Concorde, a Wonderful Failure??
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Use code "mentournow" and the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/me...
---------------------------------------------------
To aviation geeks, it is one of the best looking, if not THE best looking airliner ever made. But others saw it very differently, and instead of ushering in an era of supersonic passenger travel, this delta-wing beauty slowly faded away, without a successor.
So, was Concorde a lost opportunity for commercial aviation, or just a truly wonderful failure?
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com...
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-e...
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpil...
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• Concorde Inaugural fli...
• NEWS IN COLOUR:- CON...
• Thunderbirds F-100D Su...
• The Royal Aircraft Est...
• THE COMET TEST v
• Open Day At Royal Airc...
• See how the flaps work...
• Concord - The Great Co...
• 1970: How CONCORDE's S...
• Britain's most famous ...
• TSR2
• See inside the GE9X, G...
• Watch: Nightly News re...
• Boeing 707 Faces Londo...
• Overture Superfactory ...
• Boeing 707 Jetliner Pr...
Use code "mentournow" and the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/mentournow
If there is a way of increasing the fuel efficency and also increasing the payload capacity then yes we wil have another high speed form of airflight, in the mean time if everyone is so concerned about those 2 factors we should go back to airships.
Just imagine how awesome it would have been if a SR-71 Blackbird or a XB-70 Valkyrie had been modified to be a passenger carrying airliner-!
I would love to see you produce content with some covarge of military aircraft. It would not have to be extensive. Even if it was just specific to particularly "cool" jets. Like the SR-71, the F14, F22 or sea harrier etc
I would love to hear your thoughts about this amazing documentary about dc-3 planes being flown by these Colombian pilots..
ruclips.net/video/_X_b5Ph-h20/видео.htmlfeature=shared
I would love to see a Concorde flying for air displays. That airliner is as iconic as a Vulcan bomber, and people deserve to see at least one of them maintained in flying condition. It will inspire youngsters to produce something which is more efficient and better than that beautiful aircraft.
To me, Concorde was a lesson. It taught the industry what was possible technologically and also taught it what was impossible commercially. Like the A380, it was based on a flawed understanding of the future of the industry. However, it was undoubtedly an engineering masterpiece and will forever have a special place in aviation history.
The XB-70 flew at Mach-3 several years before the Concorde and showed the industry the limits of technology. The hype around the Concorde is only because of the ignorance of the internet.
Absolutely.
@@zeitgeistx5239the Concorde is the world's first supersonice airliner, that's what made it a status.
The A380 was too early… I would guess its time is yet to come… there a just so many slots available, building new airports is unlikely, population is still rising and cutting back on air travel because of climate change should, but is not going to happen.
I love the A380. I fly from Korea to Europe twice a year and will take Emirates, purely to fly on the A380. Love it. Quiet. Spacious, even in economy. And Emirates business is excellent. Simply looking at the A380 from the gate, you wonder how something so big could fly.
As a woman I was mad about plane watching from the age of 16 when I joined the Royal Observer Corp as a post observer, I saw many planes from 1951 onwards. I never got to fly in Concord but visited Fleet Air Arm Museum, The National Museum of the Royal Navy in Yeovilton to see the first flying testbed Concord and go on board. I believe it is still there. A very interesting video. Now nearing 90 and still look up when I hear a plane. Very few as interesting as they used to be.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience and all the best to you!
Too true regarding the lack of interesting aircraft. The 'bean counters' severely restrict anything 'interesting' appearing in the skies, so everything looks the same. Cost, sadly rules the roost now.....but at least we can say we were there and saw what was possible when the will was there to do so.
Never did see/hear a Lightning though!😮💨
Never flew on one, but having seen them take off from Heathrow I have to say they are/were one heck of a majestic aircraft.
They definitely were!
One of my life regrets is that I never flew on Concorde.
@@whizzo94 It would have been an experience for sure, but the cost ...! Also,they look sort of cramped for space inside ... not hat I am suggesting outside would be better!!!
@@MentourNow Yeah, real nice to look at, but expensive. They kinda got relegated to being only for rich people who wanted to get places extra fast. Which isn't a terrible idea on the surface, and perhaps a smaller craft with similar speed might be actually practical? hmm...... Something the size of a Cessna (IE around 12 person capacity) But supersonic and able to fly from New York to Paris without refueling? not sure if the tech to do that is real though. But I could see it having usage. Thing is I suspect the reality is that 90% of the speed of sound is fast enough for most people.
During my BA career I was fortunate enough to fly on “The Dart” several times. Your video explained the vagaries of the aircraft in excellent detail. I would beg to differ on the reason for its demise however. Following the Paris accident both operators invested a great deal in safety improvements, including tyres and kevlar fuel tank liners as well as cabin and service upgrades. BA still saw marketing benefits, especially the “halo effect” on other (mainly premium) products. Unfortunately the Twin Towers incident, where a large number of Concorde’s regular passengers were lost, together with the consequent general downturn in the aviation market was the beginning of the end for Concorde. Add to that the fact that the airframe and engine manufacturers considered supporting Concorde to be commercially unviable and wanted out of the project meant that there was no future for this beautiful machine. As for bringing one back to flying condition, it would be marvelous but, , I suspect impractical.
Flown twice on Concorde. Epic experience, going nearly Mach 2 and visiting a flightdeck full of steam gauges while the 777, at the time a modern airliner, had a glass cockpit.
Friend you truly experienced the peak of civilian aviation
The Concorde shared some instruments with the Tornado GR1
737sst yes, she also needed to adhere to noise abatement when she went supersonic. She was such a marvel craft on design. Flying for so many years w/o any problems. Even though there was issues with tryes bursting. Believe that they have corrected that issue, stronger tyres.
Sorry was not unfamiliar with those individuals involved, till looking it up. They were involved with the creation of the delta wing. To make it aerodynamic. Well done !!
