Posts about: "Boeing" [Posts: 31 Pages: 2]

Well, the 2707 project never advanced to the point where such practicalities were considered - but it's certainly the case that part of the Concorde "B" spec was intended to do away with reheat (afterburner) entirely, and be much more fuel-efficient as a result.

Not necessarily - supersonic travel as a "premium" product was always intended to co-exist with subsonic offerings, much as it ended up doing. There's a revisionist narrative that has the USA betting on mass transit with the 747 versus Europe betting on supersonic transit with Concorde - but all the contemporary material I've read indicates no such thing. Even setting aside the protests within the US against the Concorde, the simple fact is that SST was never going to be a viable domestic solution, so that limited the market for the 2707. Whereas a transatlantic SST was very much a viable proposition due to the transoceanic nature of the journey. It could be argued that even with the oil crisis and the subsequent drop in orders, the UK and French governments gave up on the Concorde project too soon.

If that were genuinely the case, then there would have been no Airbus project or consortium. As Clive correctly points out, the A300 project started taking shape while Concorde was undergoing her proving flights. While there's no doubt that the Concorde project was completed for political reasons most of all, the idea that she was a forlorn hope before she went into service is grossly unfair.

Yet, as alluded to before, the R&D gains and technological knowledge coming from the project helped to lay the foundations of a pan-European aircraft maker which would eventually go toe-to-toe with the best the USA had to offer. The sidestick technology which led to an unprecedented level of commonality between short-haul and long-haul types was first tested on a Concorde airframe (Google "concorde minimanche"). Added to which is the fact that in Concorde, for all the project's problems, an airliner was produced which - on a technological level at least - left every competitor in the world in the dust. That is something that can never be taken away.

Concorde might have taken off too early...not withstanding it paved the way for improved airliner design speeds, advanced flight controls and instrumentation,class of comfort and premium service itenerary of all airliners flying today.Where would Fly By Wire technology of today's airliners and bizjets as well as combat planes be..without the pioneering Concorde?It had its design flaws...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?

Not really. For one thing, the 2707 design was only at the mock-up stage when cancelled, so the practicalities of its engine arrangement hadn't been touched on. If you go back and read the Ted Talbot 'oil and lamp black' story, you can see for yourself that Concorde had solved problems that even US military designs were struggling with half a decade later.

As for the Concorde nacelle/engine arrangement - it didn't really have that large an impact on the F-BTSC accident - because even if the nacelles weren't grouped, the hot gases from the burning fuel would still have had a negative impact on the airflow to the adjacent engine. If I recall correctly, the investigators calculated the way the damage spread through the structure and control connections and proved that even if all four engines were still producing the correct thrust, the fire would still have caused sufficient structural damage to prevent the aircraft making Le Bourget. The nacelle structure itself was proven to be strong enough to withstand an uncontained failure of the engine when it actually happened on the line.

Apropos of nothing, the separate "podded" design was proven to be no protection against damage to adjacent engines when the inboard starboard engine of El Al 1862 took out the outboard as it fell away.

I'd like to add a few words to the discussion a few posts earlier about the reasons of the commercial failure of Concorde.

Concorde killed by Americans.
This is an article published in a very famous french magazine in 1972. This article describes the various measures taken by the american to stamp down the european aeronautic industry and more particularly the Concorde.
According to this article, it started with a campaign to warn the US Congress about the supposed stratospheric pollution that SST would create. The danger was off course exaggerated but nevertheless the congress refused to vote credits for the american SST. That is the main reason why Boeing stopped the development of their own SST. Harold Johnson, from the university of Iowa, even affirmed that the SST would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere and, as a result, decimate the humanity with uncurable skin cancers and retina burnt.
Also, US firms proposed to South American companies to buy back all their Caravelles at catalog price if they promise to buy only boeing aircrafts for the next 10 years with credit over 8 years and only 2% interest.
And, finally, the Export Import Bank (Eximbank) whose many arilines's cash depends on, announces that they will not give any loans to buy european aircrafts. On top of that, some political pressure were also used to discourage some countries that could be interested in buying european aircrafts.

Under those circumstances, Concorde, despite its incredible technological advance, had almost no chance to become a commercial succes.

It is intersting to note that Concorde came to life thanks to political decisions but also never really took off partly because of political reasons.

