4 Olympus engines and some metal for the 2012 Olympics......

4 Olympus engines and some metal for the 2012 Olympics......

Author
Discussion

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
Odie said:
so why not just build a "new" concord from scratch (to the original design, with some possible avionics mods etc), it would probably be cheaper in the long run anyway
Not a chance would it be cheaper laugh

And unless it was done by the original manufacturer or an organisation appointed by the original manufacturer (which isn't going to happen) it wouldn't get a certificate and therefore it wouldn't fly anyway.




Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 1st June 13:39

Martin Keene

9,345 posts

224 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
Odie said:
Wouldnt it be cheaper and more effiecient to build a new one from scratch? (possibly adding some modern avionics and other system in the process ie off the shelf)
Not by a long chalk. Remember Concorde is the plane that NASA described as harder to operate than the Shuttle... Part of the problem with it, it is so damn fast. Concorde does Mach 2.05, so not only is it the only supersonic passenger plane, it goes twice as far as sound just for good measure.

This makes Concorde the equal 18th fastest plane *ever*, and that statistic includes all miltary aircraft and unmanned NASA expermental planes...

Quite some acheivement even for today, for the 1960's it was truely something else.

World's fastest planes:
1. X-43 (Unmanned) Mach 9.8 110,000 feet
2. X-15 Mach 6.72 354,200 feet - fastest manned aircraft in the world.
3. SR-71 Blackbird (YF-12) Mach 3.2+ 85,000+ feet - fastest airplane in the world.
4. MiG-25R Foxbat-B Mach 3.2 123,524 feet
4. X-2 Mach 3.2 126,200 feet
5. XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3.1 77,350 feet
6. MiG-31 Foxhound Mach 2.83 67,600 feet
7. MiG-25 Foxbat (Ye-155) Mach 2.8 118,900 feet
8. F-15 Eagle Mach 2.5 60,000 feet
8. F-111 Aardvark Mach 2.5 60,000+ feet
9. X-1 Mach 2.435 90,440 feet
10. Su-24 Fencer Mach 2.4 57,400 feet
11. Tu-144 Charger Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
11. MiG-23 Flogger Mach 2.35 60,700 feet
11. Su-27 Flanker Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
12. F-14A Tomcat Mach 2.34 58,000+ feet
13. F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2.31 57,000 feet
14. IAI Kfir Mach 2.3 75,000 feet
14. English Electric Lightning Mach 2.3 60,000 feet
14. MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 2.3 59,060 feet
14. F-107 Ultra Sabre Mach 2.3 48,000 feet
15. Tornado ADV Mach 2.2 69,997 feet
15. F-4 Phantom Mach 2.2 62,250 feet
15. Mirage 2000 Mach 2.2 59,055 feet
15. F-104 Starfighter Mach 2.2 58,000 feet
15. B-58 Hustler Mach 2.2 64,800 feet
16. F-105 Thunderchief Mach 2.1 52,000 feet
16. A-5 Vigilante Mach 2.1 52,100 feet
17. Su-22 Mach 2.09 59,055 feet
18. Tu-160 Blackjack Mach 2.05 49,200 feet
18. MiG-21 Fishbed Mach 2.05 50,000 feet
18. Concorde Mach 2.05 60,000 feet
19. D558-2 Skyrocket Mach 2.005 83,235 feet
20. YF-23 Black Widow II Mach 2 (AB) 65,000 feet
20. F-20 Tigershark Mach 2+ 55,000 feet

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
Actually, it's not it's actual capable speed that marks out Concorde as something special, it's it's ability to actually sustain that speed over such an extended period of time.....i.e supercruise..... that elevates it into an even more rarefied 'club' of very few operational aircraft... and really puts it up with the SR-71 in terms of comparabilty.




Eric Mc

121,768 posts

264 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
Concorde could cruise at Mach 2 without the use of afterburners. There was virtually nothing in the world that could catch it without having to switch on reheat.

