Wish I could have afforded a seat in 2002.


Concorde by RobGeraghty, on Flickr

Nice shot Rob!

Nope. Been there.

Wish I could afford a seat in the future . . . and that there was somewhere worth goin' to that fast.

Thanks Larry! I should try to find a scan of the aircraft in the museum at Yeovilton - I had a photo of the cockpit.

Wow really - you flew on Concorde? What was it like?

I kind of agree with the sentiment about "somewhere worth going that fast", but if you'd spent the amount of time I have crammed into economy class seating between Australia and pretty much anywhere in the world, the idea of spending less time in that sort of discomfort sounds good. Yes, I realise that things are usually a lot less comfortable in the military, but then again it's a job and military aircrew are usually young and fit. My last flight back from Europe involved a couple of hours from Paris to Frankfurt, then 14 hours to Singapore, then around another nine hours to Sydney, plus time in airports in between. Just being able to cut flight time down to around eight hours would be good, but isn't going to happen soon.

Mind you, in 1935, travelling to the UK by air took at least 12 days...

Great image, one of my little regrets is that I never had the chance to fly on one. As a youth I had a poster on my wall of the cockpit (saved up my Top Trumps cards for that) and it certainly influenced my decision to have a career in aviation.

It was a real marvel of engineering, but like all engineering marvels it was a money pit and never really economically viable as a profit making method of flight (particularly after it was prohibited from flying over the continental US, a bit of spite there methinks). After reading the accident report of the Air France crash it was really getting tired and past it, but in my dreams they have one tucked away somewhere in a hanger in flight worthy condition (next to the TSR2, the Avro Arrow, a complete set of V bombers.....)

Mmm, I didn't express that properly -- meant I'd been supersonic. The Concord would've been a much different experience. I'm sure the service was better too; it's hard to sip scotch around an O2 mask.

Years ago there was a Concorde at the EAA. I think they offered a short ride, can't remember how much it cost . Wasn't in my budget at the time. I found a 2015 artcle that some folks want to bring it back by 2019. Concorde supersonic jet may come back - Business Insider

Cool!

I read something that there were former pilots who wanted to buy one and keep it in flying condition for joy flights. I can't imagine what the price on a joy flight would be!
I think the main reason that it wasn't economical was being reduced to a single route across the Atlantic. If current research leads to supercruise capable aircraft with minimal sonic boom, a lot more flight paths would be available. If it could fly between Europe and China or China and North America, the business elite in China there would love it.

Sadly, Concorde only flew to Australia once. I'm not sure how long the service to Singapore lasted. Qantas is excited about a direct service from Perth to London using a 787 but it's a painfully long flight for those in Economy. On the other hand, a supersonic aircraft is never going to have "economy" seats.

Fair enough! I'm curious whether there's anything really noticeable about the transition to supersonic - in a military aircraft or Concorde. Chuck Yeager said that the aircraft became very stable and smooth once past the barrier. Speaking of drinks in a supersonic aircraft, I was shown the storage point for a thermos in an F111. I can understand that coffee/tea might be a good thing on a long flight.

Time will tell, I guess!

Interesting - I just read the Wikipedia entry for Concorde and it said that a flight from London to Sydney took 17 hours including refuelling stops. Qantas has just introduced a 787 Perth-London direct flight which is 17 hours. But then it's another 5 hours flight on a conventional aircraft to Sydney. I also recall that the first Qantas 747-400 flew direct from London to Sydney on its delivery flight, but that was without passengers and luggage. So speed is one thing and range is something else. The range of the 787 is basically double that of Concorde:

Concorde - 7,222 km
787-9 - 14,140 km
747-400 - 14,200 km

The figures above surprise me because I thought the range of the 787 was more than the 747. Maybe it's that the fuel efficiency is higher so the cost per passenger is lower?

Range for an aircraft is a lot like miles per gallon (or the Canadian version... litres/100 km... which is just counter intuitive in every sense) for a car. It is a number only loosely based in reality.

That number has to factor in how much fuel is onboard, how much dead weight (passengers and cargo) is onboard, the cruise speed and altitude, when the airframe was last waxed and polished... headwind vs. tailwind vs. really nasty crosswind vs. no wind (like that's ever a thing), fuel to hold/fly to an alternate, fuel burnt during taxi, how efficient the descent, climb and arrival paths are...and probably a couple dozen other factors like the last time the engines were overhauled.

Basically "Range" is a "SWAG"... a "Scientific Wild A** Guess".

This the same as a "WAG"... a "Wild A** Guess", but it makes you feel better because there's a bunch of numbers.

Litres/100km is just the inverse. I don't see how it's counter-intuitive. It's just another way of providing a scale of fuel efficiency.

Fair enough. Presumably the figures quoted in Wikipedia are "average". In other words, for a typical load under typical conditions, the range of a 747-400 is twice that of Concorde.

Actually those figures typically come from whatever the manufacturer posts as a design goal tied to a mission specification intended to satisfy a given commercial market; there's no standard configuration for comparisons. No two designs will ever have best/optimum fuel/range/payload/seat capacity in common.

If the four engine, Airbus 340 gives up a fuel economy advantage to a wide-body twin it may be to off-set expensive ETOPS constraints on trans-oceanic legs, say between NYC and Johanneburg, SA.

The factors at play in choosing a commercial aircraft are fascinating -- pick a route structure, a payload (250-475+ seats?) and a required range (9000- to 19000 KM?). There's a whole world of difference in the numbers when you factor in a mission statement and the variable trade-offs in payload, fuel economy, route structure, predominate weather, etc. E.g., sometimes you give up economical fuel burn to increase speed to get that last available gate time at a hub. Or to squeeze in an extra trip per day on a popular route where assured full seats offsets fuel cost.

As a MUCH simpler example, in my 7KCAB with 36 gallons of no-reserve fuel the POH says I can go 390 sm @130 mph @ 2500' MSL burning 11.6 gph in 3.0 hrs OR 815 sm @90 mph @10,000' MSL burning 3.8 gph in 8.5 hrs OR most anything in between those numbers. However, there's only 540 lbs of total discretionary payload to be divided between two seats and fuel which weighs 6 lb/gal. (In practical terms, however, my personal 'holding tank' is only good for about 3 hrs max in any case which tends to 'define the mission plan!)