Long time no see, gents, now you know I'm not dead.

Anyways, my latest addition to my collection of aircraft was the superb SSTSIM Concorde. After a rocky start, I am now experienced enough in the simulation to fly her on any of her old routes. I am not here to brag, however, I am here to ask you a question.

The only supersonic transport to ever have been used economically (yes I am aware of the TU-144, but she never truely entered service) has long since been retired, and many consider this a huge step backwards in aviation, but there were many reasons, and the crash only played a small part in the whole story. Here are the rest, in order of importance:

1: She cost too much to operate, she used the same amount of fuel as a 747 on a transatlantic trip, but only carried 1/3 of the passengers the 747 could.

2: The noise. Oh my god, she will rip your ears to shreds... We here in the US were very sceptical about allowing her to fly here for the longest time for that very reason.

3: Her age was catching up with her. It was getting more and more difficult to maintain her, as with growing age comes more problems.

4: The crash. Yup, it had to come, but it was not the safety issues we are concerned with here, it is how much it cost to revamp her.

5: September 11th. The effects were felt worldwide, in the form of a significant drop in the popularity air travel.

Don't listen to the political junkies blaming the US for its demise, OR the conspiracy theorists claiming Air France crashed Concorde delibirately, the reasons for retirement were purely economic from where I stand.

Now, the point of this topic is, I want to know about what you thought of her. What was your experience? If you flew on her, how did it feel?

Thanks in advance.

JET

Quote:

They never flew it break-even (with $10k for a single-trip ticket), but the businesspeople loved it (get from london to NYC on the morning flight, do company meeting, fly back in the evening... instead of losing 3 days for a meeting overseas). BA and AF got a load of complaints from corporate europe when they decided to stop the Concorde, and the business travel thing was the main reason for mr Branson to try to buy the fleet

Quote:

Might be a reason... the engines were kind of a one-off when RAF put the vulcan out of active service. Rest of the airframe was ok though

Quote:

Ever seen the order listl... almost every big name in the industry had a few on order in the late 60s... most were cancelled after 1973 though

I watched her come into Filton on the 23rd November 2003......a sad day

I don't want to stir up any political arguments, but the major reason Concorde was never widely produced was the argument with the American authorities about landing permissins due to noise. Therefore, the noise of her engines was indirectly to blame aswell.....

All I can say is that It's very sad there isn't at least one flying example today.

List of airframes visited by me ;

East Fortune      G-BOAA
Heathrow          G-BOAB
Manchester       G-BOAC
Filton               G-BOAF
Yeovilton         002 (second prototype)
Duxford              101

.mic

ozzy72 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 1:36pm:


Oh yes...forgot about 101......though I've only actually seen her once, and that was because the mass spit flypast at the end of the 2006 spitfire show was cancelled due to high winds and I had an hour to wander around Airspace

.mic

You know, going back to original question (I think . . .  ) as to why the Concorde went out of service:

Well, this is what happens to all aircraft sooner or later.  I know that may sound a little flippant, but it is true.  There are, of course, factors that affect the longevity of any given model.  But, eventually newer aircraft come in to replace the old as the paradigms of commercial air travel change.  Sometime even without new aircraft to replace them, older aircraft simply fall into disuse because of a lack of demand for what they once did.

The points mentioned in previous comments, everything from cost, to noise, to aging technology versus speed, popularity with business passengers, and numbers of aircraft orders, all played a part in the use and disuse of the Concorde.  You can see the same thing happening with the 747 (which was also mentioned above somewhere).  While still in service, many 747's are being phased from passenger service to cargo service.  Eventually, even those cargo aircraft will be phased out of use as the parameters of commercial aviation change.

It all boils down to demand, really.  Is an aircraft, given all the variables mentioned above and more, the most suitable and efficient aircraft to meet the demand it is trying to fulfill?  Eventually for the Concorde, either the demand was not great enough for what the Concorde could do, or the Concorde could not do enough to meet the demand it was trying to fulfill.

Whether she is still used or not, I think we can all agree the Concorde was a truly remarkable accomplishment of aviation technology, and our world was made all the more fascinating because of the Concorde . . . and all the planes before and since and yet to come. 

With philosophical rambling,
~Darrin

Quote:

Back in 1960-s, subsonic jets wasted fuel to make noise. Concorde jets really did what they should do.

High-bypass turbofans were both quieter and more efficient. But you cannot do the same with Concorde, simply because you need low or no  bypass to make supersonic flight work!

Well, I'm glad the internet as at least one discussion that isn't all about the Amero-French atred for one another and uncalled for political mudslinging.

Quote:


Well, one out of 15 could be tough luck, 10 out of 5 thousand could mean a structural failure somewhere.

T' was a beautifull plane and served its purpose, i wonder if there ever will be a sucessor.

Ivan wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 2:16am:



On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion.

The Rolls-Royce Olympus is still engine is still in production for industrial and naval power, though I appreciate that the engines have major differences, they would have shared many components, so sustaining the engines would nt have been a great problem.

Matt

Rifleman wrote on Mar 5^th, 2008 at 11:01am:

Somebody posted that on another pilots' forum...
It's quite an unusual ATC recording. I like how the Speedbird skipper initiates the whole thing, but keeps a very stiff upper lip throughout... meanwhile the New Yawkuhs in JFK tower are waxing poetic and getting a little sniffly.

Boss_BlueAngels wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 2:55am:


I think when you then realise you are doing mach 2+ at 60,000ft, you might have changed your mind. Not really something the average person can do outside of the military.