The only photo of the Concorde flying at supersonic speed
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
WARNING, serious temporal hazard. Do not click if you have work to do today or are supervising small children.
https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.htm...
Wow, you're not wrong. "I'll read just a little bit," I said. 2 hours later...
Epic Forum Thread on Concorde (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8277343 - Sept 2014 (49 comments)
We should have another HN thead about this once the Boom boom settles down.
https://forum.expeditionportal.com/threads/democratic-republ...
I call these kinds of forum threads "afternoon destroyers". It would be fun to weaponize them into a whole organized link page.
Wait, idlewords is still around??
Test flight livestream (Tue Jan 28 6:45AM PST/9:45AM EST/2:45PM GMT), https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-supersonic-test-flight...
I guess the only difference really is they arent shy about making it clear its for business customers and not commercial airliners, and tickets will be expensive.
Looking at how many people rent (or own) business jets with five figure+ price tags per flight, I think there's definitely a market for premium tickets, especially if you can do say LAX to Heathrow in ~5 hours instead of 10.5 hours.
There’s thousands of billionaires in the world. Not all of them would buy a supersonic private airplane, but include non billionaire CEO’s etc and the market is plenty large to support moderate scale production assuming they can keep costs within a fairly low multiple of a business jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests
The outcomes were SUBSTANTIALLY worse than the US government expected. The results of this study are why even war planes rarely go supersonic over the continental US.
Not only that the low capacity meant that tickets would have to be orders of magnitude higher than even first class in any other commercial jet.
It's why I cant see Boom doing what people are assuming they'll do and make a commercial airliner. Unless you fancy spending $20k for a one way trip from JFK to LHR it's not really viable.
- YC incubated, 150MM+ total funding
- quiet medium bypass turbofan engines
- wing aspect ratio higher than Concorde
- 5y of production orders, incl. United and AmericanWat.
There is an absolutely bewildering array of dials and switches exposed to the pilots[1].
And they have lots of other aviation stuff at the museum, it's not just Concorde. Other highlights include some very early planes, cut-away jet engines, and a cut-away section of a jumbo jet fuselage, so you can see the locations of pipes, tubes, cargo, etc. in relation to the seats. It is well worth a visit if you're nearby.
It looks like it would have been a very snug ride!
In 1954, in the UK, the average male was 5'7" and 11 stone, 6 lbs, which equates to quite a high BMI of 25 (18.5 - 24.9 is healthy BMI). Nowadays there are very few men in the UK with that weight. Let's ignore women from this because women were second class citizens at the time. Men are on average 2 stone heavier.
But average weight is just average, nowadays with 2/3 of UK adults overweight, there are far more people at the top end of the Bell Curve, at double the average weight people had on the 1950s. So half of today's population would not fit in the seats.
When you look at old European or Japanese cars such as the MINI or old FIATs, bear this in mind. Those cars might not have ever been spacious, but, in period, they were not cramped. Similarly, Concorde was never spacious, but it was not a very snug ride until obesity got the better of us.
My BMI is over 25 but yesterday, in a normal train, I could hardly use my large laptop because my arms are long and my shoulders are wide. My ass fit into the seat without any problems. Also surprisingly, legroom was good.
... Do bell curves actually work that way?
Yeah, that's probably down to the post-WW2 rationing rather than any kind of "people were just thinner then".
Kinda cool.
https://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-flight/see-and-do/c...
Apart from fuel efficiency improvements, there hasn't been much innovation in the commercial commercial aerospace industry, with the exception of Boom's supersonic passenger airplanes which is just now starting to become a reality.
Top tip : if you are flying internationally avoid Uas airlines where possible. The US airlines are built around domestic flights. They treat international flights as "long domestic ".
By contrast some airlines are built around long-haul (international) flights, with domestic either not there at all, or just a feeder.
Don't get me wrong, economy is still economy. But an economy seat on Emirates is better than economy on United or Delta (well, last time I flew those anyway.)
Perhaps the biggest innovation though is seat-back entertainment. Done well, it makes a huge difference to long-haul flights.
For trains, you would be hard pressed to find a route that is not significantly slower today than 60 years ago.
It took 64 years (until 1997) to again reach the 1933 speed of the Flying Hamburger [0] - 138 minutes from Hamburg to Berlin. Trains today need about 115 minutes.
Your gas car's maximally efficient speed is about 35 mph.
Modern jets are built to fly slightly slower than early jetliners, both in normal operation and at top speed. The reason is fuel economy, but the difference is real.
I don't understand the need for all the smoke and din in this argument thread. Old passenger jets flew a little faster than modern ones and that's okay!
That’s my point. It. Is. Not. A. Measurement. Of. Speed.
It's dependent on the speed of sound, which is only dependent on temperature, not specifically altitude contrary to popular belief.
Why is everyone trying to ackshewally this? The stat's are publicly available. Aircraft are optimized for a particular speed range and that impacts the designed cruising speed as well as Vs and VNE.
Maybe for domestic flights but for international flights (especially if you live in Australia) it would improve the flying experience. I've noticed a big difference on my body when flying 8hr vs 12hrs.
It may not seem like a big difference but those extra 4hrs put a massive strain on your body and mind.
It's more that you just run in to real limits of physics; many planes already fly at mach 0.8 to 0.9, and going faster than sound is always going to be difficult because of the sonic boom. Realistically, there just isn't that much you can do without solving that first, which is a difficult problem to solve in a practical way. And even if you do, the fuel efficiency is always going to make it much more expensive.
I would be more inclined to travel overseas if travel times were shorter thus making me a more frequent customer and bringing the airlines more money.
Those have been huge, and are a primary driver for new airplane designs. The reason is simple. Back in the 80s, fuel was 40% of the operating cost.
The 757 came about because of new, more efficient engines and a more efficient wing. If my brain hasn't fully rotted away yet, it offered a 35% reduction in fuel costs.
The 737MAX was green-lighted because it offered a 15% improvement in fuel consumption. That's Big Money for the airlines.
(BA was offering some sweet deals to staff at partner airlines, at about 10% of retail pricing.)
At the time there was no expectation that we'd regress, though had I been more generally aware I'd have noticed the lack of next-gen SST R&D during Concorde's operational lifetime.
I recall they flew one out to Sydney Australia in the mid 1980's, but I think appetite was quite low, probably from both regulators and small market size -- despite the obvious appeal (it's about 24h flight time still in conventional commercial passenger jets, to get to the antipodes).
Travel to europe is a bit of a pain in that layovers and scheduling can easily blow it out to 30+ hours today, especially if going to a secondary market in europe. It makes the ~14 hours overnight to the US west coast seem very reasonable in comparison.
Pricing will be interesting to watch, in any case.
As you note, a lot of the time cost is incurred for the 'last mile' part of that trip, so apart from the (tourist / comfort) benefits of splitting flights of that length, I could see it being much less appealing for travellers bouncing through London to get elsewhere into the continent.
As I understand it, that was one of the perks of the Concorde in that in flew so high that the passengers could see this as well.
https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39
Another trick you can do: take this Concorde photo and use the rules of geometry to draw the rest of the circle, and look how small an Earth you’ve drawn.
These days I see Airbus A380s taking off and landing from Heathrow over the house almost daily and that never ceases to amaze me, mainly that humans built something so enormous that can actually fly.
I still watch the planes when I'm in the garden, but it's not quite the same
It was usually pretty punctual, but every now and then we got an extended break.
Now compare that annoyance level to that of the ninety or so special people on Concorde, or, more correctly, 'a' Concorde plane. You were thirty miles west of Heathrow, but I can remember being in South London and having to stop conversation for a few minutes for that stupid plane to screech overhead. Nowadays I learn that those were good times, to have that noise from miles away, making it impossible to hear the person next to me.
Until Concorde was some tens of thousands of feet in the air, cruising sub-sonically, that stupid plane was ruining everyone's day. All for what, Tony Benn's ego, 'jobs' and being best buddies with the old enemy - the French.
The need to be best buddies with the French was moot, after WW1 and WW2 it was clear that the UK and France were allies, at least in Europe.
We were lucky that the USA were a bit passive-aggressive when it came to Concorde, people would have had that thing fly supersonic but it wasn't in the economic interests of Washington (DC and the state) to have that.
Highlight of Concorde's career was Live Aid, bringing Phil Collins et al from the USA to Wembley so they could play both sides of the Atlantic, at the same event.
I am sure that people that went on a 'jolly' on Concorde for that special anniversary had their money's worth and a time to remember, but most people on that plane were pointless wealthy people that lacked purpose. In the bigger scheme of things, not one single flight of that plane was really important, even if Joan Collins was aboard. Your playtime, somewhere near where The Office was filmed, was far more important, in the bigger scheme of things.
Just yesterday, people in government announced their wish to build an additional runway at Heathrow. Noise will increase for over 300,000 people.
The storms were great entertainment.
I wish I was old and well-off enough to take a flight on that majestic bird.
No, hard disagree here - regulation is a big part of what killed supersonic flight the first time around.
i.e. it used only 4,800 US gallons per hour of fuel (a 747 burns around 3600 gallons/h). Not what I would label "effortless", but not nearly as bad as I expected.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Concorde_eclipse_flight
Only publicity photo, surely.
As far as I can tell, it was never certified for a mach 2 cruise, normally accelerating right through it.
They used these for surveillance so I assume the motion compensation on these things was state-secret levels of good.
It's just that the performance tables in the manual (which has been released to the public) only go down to mach 2.2, so you are outside of the certified/documented regimen.
I wasn't on the engineering team ;) but apparently they planned 4000 hours of test flights. https://web.archive.org/web/20150316210132/http://aviationwe...
It's almost inconceivable that the test flights would not have been closely recorded, especially the significant ones including trans-sonic and supersonic ops. Despite the best design and air-tunnel work, you'd expect that things would go wrong and you really want to learn as much as possible from any incidents/events.
Unfortunately, all this happened well before the internet age, and so records and images are not so easily found :(