And I don't think any other aircraft could maintain a constant speed in excess of Mach 2 for up to three hours.

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Concorde could cruise at Mach 2 without the use of afterburners. There was virtually nothing in the world that could catch it without having to switch on reheat.

And I don't think any other aircraft could maintain a constant speed in excess of Mach 2 for up to three hours.
Correct, effectively Concorde was really in a league of it's own, in it's ability to supercruise at M2.0 on cold power for such an extended period.

Even the SR-71 supercruises in reheat to an extent because it's specially fuelled engines are a actually partial ramjet design.

The only other jet that was designed to operate as per Concorde (and had similar engine design) was the TSR.2 which was designed to supercruise at M2.0 at 55k ft in cold power....but of course that was canned by the UK Govt rolleyes

Eric Mc

121,768 posts

264 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Eric Mc said:
Concorde could cruise at Mach 2 without the use of afterburners. There was virtually nothing in the world that could catch it without having to switch on reheat.

And I don't think any other aircraft could maintain a constant speed in excess of Mach 2 for up to three hours.
Correct, effectively Concorde was really in a league of it's own, in it's ability to supercruise at M2.0 on cold power for such an extended period.

Even the SR-71 supercruises in reheat to an extent because it's specially fuelled engines are a actually partial ramjet design.

The only other jet that was designed to operate as per Concorde (and had similar engine design) was the TSR.2 which was designed to supercruise at M2.0 at 55k ft in cold power....but of course that was canned by the UK Govt rolleyes
It may have been canned by one UK Government, but it was also instigated by another. However, the roots of its outstanding spec and ultimate canning can be traced directly back to the Sandys White Paper of 1957.

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
So why, if Concorde was so good, didnt it have any military applocations? As a very fast bomber? reconnisance?

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
It was thought about at the time by but I'd say everyone was into their ballistic missiles by the time it came into service.


Eric Mc

121,768 posts

264 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
williamp said:
So why, if Concorde was so good, didnt it have any military applocations? As a very fast bomber? reconnisance?
Airliners don't generally translate well into bombers - or vise versa.

Odie

4,187 posts

181 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
williamp said:
So why, if Concorde was so good, didnt it have any military applocations? As a very fast bomber? reconnisance?
Why is it I get the image in my head of concorde with an awacs dome on top when i read that..

I would think they would have made a remarkable aircraft for dropping Paratroopers, image 3 hours after the falklands was invaded 5 concordes in green livery drop out the clouds, deccelerate, and drop paratroopers onto the island, as the argies fighters are told to engage the flight of concordes drop chaff and flares and accelerate upto mach 2 the argies fighters are unable to catch up and give chase...

Ok I can dream cant I..

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
I would have thought there wasn't any real use for a military Concorde.

It was most efficient flying at Mach 2, which was confined to overflying the Atlantic or uninhabited areas.

Photo Recon was handled by the Canberra PR9 at that stage which could fly at 60,000 feet plus, which although not out of the way of missiles, I doubt Concorde at Mach 2 would be able to outrun one either.

The carriage of missiles/nuclear deterrant went at the end of the 1960s to the Submarine fleets, which meant the Vulcan/Victor and Valiant switched to low level operations. Only the Vulcan was suited to this, the Victor was converted to a tanker, and the Valiant withdrawn after cracks were found in the wing spars. There would be no use for a subsonic concorde down in the weeds.

As a transport it would not have been much use either as inside it is very small, you could move troops quickly but not the ground support with it. The VC-10 could fly high subsonic speeds (which is probably all you would have been able to do with Concorde over populated areas anyway), was bigger and could get into smaller airfields.

So really there was no practical use for it.

The thing with Concorde was it was born in the height of the Cold War when the East and West were in a power race. At the time technology was rushing ahead. Many thought that Concorde and supersonic jets were the way forward, and would become commonplace.
The oil crisis and the limiting factor of where you could fly the thing without breaking windows/scaring cows/old ladies etc, put an end to the idea of supersonic travel.

