Concorde what ifs

[Dr Jekyll]

If Concorde sales had run into the hundreds as initially hoped. How would the design have developed?

I know the very next one to be built would have been a 'model B' with increased range, but what else might have happened?

Stretched? Widened? Sacking the flight engineer? Using some kind of TV system instead of the droop snoot?

[Eric Mc]

It deperately needed to improve its fuel efficiency. It would have needed a turbofan engine of some sort.
It would also need to have carried more passengers - posssibly up to 200.

In other words, the chances of it ever happening were slim to nil.

[IforB]

High by-pass turbofans are not exactly known for their suitability for supersonic flight.

The next concordes simply needed to be significantly bigger, fuel economy is always an issue with supersonic flight, but if you can get enough people on board and have a decent range, then it can still pay.

Concorde was a profitable aircraft for BA for much of it's life, it's just that Air France and the original investors couldn't make it work.

[Eric Mc]

I didn't say "high by-pass" turbofans. There are other sorts. Indeed, most modern front line military combat aircraft are equipped with turbofans - so the technology has moved on compared to when Concorde's engines were designed (50 years ago).

Range is a function of fuel economy. So, if you make the engines more fuel efficient - you can increase the range.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

I didn't say "high by-pass" turbofans. There are other sorts. Indeed, most modern front line military combat aircraft are equipped with turbofans - so the technology has moved on compared to when Concorde's engines were designed (50 years ago).

They are, but they don't usually cruise at supersonic speed for hours on end, so supersonic efficiency isn't a particular priority.

[Eric Mc]

Dr Jekyll said:

Eric Mc said:

I didn't say "high by-pass" turbofans. There are other sorts. Indeed, most modern front line military combat aircraft are equipped with turbofans - so the technology has moved on compared to when Concorde's engines were designed (50 years ago).

They are, but they don't usually cruise at supersonic speed for hours on end, so supersonic efficiency isn't a particular priority.

That would require a larger airframe with larger fuel tanks, I suppose. A bit like what you would have on an airliner.

I am pretty sure that the next civilian supersonic transport will be fitted with supersonic rated turbofans - not 50 year old technology turbojets. However, as I have said on this forum a few times now, I think the next civilian supersonic aircraft will not be an airliner. It will be a business executive jet with advanced aerodynamics to minimise the impact of the sonic bang.

[anonymous-user]

IforB said:

Concorde was a profitable aircraft for BA for much of it's life, it's just that Air France and the original investors couldn't make it work.

It was only really profitable for BA as they didn't have to buy it for any kind of true price. Even after privatisation, BA paid next to nothing for the aircraft. Apart from two state run airlines nobody else bought it. If it was profitable BA would have made more (or any) effort to keep them flying.

Great aircraft but not commercially viable.

[IforB]

Dassault were already well advanced on a supersonic biz jet. I know they had a test wing up and going already, but economics has forced them to shelve it for a while.

There are numerous other supersonic biz jets in the pipeline, so it'll be interesting to see if any make it to the market.

Low by-pass ratio turbo fans are used in supersonic military aircraft now, so it's feasible for an airliner of course, though they are a bit of a trade off since military aircraft generally spend most of their time subsonic and then need a decent dash speed, whereas a supersonic airliner would spend the majority of it's time above mach 1, so needs to be optimised for that.

Things like the Typhoon and F22 do supercruise in dry power, which is a very useful trick. The EJ200 in the Eurofighter being a low bypass turbo fan. (Ratio of 0.4:1, whereas the Trent 1000 on the 787 is 11:1)
However for high mach cruising, then turbojets tend to be far better, though there are lots of engine concepts that are closer to reality now, than there were back when the Olympus was conceived, so other possibilities might present themselves.

Biz jet with a Scramjet anyone?

[Eric Mc]

There's a whole separate thread on that particular subject.

We could end up back where we were in the early 1930s - where some civilian aircraft were faster than the fastest fighter aircraft.

[telecat]

Concorde "B" with an Improved Wing Including Leading edge "Droops" an increased Delta and Improved 610.25 engines without reheat had already been designed and was ready to fly. It also had bigger fuel tanks which with the improved engine meant much Improved range, including making Australia a viable destination.

http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

[Guvernator]

telecat said:

Concorde "B" with an Improved Wing Including Leading edge "Droops" an increased Delta and Improved 610.25 engines without reheat had already been designed and was ready to fly. It also had bigger fuel tanks which with the improved engine meant much Improved range, including making Australia a viable destination.

http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

Not sure how biased that article is but it makes fascinating reading and sounds like with the right developments\improvements, Concorde could have been turned into an economically viable airplane which could have led to supersonic passenger planes being common place.

