Slashdot Mirror
Concorde to be Grounded
Goonie writes "This BBC article reports that Concorde flights are to come to an end in October. It may be a noisy and costly anachronism, but it's sad to see the end of perhaps the coolest commercial plane ever to fly." The financial wires carried a story the other day showing how much jet fuel demand has dropped recently.
for a replacement. Developing Concord took two government backed companies 13 years (1963-1976?) to develop and put into service.
The process nearly bankrupt both companies and were heavilly bailed out by their respective governments (UK and France). As such I can't see a replacement happening for a long long time. There will have to be some serious incentive (money) for a replacement to be comissioned - until then its a case of what we have will do...
.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
Boeing have a rather nice alternative ready for production. It's another delta-wing that looks as cool as concorde, and is rated for mach 0.95. It is almost as fast as concorde, but much cheaper to run.
Almost as fast as Concorde? Concorde does Mach 2.2
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
Unfortunately after the last concorde disaster I don't think people's confidence was quite restored in it. Coupled with the other problem that the general public have become wary of flying after 9/11 and the current Iraq situation, Concorde was bound to suffer as a consequence.
Summation 2
I won't argue the 'cheaper' bit but, IIRC, Concorde does ~ mach 2.0. How is 0.95 almost as fast?! That's what a 747 does!
Concorde is capable of at least mach 2.2 and routinely cruises at that speed on trans-atlantic flights, I'd hardly call mach 0.95 "almost as fast" as mach 2.2. More significant to me is that "mass" commercial supersonic travel is coming to an end, albeit for now at least, unless the copied Russian version is still flying.
Still, at least the plane should find itself with a major entry in the history of aviation as the first supersonic passenger plane.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
A 747 does mach 0.78, just like all of the commercial jets available today (B737, all Airbus, etc.).
&& aemula C. ab stirpe interiit
For a nice piece of nostaligia
l di ngfilton.html
:)
check this
http://www.concordesst.com/history/building/bui
bearing in mind directly opposite are the rolls royce factories where plane engines are made
S
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
with 30 years advancement in technology.
You would expect there to be a revolutionary new plane out in the skies if you compared the development of the air airdustry with say that of electronics, but in reality, very little has changed.
All aircraft look the same for a very good reason. Using equations and theorems which are all over 50 years old, there is in fact very little room for maneouvre in the design. The only real advancements have come in the realm of avionics and materials which have allowed planes like the Eurofighter to be made, which is an inherently unstable aircraft.
The only commercial application of clever tech like that in other airplanes is in the ability to reduce drag by shifting the centre of gravity relative the centre of lift which essentially will reduce the drag of the craft if done correctly.
Concorde was (and is) revolutionary because of the absolutely outstanding aerodynamics of it. It uses its planform to generate lift when working out of its optimised regime in a way which no other aircraft does to this day (AFAIK) (clever use of trailing vortices to actually generate lift across the planform at high angles of attack rather than just cause drag).
I could go on for hours about the elegance of the design, but i think the best way to summarise it is to look at say the wing of a 777 and notice all the little riblets, all the little aerodynamic tricks which are there to compensate for other features. By comparison, the concorde is a wholly integrated design, every feature working together to create the whole.
Design like that is a real tribute to the French (particularly the french since they were in charge of the aero) and British designers which came up with it.
(yes i am an aero engineer)
A story here about the Russian Concorde.
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
You nailed one of the main points on the head - lifting such a heavy craft vertically would consume an enormous amount of fuel. And of course, fuel is also very heavy, so the amount of thrust needed to lift the craft, the people, and the large amount of fuel would be massive. Burning through so much fuel so fast would require bigger tanks, which would be even heavier ... you see where I'm going with this. The space shuttle has the same problem. The vast majority of the fuel is spent in the first minute of shuttle launch, lifting the rest of the fuel!
Also, safety concerns must be considered. VTOL flight training is very counter-intuitive for pilots. When the USAF started training with Harriers, they lost quite a few pilots and planes. Hovering in a Harrier has been described as "balancing on the blade of a knife." Quite often, even if pilots were able to get the thing up off the ground, they'd try to transition to horizontal flight too quickly, aiming the thrusters directly backward before they had enough forward speed to generate lift over the wings. Surely you've seen numerous videos on the History channel of these things nosing into the ground and exploding? Sometimes the pilot got out, sometimes he didn't. But what chance would passengers have?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
It did crash at the Paris Air Show in 1973. There's even a video of it here (towards the bottom of the page)
The crash was actually caused by a Frence Mirage Jet up there trying to photograph it, and nearly crashing with it.