@@kay9549 as soon you passed the coast line they lit the afterburners again which one could feel being pushed in the back of your seat. 😊
Sat on the back row of Concorde (apparently the best place to experience), I decided to count how long it took from starting to move to getting off the ground. I counted 10 seconds. Take off speed was apparently 220 mph. No wonder I was pinned back in the seat. Fighter jet performance in absolute luxury. What an age of aviation.
You enjoyed an undeniable privilege to fly in a Concorde. I am sure you treasure the memory.
Definitely not 10 seconds from start to airborne. It took about 19 seconds to get to 100 knots from application of takeoff power. Vr typically around 195 and Concorde would break ground around 215. Reheat off after around 53 seconds from start of takeoff run.
Omg, what an experience.
I had the privilege as a child to follow the development of Concord, then when it was doing hot and high testing in Johannesburg I was at University in Pretoria. I had also just earned my private pilots license. I could not miss this opportunity to see the concord so I took time off of studies to spend at Johannesburg Airport. Though flying friends in Benoni I also had the privilege to meet the Test pilot Brian Trubshaw and others of the test team at a little pub near to the Benoni Brakpan airport.
Great to see someone else who remembers those flights _ I think it was 1972?
I never forget when i was a kid visiting New York city with my parents. At the end of the holiday we were standing in the TWA building at JFK, a concorde in front of the building, a 747 standing behind of her. Unforgettable childhood moment
I remember that the documentary about the Paris Concorde crash was the first Mentour video I stumbled across some two and a half years ago. Since then I have watched almost all new episodes on both Mentour channels. You have truly resurrected my interest in aviation. Thank you for countless hours of education, fascination and entertainment. It seems incredible to me how you manage to create such a high-end documentary every week and another one on the Mentour Pilot channel once a fortnight. All the best for the new year!
Just to add a reference to the pace of technological change in aircraft design from that period, there were less than twelve years between the first flight of the Avro Lancaster and the Avro Vulcan. The scope and scale of differences between those two aircraft is breathtaking.
I was 19 when I started working at Heathrow as an Air Traffic Engineer. The best part of the job was calibrating the IRVR equipment at the end of the runway with Concorde lifting off the runway about 100 feet away. Even wearing ear defenders the noise was intense and you felt the vibration throughout your body. An awesome thrill every time it happened (about 20 times while I worked there). Although somewhat quieter, the 747 was seemingly "noisier" because it seemed to drone on 3 or 4 times as long.
Concorde was a wonderful achievement and yes, perhaps, a glorious failure like Dunkirk or Apollo 13; some of the things that make our life journeys so interesting.
I was working at Rolls Royce as a design engineer working on the F35 vertical lift fan. I remember that we all trouped out to watch Concorde land for the last time.
I remember that flight well. My office was at Clifton Triangle. I saw it coming in from the East from one side of the office. It was just starting to bank for the turn over the Clifton Suspension Bridge and was much lower than the flight plan dictated. Apparently the pilot decided that the worst they could do to him was suspend him from flying Concorde in the future - so what the hell. A few minutes later I saw it from the other side of the office on its final approach to Filton. It was one of those moments where (sad) history was played out in front of me.
Must have been awesome and emotional to be there for the landing.
This video made me nostalgic. Just a year before the accident, i had the opportunity to be in Concorde and actually sit in the cockpit... No i wasn't a pilot or crew or maintenance engineer, a mere IT analyst working at British Airways and one day, sometime in June-1999, a colleague of mine, invited me to see the Concorde... We went around the plane, saw it was serviced, went inside and into the cockpit. Its pretty narrow and congested, but its Concorde, the only passenger plane that would let you arrive before you depart, ( 930am LHR Departure, 830 AM JFK arrival. ) The engineer told us, that the wings could expand as much as 9 inches during flight, the only plane that would let you see the curvature of earth during flight and we could also see the cracks on the wings ( on the painting though and not the wing-frame ), as a result of this expansion.
I still have a photo of it. Barely a year later, it was history. But the picture is the one that i cherish the most.
Thank you for making this wonderful video.
Concorde was a unique case, where engineers were free from commercial constraints and could create the machine of their dreams, (almost) without compromises. That is why it is often compared to the Apollo program. It is easy for engineers and physicists like me to feel nostalgic and envious, but in my opinion, the challeges posed by economic constraints are equally fascinating. One day, perhaps, we can build a competitive supersonic jet, one for which Concorde paved the way.
I've seen a different comparison: Concorde was a bit like Europe's version of the Space Shuttle. Both were very advanced flying machines that pushed the boundaries of technology, but were also so expensive and finicky that they became technological dead ends. (Not counting the reuse of individual bits of technology, such as fly-by-wire, as recounted in the video.)
@@leisti In a way, the Shuttle was worse, since it prevented the US from building more sensible launchers for the longest time. Look at Arthur Schnitt's Minimum Cost Design approach, which he proposed starting in the late 1960s. The Falcon 9 can be viewed as an implementation of this approach.
@@phillipbanes5484 Both were pioneering, ambitious engineering projects ahead of their time that have we have not yet eclipsed. Additionally, both were a matter of national prestige.
@@phillipbanes5484 The comparison is appropriate if you consider both projects as superb engineering achievements that unfortunately had very limited practical use.
But Airbus is a transnational European company. It is the European flagship.@@phillipbanes5484
I was at LHR for the last arrivals, and for many, many departures that summer. My favourite memory is of screeching to an illegal halt, no time to grab the camera, and just barely catching Concorde blast off 27R with a filthy black storm and stunning rainbow behind, shock cones in the exhausts clearly visible, and roar past me into a Hollywood sunset.
I left for home as soon as she was out of sight. She was in New York before I got off the M25.
That fills me with a deep nostalgia even though I've never seen her fly...
I was having a business lunch in a pub in Redhill as Concorde took off in New York on its last ever commercial flight to LHR. I watched David Frost reporting as it took off at JFK. Just 3.5 hours later we took off from LGW TO Belfast and as we flew north over London we looked down to see that same Concorde way below us on final approach into LHR. Never to be forgotten and a wonderful privilege to see it that day.
