Concorde top speed? Not cruising speed

[Limited100]

If the Concorde 'supercruised' at 1350 mph, presumably this wasn't using all of its capability.

How much faster could a Concorde have flown beyond this? Presuming heat from the air friction wasn't an additional problem.

[RedWhiteMonkey]

Maximum operational speed was mach 2.04, approximately 1565mph.

[LunarOne]

It also depends on what you mean by "speed". If you are talking about how long would it theoretically take to get from point A to point B, then you're talking groundspeed, which will greatly depend on prevailing winds aloft. If you're talking speed through the air itself, then this will also vary depending on altitude and temperature. Mach speeds are referenced against the speed of sound through air and that speed depends on the temperature of the air. The warmer, the higher the speed of sound. So the colder it is, the lower the speed of sound. So a given airspeed in knots would have a higher Mach number, the higher you fly.

[QuartzDad]

Another answer: Mach 2.23

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1686322

[FourWheelDrift]

Brian Trubshaw said that G-AXDN (now at Duxford) went to Mach 2.23 in testing and wouldn't go much faster.

[Hammersia]

"Supercruise" doesn't mean "cruising" it just means the aircraft flying supersonically without the afterburners.

Which is quite a technical achievement because the air entering the engines has to be slowed down to below supersonic speeds for the engines to work.

[spitfire-ian]

Hammersia said:

"Supercruise" doesn't mean "cruising" it just means the aircraft flying supersonically without the afterburners.

Which is quite a technical achievement because the air entering the engines has to be slowed down to below supersonic speeds for the engines to work.

All very clever!

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/air-in-take-syste...

[Tango13]

Hammersia said:

"Supercruise" doesn't mean "cruising" it just means the aircraft flying supersonically without the afterburners.

Which is quite a technical achievement because the air entering the engines has to be slowed down to below supersonic speeds for the engines to work.

Totally wrong, the air is stationary and the inlet is moving so the air needs to be accelerated to the same relative speed as the inlet and also compressed to a density the first compression stage of the engine can work with without exceeding the turbine inlet temperature.

Get it right and the only limit to the speed is friction with the air melting the airframe, get it wrong and you have the F-111...

[Mave]

I think that the presumption is wrong. Heat from friction / stagnation temperature was a limit to both airframe and engines.

[littleredrooster]

I've got a photo of Mrs. Rooster standing beside the bulkhead display showing Mach 2.1 (from 1996).

[Tango13]

Mave said:

I think that the presumption is wrong. Heat from friction / stagnation temperature was a limit to both airframe and engines.

If you can go fast enough you can bypass the engines entirely and use the inlet to compress the air by the same amount as the engine would so all you need to do is add fuel, Tom Cruise released a documentary about the technology last year

[Mave]

Tango13 said:

Mave said:

I think that the presumption is wrong. Heat from friction / stagnation temperature was a limit to both airframe and engines.

If you can go fast enough you can bypass the engines entirely and use the inlet to compress the air by the same amount as the engine would so all you need to do is add fuel, Tom Cruise released a documentary about the technology last year

Not on Concorde you couldn't

[Tango13]

Mave said:

Not on Concorde you couldn't

Apologies, I was talking in general terms, not specific to Concorde.

[Mave]

Tango13 said:

Mave said:

Not on Concorde you couldn't

Apologies, I was talking in general terms, not specific to Concorde.

Even with contempory technologies, aircraft could fly faster than concorde. Just not with the same payload / range....

[Limited100]

LunarOne said:

It also depends on what you mean by "speed". If you are talking about how long would it theoretically take to get from point A to point B, then you're talking groundspeed, which will greatly depend on prevailing winds aloft. If you're talking speed through the air itself, then this will also vary depending on altitude and temperature. Mach speeds are referenced against the speed of sound through air and that speed depends on the temperature of the air. The warmer, the higher the speed of sound. So the colder it is, the lower the speed of sound. So a given airspeed in knots would have a higher Mach number, the higher you fly.

Good point, I meant SOG.

[Limited100]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

Maximum operational speed was mach 2.04, approximately 1565mph.

Nice, 16% more speed but I'd imagine considerably worse fuel consumption and component durability.

[Tango13]

Mave said:

Tango13 said:

Mave said:

Not on Concorde you couldn't

Apologies, I was talking in general terms, not specific to Concorde.

Even with contempory technologies, aircraft could fly faster than concorde. Just not with the same payload / range....

I'd say they were lucky with the Concorde, the designers hit the sweet spot in terms of range/passengers/speed.

Enough range to cross the Atlantic, enough passengers to turn a profit and fast enough to do a return trip in a day but not too fast as to cause major thermal issues.

[Eric Mc]

Concorde's top speed was limited by the frictional heating limits applying to the mainly aluminium airframe.

Boeing wanted to make their 2707 faster than Concorde and specified a titanium airframe - which is one of the reasons why it never got built.

[Super Sonic]

Tango13 said:

If you can go fast enough you can bypass the engines entirely and use the inlet to compress the air by the same amount as the engine would so all you need to do is add fuel, Tom Cruise released a documentary about the technology last year

Didn't the SR71 use this principle?

[Eric Mc]

Supersonic ram jet - or scramjet.