There are more hurdles now to do something like Concorde than there were in the 1960's, quiet turbofan engines for example, but that could also be used for long periods at Mach 1+. The other big problem is the sonic boom.
No-one is going to make a plane that can only be used for a few overseas routes.

The other thing you have to look at is there a need for Concorde now?

Business passengers were the main Concorde customer.
The premium on a ticket (admittedly only a little bit more than Business Class), leads to the question is it worth the extra £2k + to arrive in 3.5 hours rather than 8?
You can video conference people these days so you don't need to fly accross the Atlantic to speak face to face.

Technology has effectively rendered Concorde obsolete. I don't think we will ever see it's like again.

One paper, on the retirement on Concorde wrote along the lines of, "it was yesterday's future" which I think sums it up really.

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Tuesday 1st June 2010
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ultimately for whatever reasons, either political, financial or practical, that was the conclusion.
However, the idea must have got further than just a pie-in-the-sky notion, as when the team were restoring/rebuilding Concorde G-BBDG at Brooklands, structural evidence was found in the wing structure that some sort of pylon hard points had at some stage been trialled/incorporated, pressumably likely for the Skybolt missile.

Odie

4,187 posts

181 months

Thursday 3rd June 2010
quotequote all
Was Mach2.05 the fastest concord ever flew? Did it go faster or was it not capable?

What speed did it use in general service? did it just sit and cruise at its top speed day in and day out?

The comment about the hardpoints is interesting, as id think it would fill a few roles as a military aircraft, none of which are combatant could the hard points be for external fuel tanks?

But I guess its down to money.

cpufreak

478 posts

207 months

Thursday 3rd June 2010
quotequote all
Odie said:
Was Mach2.05 the fastest concord ever flew? Did it go faster or was it not capable?

What speed did it use in general service? did it just sit and cruise at its top speed day in and day out?

The comment about the hardpoints is interesting, as id think it would fill a few roles as a military aircraft, none of which are combatant could the hard points be for external fuel tanks?

But I guess its down to money.
From wiki

"The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C, which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02"

so it could go faster, but the airframe couldn't cope.

Replace it with a more modern alloy, and I'm sure the design could go lots faster..

Penguinracer

1,593 posts

205 months

Friday 4th June 2010
quotequote all
A Concorde prototype was tested at M2.23 & that was about as much as it could give. The M2 - M2.05 regime was chosen to extend airframe fatigue life as it was found that temperatures increased significantly between M2.05 & M2.20 yet block time varied by a tiny amount. It was originally envisage that Concorde would cruise at M2.2 with a M 0.15 overspeed margin but the temperature issuemeant this was revised ownwards & in any event Concorde couldn't achieve M2.35 so as to provide the margin. To put this in perspective - the top speeds for fighter aircraft are invariably in the "clean2 configuration at optimal altitude & only for a very short afterburner "sprint." They have neither the thermal engineering nor efficiency and fuel capacity to sustain Mach 2 for very long. What makes Concorde even more remarkable than the SR-71 were its maintenance levels,structural integrity, unrefuelled range,despatch reliability, the fact that it ran on standard jet fuel & that it provided a "shirt-sleeve environment" in which the passengers would be sipping champagne.

NDT

1,753 posts

262 months

Saturday 5th June 2010
quotequote all
It would be a bit tragic IMHO.
"look what we used to be able to do!"

Much more impressive to just deliver the project on time and on budget...

Zad

12,695 posts

235 months

Saturday 5th June 2010
quotequote all
I can see why the Americans hated it. Being able to do M2.23 whilst snoozing in a leather armchair, or sipping champers and nibbling foie gras was taking the weewee wink

Whilst Concorde may never see Mach 1 and paying passengers again, I would happily settle for it being able to do a flypast with reheat. The knowlege that it could maybe, just maybe, if the pilot wanted, do New York at Mach 2, would be enough. After all, that is why many of us buy the cars we do.