It would be very cool to have at least one flying Concorde restoration!
I agree it would be cool, however maintenance and certification for an aircraft like that would be a nightmare. We do it with WWII aircraft, but those have much simpler designs.
Richard Branson flirted with the idea of restoring one to flight, but even he couldn't make the numbers work.
Airbus has revoked the airworthiness certificate and will not supply spare parts anymore. The entire supply chain is gone. Concorde will unfortunately never fly again.
@@paulds65I believe another issue would be that with the grounding of Concorde Rolls Royce stopped manufacturing engine parts for it - as I understand it, this was one of the deciding factors in the grounding of last flying Vulcan!
@@paulds65not entirely true. Manufacturers don't issue AC's, the relevant regulatory authorities do (in this case the CAA and the DGAC). Airbus decided to stop maintenance/spare part support. Without that, there was no way the AC's could be kept
I'd suggest also there wouldn't be an insurer on the planet that would cover it.
Concorde in my view is by far the best aircraft ever built. If Concorde was released today it woild still be hailed as an amazing achievement which speaks volumes
Actually not. There are very few rouites that would match its capabilities and the CO2 per seat mile is massive.
@@rogerphelps9939 you've got to remember though it was designed in the 1950/60's, in terms of technological achievement it was so far ahead of anything else and Concorde had to be 2 planes in one and it was all designed by hand by brilliant engineers and aerodynamics engineers.
@@rogerphelps9939 , what about the CO2 footprint of each first class passenger crossing the Atlantic in 2023? That would be a fairer comparison, and remember the comparison is between a 1974 design with a modern subsonic.
The fuel efficiency is FIVE times worse than a 747. How is that amazing? It was a sinkhole for money and it's reason to exist was mostly nationalism/vanity.
@rogerphelps9939 … CO2 phobic? .
The thing that's always mildly irked me about Concorde since their retirement, is that the one that still holds the record for the fastest commercial trans Atlantic flight (Serial Number 210) went to a museum in New York. So the most significant of the entire fleet is now on display in a city that, back in '77, actively tried to ban the aircraft from landing at it's airports.
I don't begrudge them having one of the fleet to display, Concorde was as much a part of New York's history as it was the UK and Frances....... But why did it have to be THAT one which ended up there? :(
Ya, like YUL being named after the person that wanted to close it...
It's probably there just to rub it in the noses of those who wanted to ban it! 😂
its airports
Ouff, that's salt in the wound for me 😢
Tried to ban it out of jealousy
I would love to see a single Concorde back in flying condition. Even if it was only used for air shows. Just to let people see it’s greatness. Idc if they don’t even fly it at supersonic speeds. Just to see it take off and land and even get to experience a takeoff and landing in one would be amazing
My thoughts exactly. It's a prime piece of history for things like airshows! I think it would be quite the attraction to go see.
BA did look into this but the economies of scale meant it wasn’t much different to keep one in service as opposed to the whole fleet. Concorde’s retirement and reasons for it could take a whole video but essentially it was pressure from Airbus, who maintained the aircraft, and Air France (whose operation was far less financially successful than BA’s) that caused it to be retired.
Imagine an airshow in coastal cities in which you could pay to take a short supersonic flight out over the ocean with stewardesses in period uniforms serving you champagne for your short flight. It would have to be an expensive treat but possibly doable.
@@Rorschach1024 when it was in service BA did this quite regularly, less so after the Paris crash because BA only converted 5 planes and couldn’t spare the frames but I remember seeing it do this at RIAT and Oshkosh
honestly the longer any of the airframes stay in museums, the less likely this’ll be. which is such a shame.
Petter, your use of English is better than that of 80% of Americans. It is a pleasure to listen to you speak.
Every time I watch a Mentour video I realize Peter makes some of the best content on all of RUclips. Always an amazing combination of knowledge, research, and production.
Also to, she ate fuel consumption even when she taxiing, not considering, consumption of fuel during flight.
There are two times I’ve shed a tear watching aircraft flying. The last time was watching the final BA 747-400 departure from Heathrow on TV, the first time was when G-BOAF flew over my head as I stood on Gloucester Road watching it come in to land at Filton for the final time.
It had only been a year or so earlier I had seen Concorde fly for the first time, as by pure chance I looked up from my driveway in Bristol to see that familiar Delta shape cruise overhead on its way to New York.
The best-looking paint scheme on the world's most beautiful aircraft was the British Airways "flapping flag" - all white, with a stylised Union flag "flapping" on the vertical stabiliser.
Truly lovely.
There is only one museum in the world where you can see the Concorde and its sowjet counterpart, the Tupolev 144. It is the Auto und Technikmuseum in Sinsheim, in the southwest of Germany. You can go in the inside of both planes.
4:52 what a superb image of grouped Concordes-astonishing how extremely advanced Concorde was and how many ‘first-ever’ elements it included-especially considering it was largely designed in the slide rule era!
An excellent and thorough summary! The challenge of having to do all of that work with slide rules and analog computers makes it all the more impressive. There’s an image that I’ve kept in my mind of a picture I once saw of men with wooden rules ensuring that the shape of the Concorde’s wing as built conformed to the design. In the day, you did the same thing when pounding out bespoke automobiles made of aluminum.
I think one more (small) efficiency element also limited the commercial potential of SSTs of that era - their block efficiency relative to subsonic aircraft. The faster speed of a jet versus a piston aircraft, combined with reduced maintenance hours per hour of flight meant that you could carry far more payload per day in a jet. Range limitations and overland operation prohibition kept Concorde to only flying transatlantic operations. Mach 2 over water only allows for one round trip each day, with considerable downtime when the plane couldn’t generate revenue. An aircraft flying at Mach 3 achieves that increased block efficiency, but physics is a harsh mistress. Especially since many of the factors affecting motion increase exponentially with speed, with the attendant issues explained in the video, only worse. In effect we’re talking about developing a commercial version of the SR-71. That isn't even on the horizon.
