Concorde cockpit video: take-off and landing

[deSelys]

Pretty cool stuff and a bit more complicated than the P28A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjzoh3iQJc

[RTHolmes]

very cool find

a beautiful and unique aircraft.

[Yossarian]

ooohhh TOO cool!!!  Thanks for posting that! 

One of my favourite memories ever is when my parents took me off school for an afternoon for a 'dentist appointment'.  In reality we were going to watch Concorde take off on one of its final ferry flights to a museum (I think it was the one going to Seattle, Alpha Golf).  Standing about 200 feet under that plane, with four afterburners going at once was by far the coolest and loudest noise I've ever heard 

All planes are inferior to Concorde, and always will be

Also, here's another good and similar video I just came across:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzzQMFieEvQ&NR=1
Edit: actually it's the same video, just an extended version of it, and part of a series.

[F22RaptorDude]

Such a shame the fleet was decommissioned, would have been awesome to fly in. Can someone tell me why they got dismantled? I know they had that crash, or the one after take off when the wing caught fire from the tire bursting and all that, but was there more to the reason?

[Yossarian]

Such a shame the fleet was decommissioned, would have been awesome to fly in. Can someone tell me why they got dismantled? I know they had that crash, or the one after take off when the wing caught fire from the tire bursting and all that, but was there more to the reason?

I think it was a combination of factors, but a lot of it was to do with reduced passenger numbers after the crash and then after 9/11.  Also, I've heard from someone I know who used to fly on it quite regularly that they were having an increasing number of problems with the planes, but I don't have/haven't looked for any more info on that.

[F22RaptorDude]

I think it was a combination of factors, but a lot of it was to do with reduced passenger numbers after the crash and then after 9/11.  Also, I've heard from someone I know who used to fly on it quite regularly that they were having an increasing number of problems with the planes, but I don't have/haven't looked for any more info on that.

I guess all that alone would be significant enough, still is quite a shame though.

[Yossarian]

I just realised I was at heathrow for this flight!

[Spikes]

IIRC was it not one of the best aircraft in terms of flights to accident ratio?

Such a beauty, imagine what it would cost to fly that thing now with fuel prices.

[F22RaptorDude]

IIRC was it not one of the best aircraft in terms of flights to accident ratio?

Such a beauty, imagine what it would cost to fly that thing now with fuel prices.

Doesn't fuel efficiency get better after you punch the sound barrier?

[Yossarian]

Doesn't fuel efficiency get better after you punch the sound barrier?

Not sure about the figures, but Concorde used afterburners to punch through the sound barrier, but could then supercruise at a bit over Mach 2 without them.  So to answer your question: probably.

That said, I think that Concorde would be worth the cost of the extra fuel.  To paraphrase some Youtuber: 'It would be nice if they had been sold to multibillionaires, who would be rich enough to keep them flying.  That way, they'd still be able to cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours, and the rest of us would still be able to watch them do so'

I have no idea how the calculations work for the accident statistics, but with only one crash in about 30 years of service, I'd say it's got to be way up there in terms of reliability, even though there were very few planes only doing a few flights a day.

edit: just found this page with some stuff about problems with the fleet, etc: http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=786

[saggs]

Why did they retire the Concorde???

Simple, ECONOMICS

The Concorde was always more of a prestige thing for BA and AF then a money-maker.  Remember the Concorde was ALL first class, and with tickets costing much more then regular first class tickets, they didn't sell a lot.  (granted with the expensive tickets,   if  they had sold out every flight it would have made a lot of money... but they didn't)   Next factor was the ever increasing cost of maintaining the aging fleet, also they had much higher maintenance costs to begin with.  

This talk of it being more efficient is total malarkey too, the Concorde burned more fuel crossing the Atlantic then a 747, while only carrying 1/4 the passengers (hence the super high ticket prices)  ... the old saying is true "Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?"  As a general rule of thumb, you'll always burn more fuel to go faster.

Bottom line is $$$$$$$... the Concorde wasn't making it.


EDIT:  I should add that  I would LOVE to see a modern supersonic airliner, the technology is there, and they can now muffle to a degree the sonic booms.  Making it possible to use it trans-continent and not just trans-oceanic.  I'm not holding my breath though, most airlines are still struggling just to stay in the black, I can't see any of them taking a risk on something like that.  Not to mention it would take a decade to get such a plane through FAA and EASA certification even after it was built.

[sntslilhlpr6601]

I'm guessing there will be suborbital spaceflights for travelers before we ever see another supersonic airliner.

Fine with me, though. 

[Sonicblu]

My wife wanted to fly before they decommissioned it so I looked for tickets. OVER $8000.00

Ah ya no. anyway they have one at Dulles air and space museum just saw it last weekend. Couldn't believe how small the cockpit was.

 

[saggs]

Doesn't fuel efficiency get better after you punch the sound barrier?

Not really, but I know what you're thinking.

See the greatest drag on an airframe is when it is transonic, once you pass the transonic stage drag does drop off some.  In other words, you'll have less drag flying at 1.5 mach, then you will flying at .99 mach.  However you will still have quite a bit more drag flying at 1.5 mach, then you would at subsonic cruising like .8 mach.

In other words drag coefficient in order of highest to lowest goes:  transonic>supersonic>subsonic.

You will always be burning a LOT more fuel in supersonic cruise then subsonic.

[saggs]

I'm guessing there will be suborbital spaceflights for travelers before we ever see another supersonic airliner.

Fine with me, though. 

I agree, they are kind of one and the same.  I bet the next supersonic or hypersonic transport will using suborbital space flight.