Concorde to be re-made...
Discussion
No its not, sorry for getting your hopes up, and dont worry about the cost but if some wealthy, modern Howard Hughes got the plans for the existing Concorde and wanted to build one as his personal transport from scratch, with an unlimited budget and using as many improvements and all the modern technology that can be mustered, what would the end result be like ?
Now I know you would love to but assume this is happening, thats the beauty with hypothetical things, dont worry about the FAA, noise regs, costs, airport infrastructure, patents and or even why would he do that, simply, what would a new Concorde, to be completed in 2030 be like ? This bloke owns Airbus and Boeing so has access to all the materials, designers, methods and patents.
Concorde entered service in 1969, the project started in the fifties, everything on the plane was cutting edge, over fifty years ago, what developments would be used to improve it with what is available now ?
Would it be composite ?
how would the design be changed ? (am assuming an enhanced version that looks pretty similar not one built to the old plans like Jaguar do with D types and stuff)
Are there suitable engines available ?
Would/Could it be faster ?
Now I know you would love to but assume this is happening, thats the beauty with hypothetical things, dont worry about the FAA, noise regs, costs, airport infrastructure, patents and or even why would he do that, simply, what would a new Concorde, to be completed in 2030 be like ? This bloke owns Airbus and Boeing so has access to all the materials, designers, methods and patents.
Concorde entered service in 1969, the project started in the fifties, everything on the plane was cutting edge, over fifty years ago, what developments would be used to improve it with what is available now ?
Would it be composite ?
how would the design be changed ? (am assuming an enhanced version that looks pretty similar not one built to the old plans like Jaguar do with D types and stuff)
Are there suitable engines available ?
Would/Could it be faster ?
J4CKO said:
Concorde entered service in 1969, the project started in the fifties, everything on the plane was cutting edge, over fifty years ago, what developments would be used to improve it with what is available now ?
Would it be composite ?
how would the design be changed ? (am assuming an enhanced version that looks pretty similar not one built to the old plans like Jaguar do with D types and stuff)
Are there suitable engines available ?
Would/Could it be faster ?
Full digital flight controls would no doubt make an appearance.Would it be composite ?
how would the design be changed ? (am assuming an enhanced version that looks pretty similar not one built to the old plans like Jaguar do with D types and stuff)
Are there suitable engines available ?
Would/Could it be faster ?
The exterior would still be metal imho, perhaps Titanium instead of the particular Alu alloy of Concorde itself.
The difficult bit would be the power - unless you rebuilt the original engines you'd have to redesign the thing for a new unit. If you were captain megadollars I'm sure you could get a set of low-bypass engines from a military application for increased thrust, as well as rewriting the intake control for your new engines.
I suspect it would be very similar, small cross section alluminium airframe (Ti still too expensive / difficult to work with), engines a bit more efficient, a bit quieter, but broadly the same plane. There have been no changes to basic physics under which high speed planes operate since the 1960's, no significant technological leap that would negate any of the compromises in Concordes design.
Presumably you could get rid of the flight engineer, possibly also use CCTV instead of the droop snoot, so save weight that way. You could also use the unbuilt model B Concorde as a basis with lower fuel consumption and longer range.
Engines would be an issue though.
If you weren't worried about regulators the sonic boom might not be an issue, if it was it might be possible to alleviate it with some structural mods such as (oversimplifying massively) a large spike sticking out of the front.
Engines would be an issue though.
If you weren't worried about regulators the sonic boom might not be an issue, if it was it might be possible to alleviate it with some structural mods such as (oversimplifying massively) a large spike sticking out of the front.
The fact that the thread seemed to be called "Concorde Remade" l;ed me to think it was about rebuilding Concorde.
It obviously isn't.
There have been threads on successors to Concorde too. There may very well be a successor in the sense of there being a civil supersonic transport. It will be a business jet and not an airliner.
NASA is looking at ways of muting supersonic bangs and there is this project -
It obviously isn't.
There have been threads on successors to Concorde too. There may very well be a successor in the sense of there being a civil supersonic transport. It will be a business jet and not an airliner.
NASA is looking at ways of muting supersonic bangs and there is this project -
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th April 13:29
J4CKO said:
Concorde entered service in 1969, the project started in the fifties, everything on the plane was cutting edge, over fifty years ago, what developments would be used to improve it with what is available now ?