I suggest that another, later factor that doomed the Concorde was passenger airline deregulation, which forced airlines to compete on price. This began with the Carter Administration in the US and meant that unprofitable flight segments would no longer be subsidized by profitable ones.
I had the pleasure of flying in the Concorde more than few times. On one late afternoon flight from LHR-JFK, the rear section of the plane was completely empty. That allowed a few of us to sit in the very rear of the plane and enjoy vintage port and a cigar to pass the time. (Note to readers under age 50: Even before all forms of smoking was prohibited on flights, every airline prohibited cigar and pipe smoking.)
I flew couple of times on G-BOAC (now kept on display at MAN). The British Overseas Aircraft Company reserved registrations G-BOAA to G-BOAF for its soon to be delivered aircraft. Air France wasn’t that clever. True nerds will recognize in that 1-second clip of an early Concorde that in France, development or experimental aircraft in France always have W as the first letter in the registration.
Area rule applies to a much lesser degree on supersonic aircraft. Frontal area becomes the main thing to watch for, hence the Concorde cabin being as narrow as it was.
The lack of stabilizer tabs for trim was deliberate, and the solution was to trim the aircraft with fuel - important, because Center of Lift also moves between subsonic and supersonic flight. You kind had it backwards.
It might have been a commercial failure but it was a monumental technical and engineering success.
Concorde was an unmitigated failure and the biggest financial failure in aviation history...
In 1984, I think, I went to an airshow in Klagenfurt, Austria with my brother, he was a skydiver and he jumped from a Ju-52 there. Among the planes at the airshow was also a Concorde. Beautiful, white, noisy beast. They even offered rides and I scraped all the money I had and borrowed some from my brother to pay for it. It cost me 1000 Austrian Schillings for a 20 minute ride. The interior didn't impress me one bit, but the acceleration. That was insane! It also helped it was very light, not much fuel on board, no luggage, just some 100 passangers. The climb was insane. We reached Mach .95 and landed. So, I can bragg I flew in a Concorde, not supersonically, but still.
My dad worked on Concorde wings when he was a young apprentice in France. I am so proud!
Wow, this is really something special!
In 2019 I met Dudley Collard at his lecture in Munich, it was an absolutely amazing day! He worked as an aeronautical engineer and aerodynamicist at Sud Aviation in Toulouse since 1962.
He probably knows your father.
@@karlskrivanek5687 Unfortunatly not, my dad was working at "Indre Aero" in the French departement of - you guest it - Indre! BTW, i went there last year and the factory was not here anymore. Bit sad.
@@jouhannaudjeanfrancois891 In case you are interested in the presentation by Dudley Collard from Oct. 2018 at AIRBUS in Toulouse
DUDLEY COLLARD CONCORDE LECTURE AIRBUS TOULOUSE PT 1
ruclips.net/video/GVMIKgBYVCg/видео.html
DUDLEY COLLARD CONCORDE LECTURE AIRBUS TOULOUSE PT 2
ruclips.net/video/ey55R8xhn_w/видео.html
@@jouhannaudjeanfrancois891 The following links are from a presentation on the Concorde development programme given by Dudley Collard at Airbus in Toulouse in Oct 2018, you may find this interesting.
DUDLEY COLLARD CONCORDE LECTURE AIRBUS TOULOUSE PT1
ruclips.net/video/GVMIKgBYVCg/видео.html
DUDLEY COLLARD CONCORDE LECTURE AIRBUS TOULOUSE PT2
ruclips.net/video/ey55R8xhn_w/видео.html
@@jouhannaudjeanfrancois891 Unfortunately I don't know Indre Aero, was this company or a research organisation that worked with Sud Aviation?
Reading some of these comments has made me go back in time. I keep aviation as a very strong interest and pay particular attention to atc procedures and route planning.
But my aviation adventure started when i was 7 when my dad took me to heathrow T3 on a saturday to watch concorde take off or land. We would have our airband radio on listening in to aircraft chatter and would get thrilled when we heard "Speedbird Concorde 1" on the airwaves!
I have been lucky enough to visit cockpits, talk to pilots of a couple of airlines and in a few cases obtained actual flight plans (im now 52!) so i could fly them in the flight sim environment.
Channels like this i really enjoy and Mentour Pilot explains things extremely well. Keep up the great work you do and thank you ❤
Brilliant. I love that companies like Boom are not giving up on supersonic flight.
you know, we sometimes make cheeky comments about each other between french and britons but when we work together ... oh boy, what we can achieve
Great video Petter-was lucky enough to see it everyday I was at LHR and especially so to see the last take off of 'AF' from 27R at LHR on it's last flight to Filton. Even in the cockpit of my 737/320, when it took off with us next in line it was loud. The shock waves in the afterburner flames were incredible too. An amazing aircraft that will not be matched for a very long time.
Very interesting! I've never really seen Concorde as a failure, in fact a huge success technologically! So much of Concorde's technologies are in use in other aircraft today, like fly by wire and advanced autopilots! My favorite Concorde display I've visited was G-BSST at the Fleet Air Arm in Yeovil, really love the prototype nose visor that is different from production aircraft!
Great point!💕💕
Concorde flew in commercial service for 27 years. That's not so bad for a "failure".
Concorde was not a failure, she was ahead of her time aerodynamicly, design. Even though her designs created in the fifties, sixty engineers working tirelessly long hours. Blue prints created all by hand, no computer generated enhancements since that was not available or in place at that time.
Concorde is my favorite. Thank you for this episode!
Thank YOU for watching
You make high quality professional videos that are richly informative and effortless to consume, even during binge sessions. Your professionalism, thoroughness & efficiency in communication seem to strike a perfect balance by providing all of the essential, contextual, specific & nuanced information necessary for total comprehension of the subject matter & delivery of your message, while also being absent of all of the unnecessary ramblings, fluff, speculation, and self-indulgencies that serve little or no benefit to the viewer. Thank you for all of your hard work, I have learned a tremendous amount from your videos and always look forward to your next video.@@MentourNow
A wonderfully succinct summary of a complex story. I have a photo of me as a teenager sitting in the pilot's seat, my sister was dating a Concorde maintenance engineer, so I was lucky enough to be given a tour at Heathrow. No security concerns in those days.
Bring back The Concorde! The World could use some inspiration!
Where there's a will, there is a way.
Yes👍.
Another extremely accurate historical video from Mentour Now. I must confess that I worked around Concordes rampside at JFK for six years and never once noticed that the fuselage was not area-ruled like most supersonic aircraft, but of constant width!
One small mistake I did notice was when mention was made of Boeing's final SST design, the 2707-300, being both considerably smaller and slower than the original -100/-200 "swingwing" designs. The -300 was indeed 20 feet shorter than the -200, but the cruise speed,1,800 miles an hour or Mach 2.7, was unchanged.
Is there still a Concorde simulator?
if there is could you arrange to fly the simulator with one concorde pilots?
So you can tell us about the flight differences.
Yes that would make a great video. Petter in the Brooklands Concorde simulator
I grew up living in the flight path to Dulles Airport, one of the few US airports the Concorde regularly flew into, and I remember looking up many times as a child to see the Concorde on approach. It was always an awesome sight. Commercial success or not, it was a triumph of engineering, and I wish I’d had the chance to fly on one.
The main problem really was the long time it took between first flight and certification. By the time Concorde entered service, the political and economic situation had changed drastically and almost nobody wanted the aircraft. Certainly more than 16 would have been produced had it entered service sooner.
Or if it had a bigger cabin.
I thought the key issue was noise so that it could not fly into some airports and the sonic boom issue , so it was sub sonic over land, i think the yanks would have been more accepting if was a American jet
No. The main problem was noise and the severe restriction of routes to those that were mainly over the oceans.
@@rogerphelps9939
They knew that Concorde was going to be a trans-oceanic airplane from the beginning. That did not stop the airlines from ordering over 100 of them. The noise protests came right before the airplane entered service and were really a political issue. The noise thing was not really an issue in the late 60s.
Indeed. With the First Oil Crises in 1973 the Concept of the Concorde was basically done - and the Concept of the 737, 747 and then the A 300 won.
22:22 That takeoff footage of the Concorde taking off and the light of the sun making it look gold always stayed in my mind, and I had the wallpaper of it too.
"In reality it wasn't that much noisier than some Boeing 707s"
Yeah, it was. By a LOT. When the Concorde was operating in and out of IAD my office was in a building in an office complex in the vicinity of the airport. We were East of the airport, so the Concordes never overflew us since the runways were 01/19. But when it took off it was the functional equivalent of a flight of four USAF jets taking off with full afterburners. All conversation ceased. It was incredibly loud. We could even tell when it landed, although much quieter than departure it was still louder than other airliners departing.
It was a beautiful aircraft, graceful and elegant. But LOUD.
I can see the legacy of Concorde’s fuel transfer system in the CoG management of A330/340. They have very similar rotary selectors in the cockpit too.
It’s odd (but great) watching mentour, who is usually is so incredibly in depth and thorough, talking about such “broad” subjects!! Highly impressive range ;)
One of my favorite memories (from the late 80's / more likely the early 90's) is seeing the top surface of Concorde in flight from my living room. Before moving to Denver Colorado I used to live in Westbury-on-Trym just north of Bristol and a little south of Filton where the Concorde was serviced. The end of the departure runway was roughly 2-3 miles north of my west facing house. Concorde would bank sharply left to get out over the Bristol Channel, I'd estimate the bank angle between 30 & 45 degrees at somewhere between 800 & 2000'. It was only visible for maybe a second but the sight & sound were mind-boggling.
Lived next to Heathrow all my life and worked there for a number of years. Used to watch it take off as a kid. Yes, it was loud, used to set off the car alarms in the staff car parks at the end of the south runway, but watching the afterburners in the evening was a sight to see, no matter how many times you have seen, it you always stop and look. No one in the area used to mind the noise they all got used to it. For working over the millennium I was offered 3 free flights on any BA route or swap them for 1 return flight on Concorde. I stupidly took the 3 flights. Gutted. Was on the tarmac for the last flight when it landed, taxied right past us. I took a ton of photos and lost the film.
I think the engineers did a great job designing and building Concorde. However, it was definitely an economic failure, requiring massive public expenditure without the sale of a single aircraft outside of the countries of origin.
People claim Concorde was profitable for Air France and British Airways, however, this wouldn't have been the case had they been required to foot the bill for the aircraft's design and development, instead of the British and French taxpayer).
Yes, Concorde was never profitable in terms of covering development costs (as it never broke even), furthermore BA and AF finally even got their Concordes for free
The development costs for the Concorde were about 10 times higher than estimated, BUT if we look at the glass half full, the benefits are - despite the subsidisation by taxpayers:
- Employment for many highly qualified personnel, many of whom went on to work for AIRBUS
- Technological added values and spin-off effects, being used in the Airbus aircraft family
- An unprecedented international co-operation that formed the basis for the foundation of AIRBUS
- First-time use of finished components instead of a classic assembly line
- Using the Concorde production sites and test facilities
The Concorde operation itself was very profitable for many years, especially for British Airways (despite the oil crisis, political opposition especially in the US, high operating and maintenance costs, environmental concerns and sonic boom restrictions).
BA made up to 25% of its total net profit from its 7 Concordes alone. This is remarkable when put in relation to the high number of subsonic aircraft in their fleet.
ruclips.net/video/9kk3DyIwaO8/видео.html
theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/
www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/storage/gamag/oct09/p24-30.pdf (refer tp page 25)
You have to also consider the loss of sales to US airlines due to political pressure, without which the story would have been very different.
