A different Concorde?

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,619
It is generally written in histories of Concorde thst the aircraft was not large enough and had insufficient range. But with the benefit of hindsight and the actual operations of British and French airlines might a smaller executive jet version have been a better bet and might still be in service today?
 
Only the super-rich, top one percent could really afford supersonic transports. A dozen seat executive jet might have been a good technology developer leading up to Concorde.

We would like to know how often Air France and British Airways leased their Concordes to oil-rich sheiks?
 
Super Caravelle started with few passengers, and Paris - Algier (2000 miles) range...
 
The iterations of Gulfstream 2 suggest that longevity is not a selection factor in this prestige/vanity sector. Isn't it the same as supercars (even i-fones?): replaced when yesterday's passe model tarnishes the owner's status.

Technologically the bizjet builders could have ratcheted their optimum cruising speeds by now to go M1+ a bit, but have not, because no Govt. will impose sonic booms on its population for the benefit of a few. It was that which was one of the two factors which dished Concorde at market. The other was Big Fans which offered range+economy. A reason Singapore A/L terminated its Concorde lease was that JT9D-7Q was so efficient that 747-200B on Great Circle non-stop could link W.Europe-SIN in little more elapsed time than Concorde, diverted round India to save cows, so requiring at least one transit stop.
 
Last edited:
Remember that NIMBY protestors mounted ardent campaigns to ground Concorde because they claimed it was too noisy. Every time a Concorde was scheduled to fly from NY airport, hundreds of protestors telephoned airport officials, city council, etc. ... even on days when Concordes were grounded by fog or maintenance!
Hah!
Hah!
Left-wing NIMBY protestors are not always logical.
 
Last edited:
The main factor in the cost of Concorde wasn't the production cost, it was the fact that so much research was required to build a Mach 2 aircraft. A smaller aircraft would still have required the same R&D, so wouldn't have been much cheaper, requiring even more expensive tickets to break even.
 
uk 75 said:
It is generally written in histories of Concorde thst the aircraft was not large enough and had insufficient range. But with the benefit of hindsight and the actual operations of British and French airlines might a smaller executive jet version have been a better bet and might still be in service today?
Click to expand...
Unlikely I'd say, you'd be limiting yourself to an even smaller market segment to try and make your money back on and cover your operating costs. I’d suggest that a Concorde with longer range is more likely to be profitable.
 
History has proven that the Americans were correct in not taking the bait and competing with Europe over the SST or the A-380.

I've been up close and personal to 3 Concorde takeoffs and they are the loudest things I have ever heard. Considering that they served only a very small part of society far above my pay grade, I don't miss them and would be annoyed at them launching over my neighborhood. As much as I love airplanes, I think it is far better to see them and not hear them so much that they are disturbing. BTY, I only fly electric models and don't have worry about the loss of my hearing or degrease my models after flying.
 
This thread has some interesting points and arguments but it could be broader in scope so I have changed the title.
A larger Concorde with more seats and greater range might have been more attractive to Far Eastern airlines with longer over ocean routes.
 
It needed a strategic bomber version. Both the UK and France could have taken turns flying the one they both cooperated on to afford.
 
Richard N said:
History has proven that the Americans were correct in not taking the bait and competing with Europe over the SST or the A-380.
Click to expand...
FWIW (1) the USA spent $1,035 million (including $171 million cancellation charges) on their SST project to its cancellation on 18.03.71.
Richard N said:
I've been up close and personal to 3 Concorde takeoffs and they are the loudest things I have ever heard. Considering that they served only a very small part of society far above my pay grade, I don't miss them and would be annoyed at them launching over my neighbourhood. As much as I love airplanes, I think it is far better to see them and not hear them so much that they are disturbing. BTY, I only fly electric models and don't have worry about the loss of my hearing or degrease my models after flying.
Click to expand...
I've never been up close and personal to any Concorde take-offs. So I can't contradict you. The closest I got to one was watching them from my sister's back garden in Balham (gateway to the south) in the 1990s. However, FWIW (2) Concorde was no noisier than the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 which at the time of Concorde's service entry formed over a quarter of the US commercial airline fleet.