Seems a shame really, would have been nice to be able to fly to the US or other destinations in a couple of hours.

[Eric Mc]

They would have needed to seriously improve the economics in order to bring the fares down a tad.

[Dr Jekyll]

I think the fundamental issue was the short range and inability to go supersonic over populated land limited the routes available and therefore the number sold. It was the small numbers that pushed up the maintenance costs.

As long as AF operated Concordes as well, BA could collect enough in fares to pay the bills.

[MitchT]

I'm going to begin my contribution to this thread by digressing. Does anyone remember a few years ago when the FIA imposed new technical regulations on F1 so that the cars would be two seconds per lap slower at the start of the next season? If you do you'll also remember that, by the time the next season arrived, the F1 teams had managed to claw those two seconds back, in spite of the new restrictions that they work working under. The world's finest designers and engineers have an amazing capacity to improve things rapidly when circumstances dictate and I'm sure that if the aviation business had demanded a commercially viable supersonic airliner, within a certain time frame, there would have been one. By killing Concorde off, instead of allowing it to evolve, we were effectively robbed of this opportunity.

Personally I derive no more satisfaction from spending just as long on a plane, purely because it's amazingly large, but I'd be a whole lot happier if I could arrive at my destination in half of the time because the plane is amazingly fast – I'm sure most passengers would prefer there to be a 'Concorde', even if some of this site's commentators don't. Remember, most totally viable things start with a concept which is wasteful, impractical and, frankly, downright crazy.

Edited by MitchT on Tuesday 11th September 18:36

[telecat]

Concorde "A" had been designed to have a range of 3900 miles yet by the time it exited service the range was over 4,500 miles. "B" was designed to Start at 4,250 to 4,500 miles. 5,000 mile ranges would have meant that the Australia run would be viable in the same hops as Subsonic Jets but at Mach2. 10 hours anybody?

[Eric Mc]

MitchT said:

I'm going to begin my contribution to this thread by digressing. Does anyone remember a few years ago when the FIA imposed new technical regulations on F1 so that the cars would be two seconds per lap slower at the start of the next season? If you do you'll also remember that, by the time the next season arrived, the F1 teams had managed to claw those two seconds back, in spite of the new restrictions that they work working under. The world's finest designers and engineers have an amazing capacity to improve things rapidly when circumstances dictate and I'm sure that if the aviation business had demanded a commercially viable supersonic airliner, within a certain time frame, there would have been one. By killing Concorde off, instead of allowing it to evolve, we were effectively robbed of this opportunity.

Personally I derive no more satisfaction from spending just as long on a plane, purely because it's amazingly large, but I'd be a whole lot happier if I could arrive at my destination in half of the time because the plane is amazingly fast – I'm sure most passengers would prefer there to be a 'Concorde', even if some of this site's commentators don't. Remember, most totally viable things start with a concept which is wasteful, impractical and, frankly, downright crazy.

Edited by MitchT on Tuesday 11th September 18:36

I don't think the retirement of Concorde in 2003 had much to do with the cessation of Concorde development. The lack of sales - and the achievement of its political raison d'étre (Btritain's entry into the EEC), meant that there was no one interested in investing any more money in evolving the design or developing a replacement.

[telecat]

Eric Mc said:

I don't think the retirement of Concorde in 2003 had much to do with the cessation of Concorde development. The lack of sales - and the achievement of its political raison d'etre (Britain's entry into the EEC), meant that there was no one interested in investing any more money in evolving the design or developing a replacement.

The "B" version was meant to start with airframe 217 but the problems in selling 211 - 216 meant that the consortium never started that build. Many at the time thought it was a missed opportunity.

[Eric Mc]

That would have made sense - but, as I said, the fact that there wasn't a queue of customers lining up for either A or B versions more or less guaranteed that no more development was going to happen.

[Guvernator]

Yes but why weren't people queuing up to buy it? Fuel efficiency, noise and range limitations which would all have been improved with version B and further development. I just feel it wasn't evolved quickly enough or it wasn't given enough time to mature. I still feel that there could have been decent demand for a supersonic airliner if some of the initial limitations had been worked on.

I like a lot of people hate long haul flights, as MitchT pointed out, giving me a few extra inches of leg room isn't going to change the fact that I am essentially still sitting in a cramped confined space for hours on end but halving the time I have to sit in such a position would have a huge impact on my willingness to fly on longer journeys.

[BoRED S2upid]

Eric Mc said:

It will be a business executive jet with advanced aerodynamics to minimise the impact of the sonic bang.

With the wealth around at the moment (How many multi billionaireas are there) why hasn't a business man or consortium done this? Surley it would be beneficial for these guys to have this supersonic capability.