Concorde Documentary

The chart referenced is primarily for ATC to provide correct separation, and sequencing for many/any kind of plane, and for ground to determine correct taxi clearance distances. I'm guessing here that the TU-144 is listed just in case one would ever come to the US NAS and be sequenced for landing at some place busy like BWI. No one in their right mind would ever attempt operations out of Reagan national with a TU-144. lol,, Note, the Lockheed SR-71 is also in the chart, and it has operated out of several comm airports.

 

years ago i missed a chance to fly on a concorde,when it was at the EAA show in oshkosh,it went up lake mich to canada and back,i thought it cost $500+ ,and i couldn't afford it back then

 

The SR71 (RS71) had a Pratt and Whitney JT11D-20 regular jet engine with, of course, the special spike to make the air velocity subsonic, and the afterburner.
At high speed, the engine did work partially as a ram jet.
The engine was originally developed for another plane, a jet-powered flying boat never produced.

 

Ain't no expert but I did get some info on the SST economics. My statement on the Concorde being unprofitable was right but wrong regarding the profitability of the airplane. As usual, the operation of the Concorde was a convoluted arrangement. BA and AF did not purchase the airframes but operated them, thus escaping the costs involved in all that goes with ownership. The passengers paid normal prices , 2000 dollars, initially but the operators were losing money so the price was upped a bit to 10,000 dollars for a crossing when the operators figured that those who were interested in flying Concorde didn't care how much it cost. Then they bundled the offering to a one way Supersonic crossing with a return on a subsonic vehicle and they did turn a profit. The operators were adjusting things to do better when the 9-11 thing and the accident combined to shut the SST down. So, I wasn't totally correct in my statement.

 

Speaking of the "supersonic cruise" without afterburners - how about the B-58 and B-70 bombers?

It was my understanding that the B-58 had to use afterburners, but the B-70 could supercruise without them...

 

I saw this thread pop up and I thought I'd share a few pictures my Sister took when she and her husband took the Concorde
on their way to the Grand Prix of Monaco. Unfortunately she isn't a photographer and had just got her first 35 mm camera
just for that trip so the pictures are not spectacular but I think she still managed to capture the Concorde in one roll of film
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That made a lot of (business) sense back then. You would leave Paris at a decent time, 1100 and arrive downtown NYC mid-morning (landing at 0845).

So you could have a full day of meeting and then fly back first-class on a 747, have a nice sleep and be back at the office the next morning.

 

My grandfather took a shot of the in-cabin speedometer just as it hit mach 2 IIRC. I'll try and find it next time I have the ability to look through some old pictures.

 

Unfortunately links don't work. Only Tupolev's.

 

B-70 yes to supercruise

B-58, don't think so. Never heard that it could. A bomber that was obsolete from the beginning. A bear to fly... I think almost 1/4 of them were lost to accidents. Maintenance just on the weird nosegear was neverending. But damn, it could climb at something like 45,000 fpm.


BTW, the famous supercruiser, the Concorde did not need afterburner to get to supercruise. They almost always used it, though as it was much quicker and used less fuel than punching through without the ABs.