The book I'm using describes the first take-off of a BA Concorde from JFK which was a proving flight in 1977.
The next day saw the first take-off, the departure procedure requiring a 25-degree banking turn after lift-off to keep the the edge of the bay and reduce the power over Howard Beach residential area. Shortly before Concorde's turn for take-off, the runway in use had changed, and while the observers waited, a Boeing 707 took off, followed by a Boeing 747. Both aircraft struggled a little on their turn after take-off; when Concorde followed it turned so easily and the noise was so low that the take-off seemed un-exiting. The noise monitor was set to operate at a level of 105PNdB or more, and it was not even triggered by Concorde. On landing the noise levels were again low, and better than a number of subsonic aircraft operating at the time. Following this descisive demonstration all opposition to Concorde collapsed and the specially formed group of objectionists disbanded. Concorde had been allowed to demonstrate its capabilities, and the theoretical objections had been unfounded.
Click to expand...
Page 61 of "Modern Civil Aircraft: 2 Concorde" by Philip Birtles.

FWIW (3) my father is deaf. In part because he did his National Service maintaining the electrics of a Valiant bomber.
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
This thread has some interesting points and arguments but it could be broader in scope so I have changed the title.
A larger Concorde with more seats and greater range might have been more attractive to Far Eastern airlines with longer over ocean routes.
Click to expand...
Capture d’écran 2024-03-02 à 20.04.36.png Capture d’écran 2024-03-02 à 20.04.08.png
 

Attachments

  • Capture d’écran 2024-03-02 à 20.04.08.png
    Capture d’écran 2024-03-02 à 20.04.08.png
    1 MB · Views: 5
Olympus 593 still has tons of growth potential beyond the "610" variant of production Concordes. I recently posted a few tech papers of a variant called "625", obviously related to Concorde B. Could have screwed the afterburner entirely and was a move in the direction of "Variable Cycle Engines" of 1980's SST projects.
 
Honestly, I think the Boeing 2707 had about the right size for passenger hauling, ~300 passengers and roughly 747 weight, 3500nmi range. No good way to improve range, though. You'd have to install new engines that burned less fuel per mile traveled, while generating some 65,000lbs thrust. Each. o_O


Archibald said:
Olympus 593 still has tons of growth potential beyond the "610" variant of production Concordes. I recently posted a few tech papers of a variant called "625", obviously related to Concorde B. Could have screwed the afterburner entirely and was a move in the direction of "Variable Cycle Engines" of 1980's SST projects.
Click to expand...
Oh? Where'd you post them, I'm not finding anything on this forum.
 
There https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ment-variants-projects.728/page-5#post-652041

Honestly, I think the Boeing 2707 had about the right size for passenger hauling, ~300 passengers and roughly 747 weight, 3500nmi range. No good way to improve range, though.
Click to expand...

There is a good reason why they picked Mach 2.7
Long story short: transatlantic crossings (New York to Paris / London) in two hours rather than Concorde's three hours.
End result: additional crossings per day, hence: better ROI.

Starting from 6 in the morning Concorde could only make two roundtrips per day (3 hours, 1 hour stop, 3 hours again: 7 hours)
6 - 13 - 20

Cutting the crossing time from three to two hours, total 5 hours, starting from 6 in the morning: 6 - 11 - 16 - 22

And with 250 passengers instead of a paltry 140, the SST economic case closes - if barely.

As proven by Concorde, on transatlantic flights the range and sonic boom issues are manageable.

At the end of the day
-Constellation --12 hours one way: so 0.5 roundtrip per day
-747: -------------6 hours one way, so 1 roundtrip per day
-Concorde: ------3 hours one way, so 2 roundtrips a day
-Boeing SST: ----2 hours one way, so 3 roundtrips a day

"roundtrip" = New York to Europe and back.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom