The air intake engineering was complex and novel, it might as well be rocket science; there weren't and aren't many aircraft that can do supercruise (supersonic cruise without afterburners), and there were other commercial requirements too like economics, predictability & reliability that you might escape some of in a military setting.I think I am right in saying Concorde’s RR Olympus engines were the first to feature afterburners in any non-military aircraft. But another fact that is regularly mentioned in Concorde documentaries is that RR had to come up with a design to slow down the speed at which air entered the engines to below supersonic.
That wasn’t a first, was it? I mean, surely the know-how to slow down airflow must have already existed, since supersonic military aircraft were already in operation? The documentaries I’ve seen made it sound like RR conjured up a new technology, but surely all pre-existing supersonic military engines would have faced the same physical challenges…
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to chase a solar eclipse at supersonic speeds? In this video, we delve into the incredible story of how scientists in 1973 used Concorde, the legendary supersonic airliner, to extend their time in the Moon's shadow during one of the longest solar eclipses in history. Led by French astrophysicist Pierre Lena and piloted by Concorde test pilot Andre Turcat, this daring mission pushed the boundaries of aviation and scientific exploration. Join us as we uncover the fascinating journey of how a
Yesterday's future
I think I am right in saying Concorde’s RR Olympus engines were the first to feature afterburners in any non-military aircraft. But another fact that is regularly mentioned in Concorde documentaries is that RR had to come up with a design to slow down the speed at which air entered the engines to below supersonic.
That wasn’t a first, was it? I mean, surely the know-how to slow down airflow must have already existed, since supersonic military aircraft were already in operation? The documentaries I’ve seen made it sound like RR conjured up a new technology, but surely all pre-existing supersonic military engines would have faced the same physical challenges…
I've never seen a video of a Concorde landing filmed at such proximity as this one was. Watch what happens to that hat...
Volume up, please.
tldw people: skip to 1m 58s
They actually touched on this during the tour - highlighting how the Comets were very different aircraft with a frankly terrible safety record, and how this informed the Concorde development, to the extent that it was tested 5 times as much as modern planes.
Would love to see the mayhem that ensued on the beach!
Great point. I know the local authorities don’t (or didn’t use to until recently) prevent local beachgoers from getting the hairdryer experience from departing aircraft. But surely they must have made an exception with ConcordeWould love to see the mayhem that ensued on the beach!
I appreciate the camouflage aspect of it might have been crucial for a spy plane, but how did the SR-71 cope with the pitfalls of painted black then? More so as it it was flying far faster than Concorde.View attachment 422638
It could go supersonic, but for no more than 20 minutes before the paint got too hot.
SR71 was made of titanium rather than aluminium.I appreciate the camouflage aspect of it might have been crucial for a spy plane, but how did the SR-71 cope with the pitfalls of painted black then? More so as it it was flying far faster than Concorde.
SR71 was made of titanium rather than aluminium.
The story of how the US obtained said titanium is pretty awesome too.
Yes, CIA and ghost companies. Saw that on a documentary recently.The story of how the US obtained said titanium is pretty awesome too.
I’m sure I’m going to embarrass myself horribly, but are these actual drawings from real consideration of the Concorde for military use?
Do you mean the Boeing SST?
The original Boeing SST was a much larger, more complex design compared to Concorde. With a double-droop nose and swing wings. Also a passing resemblance to the configuration of the XB-70 Bomber, which was derived from the same original design study
Do you mean the Boeing SST?
The original Boeing SST was a much larger, more complex design compared to Concorde. With a double-droop nose and swing wings. Also a passing resemblance to the configuration of the XB-70 Bomber, which was derived from the same original design study
There is footage here of the original mockup, from 2:23 which had a working nose
As the design progressed, the swing wings were dropped for a more Concorde-like delta and a one piece nose:
And that, or a large part of it, incl the nose/cockpit ended-up in a church for quite some years..!
Let's be honest the whole reason the US banned Concorde over land was because they didn't manage to get the Boeing off the ground. If there was a US SST sonic booms wouldnt have been a problem.
You dont get sonic booms near airports..the sonic booms weren't a problem for "the US", they were a problem for those living near airports.
Let's be honest the whole reason the US banned Concorde over land was because they didn't manage to get the Boeing off the ground. If there was a US SST sonic booms wouldnt have been a problem.