@@MrBabylon Thank you for the mention, you are absolutely right to emphasise that.
The planned B version of the Concorde with a longer range, significantly lower noise levels (as afterburners were no longer required) and lower take-off and landing speeds (as leading edge flaps were planned) would have significantly increased the market opportunities.
The USA cancelled this project in exchange for the landing rights in the USA for the Concorde built to date.
I worked for Air France at London Heathrow from 1988. Apart from seeing the BA Concordes come and go we often had an Air France Concorde come in as a charter flight. Great times!
I was living in Chiswick in London UK in 1976 and saw the first incoming commercial flight of Concorde fly right over us. Very memorable experience. Thousands were on full alert and people were everywhere to get a look. I would love to see at least one of the Concordes return to the sky if only for the sheer joy of seeing and hearing one overhead at an airshow or a royal celebration. YES !!!
I was not a failure, it was a marvel.
I have long adored Concorde but she was retired when I was 9 and I was never able to fly on her. So I’ve made it a mission to visit all of the preserved ones open to the public. So far I’ve managed 7, 2 more booked for next year. My daughter also loves aeroplanes and she’s only 2 but she can accurately point out a Concorde among other planes ✈️
In 1982 I flew Air France Concorde from Paris (CDG) to New York (JFK). The plane's interior felt confining, essentially no larger than a 707. I couldn't even stand up straight. The seats were cramped without much pitch. The interior was uncomfortably warm throughout the entire flight. Though the aircraft encountered many obstacles to its success, I think passenger comfort was a big factor. Not worth spending several thousand dollars just to knock a few hours off a transatlantic flight, even for those with lavish corporate budgets. The technological achievements were noteworthy, but the market wasn't there.
Im glad this video is well researched - the Concorde story is incomplete without mentioning the TSR 2, and the development of that engine with its complex intake system. Thanks!
The Lockheed A-12/SR-71 was also temperature limited as to top speed. The Blackbird could without a doubt fly faster than the fuselage would tolerate. It was most efficient at Mach 3.2, but speeds of up to Mach 3.5 were reported. The limiting factor was the turbine inlet temperature of 427 degrees Centigrade.
Love your videos in general, and particularly this one on Concord.
I studied Mechanical Engineering in the UK, graduating in 1978. It is incredible to look back and realize that Desk Top computing was pretty much non-existent, and the vast majority of engineering work was done using slide rules and logarithmic tables when Concorde was developed.
I have pretty much forgotten everything I knew about fluid dynamics (a big part of aerodynamics), so it is wonderful hearing you talk about it in this video, even though it begs the question "why was the Boeing Max 8 ever allowed to fly?"
Please give us more of this kind of insight into the engineering associated with the aerospace industry.
Best regards,
Paulv
You mentioned abandoned TSR2 project - it's technology was used on the Concorde, 1950's technology of closed loop synchro servo motors and solenoid avionics. In final years, developed systems using early microprocessor systems, desperately catching up.
Concorde is a great example of what man can achieve regardless of the cost. It may have been a commercial failure (although British Airways did make profit out of the aircraft from the 1980s until the 2000 crash) but it was a technological and engineering success. It showed that supersonic travel was indeed possible. We got a unique and beautiful aeroplane that is very well loved by not just aviation enthusiasts but also the general public - even if it was too expensive for most people.
The fact that Concorde is so rare is what makes it unique and what made British Airways and Air France stand out from the rest, the only two airlines to have ever operated Supersonic commercial flights (excluding Aeroflot with their Tu-144, that sorry excuse of a thing was a death trap).
I have noticed that the aircraft that tend not to be the most commercially successful are the ones that are most likeable and the ones that seem to be well liked by the public, Concorde, the VC10, TriStar etc. The only commercially successful aircraft that has any notable following or love to the extent that Concorde has is arguably the Boeing 747, which was a great aircraft, and maybe the 707.
Commercial failure it may have been, but it is an engineering and technological triumph and well ahead of it's time. Some of the technology that is standard in aviation today was first used as Concorde, fly-by-wire for instance.
Concorde was an unmitigated disaster that destroyed the British aircraft industry, a colossal blunder that was a costly step backwards in the commercial aviation industry.
Concorde was a total financial loss, no profit was ever generated and the losses were paid by people who could never afford to fly on it, a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British class system disparity.
The Boeing 747 is a glaring example of just how wrong Concorde was... Boeing completely revolutionized air travel by making long distance overseas fares affordable for passengers and profitable for airlines to operate.
The 747 was in production for over half a century with production lasted until just months ago.
A massive and very profitable success for Boeing with 1,574 aircraft sold..
Concorde had ZERO sales.
Concorde was not the first aircraft to have fly-by-wire flight controls
@@WilhelmKarsten 1. BA made profit on Concorde following privatisation and did so right up until the accident. It didn't pay back the research and development costs but it made a lot of money for BA. £500 million in profit according to BA's own figures themselves.
2. Concorde did not destroy the British Aircraft industry. The UK aerospace industry was already struggling at that point, several airliners and military aircraft continued to be built in Britain afterwards but the future of British aerospace development and research would be through cooperation with other countries. As was with Concorde with the UK teaming up with France. Britain would also team up with Airbus, the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
3. Concorde was in fact the first *commercial* aircraft to have fly-by-wire flight controls. (the first to actually have it was the cancelled Avro Canada Arrow)
In any case, you can't take in any facts, you are unable to comprehend the fact that Concorde, the world's only successful SST was British and French and there is a very good reason why it is loved by many (even by a lot of Americans).
On an engineering scale, Concorde was a series of breathtaking developments.
When I was a child I remember Concorde came up to Manchester and people stood out in the streets to watch.
Later, I used to live under the dedicated Heathrow corridor for Concorde and so saw it fly over my garden many times over the years.