Silent1

19,761 posts

234 months

Saturday 5th June 2010
quotequote all
Zad said:
I can see why the Americans hated it. Being able to do M2.23 whilst snoozing in a leather armchair, or sipping champers and nibbling foie gras was taking the weewee wink

Whilst Concorde may never see Mach 1 and paying passengers again, I would happily settle for it being able to do a flypast with reheat. The knowlege that it could maybe, just maybe, if the pilot wanted, do New York at Mach 2, would be enough. After all, that is why many of us buy the cars we do.
and why we don't buy replicas, all the looks of the original (in theory) with none of the go.

tontoro

3,516 posts

242 months

Saturday 5th June 2010
quotequote all
cpufreak said:
Odie said:
Was Mach2.05 the fastest concord ever flew? Did it go faster or was it not capable?

What speed did it use in general service? did it just sit and cruise at its top speed day in and day out?

The comment about the hardpoints is interesting, as id think it would fill a few roles as a military aircraft, none of which are combatant could the hard points be for external fuel tanks?

But I guess its down to money.
From wiki

"The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C, which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02"

so it could go faster, but the airframe couldn't cope.

Replace it with a more modern alloy, and I'm sure the design could go lots faster..
blackbird was also not limited to a speed, but rather to a temperature that wouldn't melt the engines

tontoro

3,516 posts

242 months

Saturday 5th June 2010
quotequote all
Martin Keene said:
This makes Concorde the equal 18th fastest plane *ever*, and that statistic includes all miltary aircraft and unmanned NASA expermental planes...

Quite some acheivement even for today, for the 1960's it was truely something else.

World's fastest planes:
1. X-43 (Unmanned) Mach 9.8 110,000 feet
2. X-15 Mach 6.72 354,200 feet - fastest manned aircraft in the world.
3. SR-71 Blackbird (YF-12) Mach 3.2+ 85,000+ feet - fastest airplane in the world.
4. MiG-25R Foxbat-B Mach 3.2 123,524 feet
4. X-2 Mach 3.2 126,200 feet
5. XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3.1 77,350 feet
6. MiG-31 Foxhound Mach 2.83 67,600 feet
7. MiG-25 Foxbat (Ye-155) Mach 2.8 118,900 feet
8. F-15 Eagle Mach 2.5 60,000 feet
8. F-111 Aardvark Mach 2.5 60,000+ feet
9. X-1 Mach 2.435 90,440 feet
10. Su-24 Fencer Mach 2.4 57,400 feet
11. Tu-144 Charger Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
11. MiG-23 Flogger Mach 2.35 60,700 feet
11. Su-27 Flanker Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
12. F-14A Tomcat Mach 2.34 58,000+ feet
13. F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2.31 57,000 feet
14. IAI Kfir Mach 2.3 75,000 feet
14. English Electric Lightning Mach 2.3 60,000 feet
14. MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 2.3 59,060 feet
14. F-107 Ultra Sabre Mach 2.3 48,000 feet
15. Tornado ADV Mach 2.2 69,997 feet
15. F-4 Phantom Mach 2.2 62,250 feet
15. Mirage 2000 Mach 2.2 59,055 feet
15. F-104 Starfighter Mach 2.2 58,000 feet
15. B-58 Hustler Mach 2.2 64,800 feet
16. F-105 Thunderchief Mach 2.1 52,000 feet
16. A-5 Vigilante Mach 2.1 52,100 feet
17. Su-22 Mach 2.09 59,055 feet
18. Tu-160 Blackjack Mach 2.05 49,200 feet
18. MiG-21 Fishbed Mach 2.05 50,000 feet
18. Concorde Mach 2.05 60,000 feet
19. D558-2 Skyrocket Mach 2.005 83,235 feet
20. YF-23 Black Widow II Mach 2 (AB) 65,000 feet
20. F-20 Tigershark Mach 2+ 55,000 feet
that an interesting list - although concorde is the joint 30th fastest