with engines...or maybe that was if i was PM...either way F the french...(insert old world stereo type here LOL)

Go on youtube and look for "Concorde Around the World" , good video series of its last trip around the globe, ( when i put the link in youtube disable it, but its on there)

 

From this website: Concorde Supersonic Airliner - Record Breaker

 

Nope - artist rendering. Concorde was pulled out of service with Braniff before a paint job occurred.

Singapore Airlines was painted on one side of a British Airways aircraft on a joint service. Outside of Air France, British Airways, Singapore, and the infamous Pepsi plane (plus the Concorde anniversary paint job), no other airline livery was painted on Concorde.

 

Hmmm..... Gotta beg to differ there. *If* you're an "air-head" (! ) the -8 and 380 will catch your eye and I guess you'll give 'em both a good look-see.

OTOH, and outside that group, I don't think a 747 has turned heads in decades. I used to go in & out of LHR a *lot* back when it was still flying; Taxiing past it's maintenance hangar there'd often be 2-3 sitting around and *everyone* on the plane would take more than a passing peek - A palpable "buzz" would pass through the whole plane *every* time - Even the most cynical of flight attendants would take a quick look! Sightings (on the ground) were even noted from the flight deck on occasion!

Even more so was if you happened to be in a lounge or walkway looking out at it when it pushed back and got towed out; It would always stop people in their tracks - It was borderline ridiculous the "passion" folk felt for the thing, regardless of nationality, age, creed etc; No other plane has ever had the same effect, and certainly not among the great unwashed!

As I said above, it may not have made any money, but it's PR value was incalculable IMO.

There's simply way too many 747's around to cause any "head turning". FWIW, with RR engines hanging there, still my favorite long haul plane BTW.

Cheers,
Ian
PS - Don't even get me started on the French surrender monkeys!.....

 

All joking aside, can anyone give me the Cooks version of the rules on this?

It's a *long* time back, and as already pointed out, I'm certainly guilty of wearing the rose tinteds here. But, I do seem to recall BA (and I guess AF) whining about the restrictions here in the States; JFK was an OK destination, but SFO/LAX would have been even better (albeit possibly with a stop!). Given an inability to overfly the US (?), they had to find "destinations" for it - Brazil, South Africa and a few in the Middle East weren't the high margin routes like running into the States.

Cheers,
Ian

 

That's the one area I fully disagree with - that airplane wasn't a money loser. Airlines don't operate any aircraft or item based on pride. If it's not profitable, they withdraw. Period.

Concorde was profitable, in fact, IIRC, Concorde was operated as a separate business unit within BA, to show a profit, otherwise, they'd have pulled all the aircraft out of the fleet and shut the whole thing down.

Airbus reluctance to support the aircraft, manufacture the parts as needed (or in storage) as opposed to requiring Air France and BA to cannibalize other aircraft was just stupid. The crash of Air France is what allowed Airbus to pull the type certificate. ****ers.

 

Fair enough; Once again I stand corrected. It does seem to be a fairly regularly quoted "factoid" however - Even Bob claimed it never made any money!

I guess running it separately allowed the bean counters more "wiggle room" though! Then they factor in "intangibles" (good will, etc) and voila!.........

+1

As already noted, don't get me started on the French!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Correct, early in its life Concorde was not making money, i saw an interview with the chief pilot, who stated that BA gave the Concorde dept 6 months to turn it round or she would pulled. They did the simple task of asking the passengers how much they thought the tickets cost, as most of the business travelers did not book their own seats, then they just started charging people what they thought they were paying anyway and within a few months she was profitable, and as you stated run as a separate biz within BA

 

Thankfully it's an incorrect Factoid.

Now, the aircraft program itself was a economic failure (selling 14 planes was a colossal failure). Then again, had Boeing never announced a competing SST, Concorde likely would have sold and built more units. Every major airline (TWA, Pan Am, Braniff, Japan Airlines and so on) ordered Concorde. When Boeing announced their SST, almost all defected.

Then the fuel crisis hit and all of the supersonic programs were toast. Then again, the Tu-144 never had a chance in the western market no matter how good or bad it was.

 

While trying to refresh my memory about the Tu-144 flaws I remembered (noise and vibration), I found this very well written and informed post by "Maruska" about Concorde vs. Tu-144 on a web page with many pictures of a (decrepit) Tupolev.

The Tu-144, Tail-Number 77107 | English Russia

 

Interesting. The Tu-144 did two things better than Concorde: carried more passengers per flight, and flew faster (M2.35). That's about it. Fact is Aeroflot didn't want to operate it because there was 1) no demand for this kind of travel (nor could anyone afford it) and 2) the cost to operate and maintain each plane was exorbitant. I still find it funny that they briefly used the aircraft in Russia as a glorified freighter to transport mail and such. Waste of a plane.

As for the article above fascinating but I believe there are a couple of inaccuracies:

1. Reheat on Tu-144. It is my understanding that the Tu-144, unlike Concorde, required reheat 100% of the flight time to maintain supersonic flight. Concorde did not require this.

2. Performance at low speeds and the wing. It's inaccurate that the Tu-144 required canards because of poor performance. In fact, just the opposite, as the canards allowed the aircraft to do approach and landing speeds slower with more control. The byproduct of the delta wing on both Concorde and the Tu-144 is both have terrible low speed performance. Concorde requires a high speed approach to maintain lift. So does the Tu-144, however the canards bring this speed down. The prototype Tu-144 did not have canards. This is one area I believe the Russians thought they bested Concorde.

The irony is how much the production Tu-144 changed from the prototype Tu-144. Different wing, different engines, different gear configuations, etc. Almost two different aircraft.

Fascinating stories, and there's one museum in the world you can see both side by side in Germany.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I couldn't help looking at all those steel fasteners on the TU-144 that are exposed and RUSTING, leaving streaks of corrosion on the exterior of the airplane. Same on the other examples in the boneyard.

 

The FAA gives an approach speed of 162 knots for the Concorde vs. 178 for the Tu-144.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13_chg18_p4.pdf

I crossed the Atlantic several times on both BA and AF Concordes. My reminiscence is the BA interior was the best of the two but the AF food was better. The sky was darker and the landings were harsher than with regular commercial airplane.

 

Wondering if that document states (for Russian aircraft obviously) hypothetical numbers given the FAA never certified any Russian aircraft for use in the United States (and that document is from 1989). Just curious of the origin of those numbers for foreign aircraft. Tu-144 never operated outside of the USSR for passenger service, and NASA didn't take one for research until 1998 I believe.

 

Jet-X, you're a tough cookie. Will NASA's "A Qualitative Piloted Evaluation of the Tupolev Tu-144 Supersonic Transport" be good enough for you?

The actual approach speed was 194 knots.

http://dcb.larc.nasa.gov/DCBStaff/ebj/Papers/TM-2000-209850.pdf

 

I have contacted my buddies in Competitive Analysis to see if I can get the DOC and Seat/Mile figures on the Concord. My interest is piqued to see how much I remembered.

 

Interesting - if true (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), then the original FAA doc was inaccurate.

Unfortunately I don't know any Tu-144 pilots, otherwise I would have posted what I gleaned from them.

 

Unless you know Gordon Fullerton or Robert Rivers, you are probably out of luck...