I worked in Technical Block A (TBA) at British Airways East Base at Heathrow and have seen Concorde on numerous occasions including a tour when it was grounded for the re-fit after the Air France disaster.
I've never flown on Concorde and see that as a missed opportunity.
Concorde was a colossal blunder that was a complete and utter failure... the negative impact it had on the UK aircraft industry was devastating and was a major factor in the eventual collapse of the British aircraft production
I miss Concorde, it used to fly over my house in Berkshire on the way out of Thiefrow. It was always a glorious sight.
The air intake nacelles were actually part of the work-up experience, as the engines kept being blown out by the shock wave from the sound barrier. The designer (my father) was Fred Lanchester's last understudy, and chums with Frank Whittle, so there was solidity of experience from the start.
The move from petroleum-based fuels may make the craft viable again.
Back in 1974/75 I was an English assistant in a high school in Agen in south-west France, about 100 kms from Toulouse. One afternoon I was lying on my bed reading a book when Concorde flew overhead during trials. The double sonic boom was so sudden, I literally lifted off my bed. I've always regretted that I never saw it while it was in service, but it failed because the Americans never forgave it for not being built in the US.
An Anglo-French project failed because it wasn't built in the US? No. The Concorde was not widely used because 1) those sonic booms you spoke of cause havoc and damage over populated areas so much so that Concorde could not be flown supersonic over land masses and 2) the massive rise in the price of oil in the early '70s made the thirsty aircraft very expensive to fly, and thus, ticket prices being out of reach of 99.5% of the flying public.
@@rhanemann9100 Concorde wasn't designed to be flown by 99.5% of the flying public, who really didn't "need" to be in NewYork before they'd taken off (timezone correction notwithstanding).
That period of time was great! So many new designs with the Concord being the epitome of them. I remember seeing the Concord in flight and when it landed what surprised me was the height of the landing gear. It was not a large aircraft but the beautiful shape of the fuselage blending into the wings made it look so futuristic just sitting on the ground. It just looked fast! Thanks for sharing this, it was great to watch and learn from.
@11:20
Minor detail, I don’t think on the 747 it’s called a “trim” tank but a “tail” tank. This is because it isn’t used to reduce the trim on the stabilizer like on the MD-11. The 747’s tail tank is just there to store more fuel and is the first to be emptied. The MD-11 however always kept fuel in the trim tank throughout the entire flight, I think the only time it is emptied is on descent.
I joined British Airways in 1976 as an ex RAF electrical engineer just after the Concorde entered service 1 month earlier. I can tell you that Concorde was a delight to work on. Loved it. The main reason for its commercial failure was political as the Americans would never allow it to fly over the states as it was not "their design". This limited it to flying over the sea only.
The Concorde was an unmitigated failure because they simply produced an aircraft that no one wanted to buy.
@@WilhelmKarsten But everyone wanted to fly in one. So "an unmitigated failure" in that regard, too?
@@stevemawer848 Not really, research conducted in America concluded that no wanted to deal with the consequences of high volume, scheduled supersonic air travel.. and airlines knew that travellers would not pay ticket prices that would have been profitable for operators.
You could describe the whole of UK aerospace development post war as a wonderful failure. We created some truly glorious innovative flying machines we could not really afford and had no real idea what to do with them, as a small island nation without any Empire left in which to play with them.
The biggest mistake was the British government not believing in Airbus and eventually leaving the consortium. Fortunately Hawker Siddeley stayed despite that and made a significant contribution to make the company what it is now.
@@Clery75019 thank goodness they did stay. All those thousands of jobs that depend on Airbus.
I read that the value of the UK aviation manufacturing industry today far exceeds that which it has been back when we made whole aircraft. It’s so good being part of a big team like Airbus.
Tack Petter Du är enastående. Välgjorda videos och därtill intressanta och till dels underhållande. Gott Nytt År to you and your crew!
Concorde and Tu-144 aren't failures.
The inferior one - Tu-144 after it got engines it needed - became a relatively good plane, though it still got a lot if minor issues to fix.
Concorde is a marvel. I wouldn't consider it as a failure. It flew, it exists, it makes us love aviation.
I believe that the Tu-144 never actually flew passengers with the good engines, though.
@@MentourNow correct
The wife's dad had a trip on one, at Fairford airshow for his 60th birthday present from the family. Went supersonic and he loved it. Wonderful Concorde.
In the 1990s I worked in the UK as an engineer for a "household name" multi-national company. We had an account with British Airways. For every 10 transatlantic bookings, the tenth was a free upgrade to Concorde. Concorde may not have been a stand-alone commercial success but the additional business it generated must have made it worthwhile. (As an engineer, I never got to fly Concorde, it was strictly for the top bosses...)
While working for Lockheed Aircraft Service Ontario Calif. the Concord took off one day. Super lead a group us out to the tarmac just as she took off. Good memories.
Antiques Roadshow (UK) has covered the Concorde, through vintage collections and speaking to people connected to it. I remember an interview with a pilot who talked about how piloting the Concorde was the ultimate experience in life, how it flew like a drew, and how nothing in his life would ever equal it. He was obviously so heartbroken its days were over.
For an example of Petter’s point on how fast aviation tech was advancing during the ‘50s/‘60s, the US military was putting more new models into service every year than the last 30 combined.
I worked for a fella that was involved with research and development of Concorde avionics, including their pilot training flight simulators, at Bristol Filton in West of England, Dennis Partridge. Worked with him on helicopter flight control systems, both civil and military, in the 1990's.
As a student in the mid '70s, one of my lecturers spent 2 1/2 years on Concord. Not on the design but writing software to enable the design of the leading edge cooling system (it used engine fuel).
Getting a single Concorde back into the skies would be absolutely amazing. It would give all of us who never flew on it at least the appearance of a chance to do so, a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to cross the sea on a legend. I believe there are many who would save up to do so.