I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
No chance that the russian ones are flying either.
They were grounded in 73.NASA used to use them as flight test labs in late 90s, dunno about now.
The link seems to indicate that the Tu144 was the original , debuting slightly before the Concorde itself.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
The difference is in the priorities of commercial airlines and military air forces. Airlines need the operation of their planes to be profitable. The military has a different priority level re. controlling costs (that doesn't mean they don't look at operation costs at all; it just isn't the same priority).
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Sorry, but that's a very American response. In Europe, it is cheaper to fly than to take trains, if you plan your journey sufficiently in advance.
Flying is cheaper in a different sense in Asia as well. You see, on a per kilometre basis, it's cheaper to fly than to take, say, an auto-rickshaw in any Indian city. Has been like that for quite sometime now, really; if anything, SARS/911/Iraq has only added to the effect.
More than mere navel gazing.
Anybody remember the Tupolev TU-144? Came out much the same sort of time (i.e. sometime in the early 14th century, when I was a kid :-) ) There weren't many commercial flights, but I remember thinking that given the similarities between the two aircraft, it was kind of sad that the Russians never really got it together.
Several people have suggested that there are many aircraft (miltary and civilian) that rival the Concordes ability to fly at a sustained mach 2 for several hours. However, according to this site www.sr-71.org it is only Concorde and the SR-71 which can do this. I know there are aircraft faster, more efficient etc thats not the point. This is still beyond the performance of all civillian aircraft and virtual all military aircraft. Further, a sustained high speed must be a most desirable characteristic of any passenger aircraft. (It does not take Concorde 2 hours to reach this speed either concordesst). Bottom line, we want aircraft to get us there quick, and concorde is the quickest.
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
Actually, the 747 typically cruises at Mach 0.85. It is in fact quite a bit faster than other subsonic aircraft in service, most of which have been optimized for economy rather than speed.
Concorde still represents a pinnacle in civil aviation design in terms of speed.
Let me repeat... Still a Pinnacle. A top acheivement. There are no incredible leaps in technology since its inception with which to top it. Only some incremetal improovements that might be made.
More efficient engines could be produced but the cost of development versus the improovemnt would not be very economical.
Flight control systems could be updated to modern electronics. might Eliminate a few hundred, perhaps even a few thousand pounds. But its about like the difference between a 30 year old power steering system and a new one. Not much end user difference. Perhaps easier to maintain... more likely the biggest change there would be in reducing easing the pilots workload with modern display systems and computerized system monitoring.
The materials breakthroughs which made the design possible in the first place have only incrementally advanced. Mostly in the area of fabrication, not in terms of strength and thermal tollerences or most importantly in terms of cost which is the biggest issue.
All in all you could could perhaps make a more efficient Concorde. But in terms of pure performance you couldn't really make a better Concorde.
As I said, its design is still a Pinnacle of civil aviation design. Its also noteable in the military realm where supersonic designs have proliferated. Very few Military designs could keep up with a Concorde. The B-1 and Badger being the only two obvious designs currently in service that could keep up with it over the same range. There is also the XB-70 Valkarie mach 3 capable Bomber design that was never adopted which contributed a great deal of knowldege to Concordes Design, and of course the Retired A-12, and SR-71 Blackbird designs which still know no peer in the annals of aviation design.
We have reffined the knowledge pioneered in the late 50's and 60's which make planes like the Concorde, SR-71/A-12, XB-70 and B-1 possible but we have not made any new breathroughs that allow us to go beyond them as yet. We also have never acheived any kind of economy of scale with regards to their production either. I don't belive combining the total production numebrs of all the above listed long range multiple Mach capable designs would reach half the number of Boeing 747's produced.
As much economic sense retiring the Concorde makes... I still hate to see it go. Its one example of a big budget white elephant program I wouldn't mind having my tax dollars go towards. Of course living in the states I have never had my tax dollars go towards this particular white elephant. However, it is at least its something beautiful and tangible which theoretically anyone can get to have "hands on experience" with unlike so many other programs. Its hard to put a price tag on symbols and the Concorde has been a symbolic acheivment since its inception. Its retirment without a replacement is symbolic as well, one which represents something I don't much care to ponder.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson said on Thursday his airline was interested in buying British Airways' doomed Concorde fleet, but would offer just £1 (1.5, $1.6).
Here's the article.
You wish. All the British Airways and Air France Concordes were grounded for 17 months after the crash.
If it happened at all, you're just bitter you had less time to stuff your face during the flight.