The one thing that tech isn't going to change, and nor would mythical mystery man be able to change, is the noise regs.Until all the theoretical new engine ideas of scram-jets and the like are proven to work, you'd have to rely on current re-heated turbo-fan engines and they aren't quiet, and we're hindering Concorde ops back in the 70's, let alone now, and then there's the fuel consumption, and still the problem of breaking the sound barrier over populated areas, again limiting routes etc.
The problem isn't really designing and building it, its being able to operate a supersonic commercial aircraft within the basic laws of physics and accepted disturbances.
So, going back to what Eric said in the 2nd post.....
No....is the answer
aeropilot said:
Until all the theoretical new engine ideas of scram-jets and the like are proven to work, you'd have to rely on current re-heated turbo-fan engines and they aren't quiet, and we're hindering Concorde ops back in the 70's, let alone now, and then there's the fuel consumption, and still the problem of breaking the sound barrier over populated areas, again limiting routes etc.
According to some reports the model B Concorde would have dispensed with re heat. Not sure anyone looked at turbo-fans though.https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Wednesday 18th April 13:45
Dr Jekyll said:
aeropilot said:
Until all the theoretical new engine ideas of scram-jets and the like are proven to work, you'd have to rely on current re-heated turbo-fan engines and they aren't quiet, and we're hindering Concorde ops back in the 70's, let alone now, and then there's the fuel consumption, and still the problem of breaking the sound barrier over populated areas, again limiting routes etc.
According to some reports the model B Concorde would have dispensed with re heat. Not sure anyone looked at turbo-fans though.All modern military supersonic aircraft are fitted with turbofans too.
None of them are quiet.
J4CKO said:
I was wondering if aerodynamics as a science has come on much in fifty years, what would aerodynamacists now change about the original ?
I don't think there's been any radical development of the science, but we have more tools to make the most of what is already known. Massively better computer modelling to optimise the aero and thermal design, and then some new materials and manufacturing techniques to take advantage of that.But what mostly knackers supersonic flight is disturbance to population centers. Much better to go into low orbit and then come back down where you want to land, much faster also.
aeropilot said:
J4CKO said:
Concorde entered service in 1969, the project started in the fifties, everything on the plane was cutting edge, over fifty years ago, what developments would be used to improve it with what is available now ?
The one thing that tech isn't going to change, and nor would mythical mystery man be able to change, is the noise regs.Until all the theoretical new engine ideas of scram-jets and the like are proven to work, you'd have to rely on current re-heated turbo-fan engines and they aren't quiet, and we're hindering Concorde ops back in the 70's, let alone now, and then there's the fuel consumption, and still the problem of breaking the sound barrier over populated areas, again limiting routes etc.
The problem isn't really designing and building it, its being able to operate a supersonic commercial aircraft within the basic laws of physics and accepted disturbances.
So, going back to what Eric said in the 2nd post.....
No....is the answer
It was hypothetical, not real, like Star Wars is, a film about why the Millennium Falcon could never fly and if it did the massive logistical and operational difficulties would probably not get made, would still be better than the middle three films but even so, that is not a high bar.
Dr Jekyll said:
aeropilot said:
Until all the theoretical new engine ideas of scram-jets and the like are proven to work, you'd have to rely on current re-heated turbo-fan engines and they aren't quiet, and we're hindering Concorde ops back in the 70's, let alone now, and then there's the fuel consumption, and still the problem of breaking the sound barrier over populated areas, again limiting routes etc.
According to some reports the model B Concorde would have dispensed with re heat. Not sure anyone looked at turbo-fans though.https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
What may have been proposed by a design team to extract funds from two Govt's of the day, was probably a world away from reality.
What they are suggesting was supercruise, and while Concorde was indeed a supercruise aircraft, it still needed re-heat to accelerate to the supercruise, and very few mil aircraft at the time were capable of supercruise without need of re-heat and even today 40 years later, very few have been or are, genuine supercruise without using re-heat.
They might, just might have been able to re-design the wing to get enough lift at lower speed to enable fully loaded take-off without re-heat, which would have mitigated the noise levels at airports.............maybe, but, that was an awful lot of extra thrust needed from engines of that period. The problem is was already a white elephant when it entered service in 1976, so there was never going to be any money coming from UK/French Govt for a B-Spec Concorde.
Dr Jekyll said:
The production Concordes had engines producing dry thrust 50% greater than the original design for the Olympus 593, and afterburning only added another 20% to that. So adding another 20% dry thrust doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
How many non-afterburning engines today (60 years after the launch of Concorde) can achieve Mach 2?Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff