I think somebody will have to visit Le Bourget and Duxford with a tape measure to settle this.blackkite said:Thanks alot Arjen-san. Pre production model length(Pre-production Concorde 101 G-AXDN dimensions on Duxford Aviation Society site) is little long? Pre production model had short tail.
Archibald said:I found a couple of papers dealing with the "Concorde B" and that much improved Olympus.
Which has a different name than "+25%" as mentionned in that site
It was called the Olympus 593 mk.622 - larger fan and up to 10% to even 30% more thrust. 30% more thrust out of 18 tons, should be 24 tons, and not that far from the Boeing SST General electric GE4.
The papers are behind a paywall (and a pretty expensive one with that) but c'est la vie. I linked the first pages.
Anybody ever heard of a man called P.C Gupka that worked at Bristol engines in the late 70's ?
Galgot, I have a nagging doubt about the document "Super Caravelle by Dassault SàRL" which you posted:
Caravelle was a trademark of Sud-Aviation / Aérospatiale, the arch-rival of Dassault, and appropriating it would be a blatant infringement.
Plus the use of English language by the "French Air Ministry", back then in 1961, would be another big infringement.
I wonder whether this is anything from a real ~official French source, or the creation of some journo/fanboi/whatever.
What is the source?
(Great doc nevertheless)
As What if yes, but in reality I think no.Were there to be any military variants of the Concorde?
A user called Vega ECM made the following interesting statement at the bottom of a related thread at https://forum.keypublishing.com/sho...e-for-the-RAF-(Zombie-Thread-from-2006)/page2:
"A good few years ago I was in the Concorde archive legitimately looking for something but couldn't resist from typing 'Military Concorde' into the search. Only two documents came up;- the first dated 1970, was a study on how much of military value could be learnt by the Chinese if they bought a few, but the second dated 1974, was a proposal to the RAF for military versions. This report was about 40 pages and detailed 3 potential versions;- The first was a transport version , a drawing shows a swing nose and landrovers driving down a long ramp. This proposal was covered by just 2 of the 40 pages and really had very little detail. The next is a supersonic strike aircraft. A drawing shows 3 nuclear strike missiles (looking a bit like AGM-69 SRAM's) within the fuselage launched on angled tubes exiting the fuselage underside. This proposal runs to about 10 pages. There's quite a bit of info on mission profile, tactical equipment fit etc. The third proposal is for a tactical recon version. This occupies the majority of the report. Lots of info on camera / radar / eves dropping kit / decoys / ECM mission profiles etc. I would suggest the number of pages in the report probably represents the relative interest from the customer.
Good stuff, all history now."