I would propose keeping the cabin single-class, though perhaps with less than 100 seats and with tickets priced to make the venture make sense but not “suite on Singapore Air” prohibitively expensive. But there are many experiences that are worth more than their inputs that people are willing to pay for - a trip on the Blue Train between Johannesburg and Cape Town, the Orient Express, the SS Sudan on the Nile, etc. Just as a Chateau Lafite champagne is something worth more than the grape-juice and yeast it is made of, an opportunity to fly on the Concorde is something I dearly wish were available in today’s world of wide-bodied efficiency. It’s something like as close as a regular person might get to traveling to space.
When I flew on Concorde I moved to several empty seats to see try them out. We were told that we needed to sit in our assigned seat for landing to maintain the trim of the plane. You could faintly hear the fuel pumps moving fuel to the trim tanks, the windows were hot to touch, and you could feel the afterburners kick in to break the sound barrier when we got over the sea. It was great
One missing historic note was the Concorde's chasing of the solar eclipse on June 30 of 1973 where they chased the shadow across Africa. It became a huge informational treasure trove on solar weather that we still use today.
The 2707-100 and 2707-200 were just gorgeous with their variable sweep wings
Such a beautiful plane. Fortunate enough to have seen it several times. And after all these years, I am still in awe over its beauty.
Awesome piece of machinery... Hopefully something similar comin back out 🙏🇬🇧✈️👋
When sailing in the Western Approaches to the English Channel, I remember the regular sonic boom (which was really very loud!) as Concorde put its foot down on the way to New York. The amazing thing was that you'd hear it regularly for a day, when on your approach at say 7 knots as the damned thing was doing London to NY in about 3 hours, whilst we had covered maybe 50 miles in 7 hours!
I'm not sure about the words "mistake" and "failure" being used in this or any other technological context... hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Foresight would have prevented the Concorde from ever being considered as a viable concept.
Concorde was the biggest disaster in commercial aviation history and it destroyed the UK aircraft industry
@@WilhelmKarsten QED!
I was lucky enough to be in a Concorde abandoned takeoff at Cairo. It stops VERY quickly. Mis performing throttle amplifier. We spent half an hour at the end of the runway running engine tests. Being Concorde, we were of course served champagne. Normally alcohol is not served until reaching cruising altitude, so I am one of the very few lucky ones to take off in Concorde with a glass of champagne in my hand. We flew back using the TA we had flown out with.
I've loved Concord since the beginning. Thousands would visit Airports just to get Glimpse of it. Why it was discontinued was a Tragedy. It was at its peak
& should have never have been stopped .
Having flown on Concorde, it was a special moment. It would be great to restore a flying version as an incentive to consider building an improved and newer version
I would LOVE to bring one back!
My piggybank shakes at the idea!
I learned way too late in 2002 and 2003 they were doing all training flights on Shannon! That would have been the only chance at the time to at least see one taking off and landing!
I stumbled upon this channel 2 months ago and since then I have watched many videos and every new one released. Thank you for being so informative and professional!
I want to thank you so so much for the fantastic videos that you post and for their informative content. I particularly like the Concorde videos. I flew her in August 2003 just before the end. One of the most awesome experiences I’ve had in my life. Keep up the good work!!
Alltså, ni hade ju lätt kunnat kvalificera er för en ingenjörstitel. Tack för nörderiet! ❤️
I spent my Childhood and teenage Summers in Cape Cod. We would hear the boom. I can’t remember if it was once or twice a day. As Concord came and went from Boston, it wasn’t very loud they were still to the east of us out on the ocean, but you could hear it very clearly every time it happened. I doubt the most beautiful airplane I have ever seen.
I meant to say it is without doubt, the most beautiful airplane I’ve ever seen.
I lived in Cornwall (SW England) back in the eighties and you could almost set your clock to the booms each evening!
Ever since i was a child and saw pictures of the concorde i have been in love with this aircraft. Raw power and slick elegance❤ And im so sad that i never will be able to sit in one due to the world bias of miles to the galleon obsession….
For civilian commercial aircraft, i don't think you can beat the looks of the 747. She is after all, the queen of the skies. Getting to be a grand old dame, but still a pretty one! ^-^
Fuel consumption: Concorde about 20l per passenger per 100km. (17 at cruise altitude) A320neo less than 3l (some say 2,25l). Toyota Yaris Hybrid 4,7l/100km
Ill grew up living under heathrows final approach near Fulham. Everyday, the scheduled Concorde flight woild fly over and toi coild hear them from 2 planes behind. Ill never forget that crackle sound from rhe engines.
What a plane. Wow
I have several personal links with the Concorde project I would like to share. I was working for Rolls-Royce as an apprentice electronics engineer in Patchway, Bristol in 1969 when Concorde 002 took off. I was standing right by the runway at the time. I later moved to the British Aircraft Corporation, (now BAe System) Guided Weapons Division just up the road in Filton, and strangely (?) worked on the Air Intake Control System (ACIS) which allowed Concorde's engines to fly at supersonic speeds. It was also the reason that Concorde could cruise at supersonic speeds without the need for reheat (after-burners) unlike some supersonic military aircraft.
A long time later, in 1978, I had just finished my tour with an oil exploration company in the middle east, and had the opportunity to upgrade my return ticket back to the UK to the Concorde flying the Singapore / Bahrain / London route. I jumped at the chance! I joined the flight in Bahrain, and took off an hour AFTER my wife started her journey from Devon to pick me up from the airport. I was was an experience of a lifetime. Magnificent!
Even later, by pure coincidence, I was working on site for yet another company in Bristol on the day that the last Concorde did a parade flight around Bristol and landed back at Filton. I was genuinely heartbroken that she was no longer flying, and I honestly shed a tear.
Thank you so much for your channel and all your great content, Petar. A happy and healthy new year to you and your family.
My Godfather flew on Concorde from Heathrow to JFK.
He then amused us, every Christmas, by asking us why the glass in the toilet window was frosted.
'Who is going to be looking?'.
Funny every time.
Miss you, Uncle Bob.