Concorde to fly again ?

[Mave]

hidetheelephants said:

Modern aircraft that size have no business having more than 2.

...especially as more engines means worse reliability, not better. More things to go wrong...

[RoverP6B]

Two engines won't be enough to propel something that big to supersonic speeds, surely? I'd certainly prefer more than two in case one failed...

...as for that wing, it'll endow the a/c with horrible handling characteristics at subsonic speeds.

Not that we need to worry. A Concorde replacement is slightly less probable than Concorde flying again.

[hidetheelephants]

RoverP6B said:

Two engines won't be enough to propel something that big to supersonic speeds, surely? I'd certainly prefer more than two in case one failed...

...as for that wing, it'll endow the a/c with horrible handling characteristics at subsonic speeds.

Not that we need to worry. A Concorde replacement is slightly less probable than Concorde flying again.

Two engines was such a big problem for SR71 and MIG25. A combination of lift augmentation and FBW would make it manageable, something that wasn't available to the chaps developing Concorde so they had to devise a wing that worked and was stable throughout the envelope.

[Mave]

RoverP6B said:

Two engines won't be enough to propel something that big to supersonic speeds, surely? I'd certainly prefer more than two in case one failed...
.

Why? 2 large engines can make the same thrust as 4 large engines. And the more engines you have, the more likely one will fail.

[RoverP6B]

The Olympus is a bloody big engine already. SR-71 not remotely comparable to a public transport airliner. Sure, double the engines, more likelihood of a failure, but then you've got 75% of power and most particularly important you've still got 50% of power on the failed engine's side, which means less correction against yaw required.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The age of supersonic passenger aircraft is over. It will NEVER return.

[Eric Mc]

I still think that a supersonic biz jet will be built.

[Mave]

RoverP6B said:

The Olympus is a bloody big engine already. SR-71 not remotely comparable to a public transport airliner. Sure, double the engines, more likelihood of a failure, but then you've got 75% of power and most particularly important you've still got 50% of power on the failed engine's side, which means less correction against yaw required.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The age of supersonic passenger aircraft is over. It will NEVER return.

It's a bloody big engine which only needed full thrust for a few points in the flight envelope- and quite often failure of one occured at the same time as failure of the other so adverse yaw had to cope with both engines out anyway. I suspect we will see a supersonic biz jet but aimed at M1.6 rather than 2+ as the sweet spot for performance / cost / complexity / airworthiness.

[lynothehammer]

As much as i'd love to see a Concorde fly again, i just cannot see the CAA agreeing to it...

[aeropilot]

lynothehammer said:

As much as i'd love to see a Concorde fly again, i just cannot see the CAA agreeing to it...

Nothing to do with CAA...... as you've got to get past the first hurdle of BA & AF saying yes......as they own them all......and that's where the whole Concorde to Fly Again proposals fall flat on the floor as neither will be saying 'yes & oui' EVER.

[hidetheelephants]

Almost as fundamental, Dassault aren't likely to be receptive to either acting as Design Authority or handing over the IP to enable some other body to act as DA. No DA, no aviation.

[Eric Mc]

I didn't know Dassault were connected to Concorde.

[hidetheelephants]

Eric Mc said:

I didn't know Dassault were connected to Concorde.

I have no idea why I typed such arrant nonsense; it is of course Airbus who are the Design Authority. Mea Culpa.

[Eric Mc]

These things happen to us all.

The French contribution originally came through Sud Aviation and later Aeropastiale.

[Stuart70]

Eric Mc said:

These things happen to us all.

The French contribution originally came through Sud Aviation and later Aeropastiale.

Was that the company that made the jet propelled pasties?

[matsoc]

The idea of placing one on display somewhere in central London doesn't look wrong to me. There is already one on display in New York City on the Intrepid carrier.

[V8LM]

Should be covered, and such would be prohibitively expensive in London (unless a large number of exhibits are removed from say the Science Museum for example).

[Eric Mc]

Stuart70 said:

Eric Mc said:

These things happen to us all.

The French contribution originally came through Sud Aviation and later Aeropastiale.

Was that the company that made the jet propelled pasties?

Yes - their Cornish subsidiary. The curried ones were the ones with the afterburners.

[Eric Mc]

V8LM said:

Should be covered, and such would be prohibitively expensive in London (unless a large number of exhibits are removed from say the Science Museum for example).

There should be one retained by the Science Museum. They have a collection of larger aircraft at Wroughton in Wiltshire so it could be stored there.

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

Stuart70 said:

Eric Mc said:

These things happen to us all.

The French contribution originally came through Sud Aviation and later Aeropastiale.

Was that the company that made the jet propelled pasties?

Yes - their Cornish subsidiary. The curried ones were the ones with the afterburners.

Brilliant recovery Eric !

[Eric Mc]

The Russians tried borscht, but they couldn't get the same thrust levels.