It would be a pitty!
I don't want to slide in a political argument here, that is not my point at all. I just want to highlight that lobbying against SST, even with totally foolish pleas, had a very negative impact on the commercial outcome of both Concorde and the Boeing SST. Put on top of that what has to be called an economic war between USA and Europe and the fate of Concorde was sealed, no matter how beautifull, technologically advanced and fantastic was the plane. And I think this is the main resaon why no other airliners but BAC and AF bought Concorde.

I think this article is pretty wacky but the source seemed legit (Duke University / University of Toulouse Professors writing in Journal of Applied Physics) so thought I'd put it out there for discussion. Caveat emptor!

Law of physics governs airplane evolution

Law of physics governs airplane evolution

Researchers believe they now know why the supersonic trans-Atlantic Concorde aircraft went the way of the dodo\x97it hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac. In a new study, Adrian Bejan, professor of mechanical engineering and materials science at Duke University, shows that a law of physics he penned more than two decades ago helps explain the evolution of passenger airplanes from the small, propeller-driven DC-3s of yore to today's behemoth Boeing 787s.

The analysis also provides insights into how aerospace companies can develop successful future designs. The Concorde, alas, was too far from the curve of these good designs, Bejan says. The paper appears online July 22, in the Journal of Applied Physics.[snip]

In the case of commercial aircraft, designs have evolved to allow more people and goods to flow across the face of the Earth. Constructal law has also dictated the main design features needed for aircraft to succeed; the engine mass has remained proportional to the body size, the wing size has been tied to the fuselage length, and the fuel load has grown in step with the total weight.

[snip] The chart shows how the ratio of mass to speed of animals follows the same general rules as airplanes. Note that the Concorde is way off of the historical trend.

I just have a problem with studies that try to analyze human activities with reductionist statistics and math. Most of human achievement comes not from the masses (which perhaps can be studied that way) but from the outliers, the screwballs, the few who, through enhanced human cussedness and stubbornness, decide NOT to stay with the obvious, efficient or safe thing.

Concorde was a political animal, heavily subsidized because someone want it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

But then, ALL advances in transportation have been - and often still are - political animals, subsidized because someone with money and power wants it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

Columbus and Magellan were subsidized, to head straight out to sea when everyone else was sticking close to the coastlines. Look up the land grants to U.S. trans-continental railroads. Or the Air Mail contracts that supported the fledgling American air transport industry (and if you think "that was then, and this is now," - consider the budget of the FAA and NTSB and TSA, and the military contracts to Boeing and its suppliers.)

Cars? Consider how much tax money goes to build and maintain highway systems.

And consider the man who stood up in the U.S. Capitol and declared, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Concorde failed because it lost political support** - just like Apollo and the Space Shuttle. But most of the other aircraft on those charts would also be, or have been, far rarer in the skies (or never appeared) if they lost (or never had) their own political backing and subsidies, direct and indirect.

**If the French government had felt it was in France's interest for Concorde to continue, I'm sure money for, and political pressure on, Airbus would have been found to keep her flying.

And Concorde also faced substantial political opposition - its market viability would have been much higher if U.S. authorities had been as lenient with its "furrin" sonic booms as they had been with our own home-grown booms ("The Sound of Freedom!", it was called.)

Now - Concorde's technology was pushing 40, and no doubt that particular airframe would have faded away, just like the 727 and the other designs from the 1960's. To be replaced with something newer. But the future of supersonic transport in general was cut short not because of some statistical failing, but simply because it no longer shared the same political support as subsonic aviation.

ross_M

787s are hardly 'behemoths'

I'm not really sure why I stopped coming here, it is one of, if not the most interesting thread on any of the forums I visit - by miles. However, I got back into it a few days ago and realised I was over a hundred pages behind. I have been slowly catching up, but I'm still nearly fifty pages behind.

My first question is; what has become of the Brabazon Hangar/ BAe Filton/ G-BOAF situation? Wikipedia just say its all been sold - the airfield at least - but not what the dispositions of all those valuable items, particularly Alpha Foxtrot.

Second, just to show I really am reading myself back up to date, I noticed something ChristaanJ said that has some resonance with me.

Wow! Yes I have CJ! I only know one other person who has - fascinating book and I know exactly what you mean. Thee are several other books in the same vein; 21st Century Jet - about the conception and birth of the Boeing 777 and Wide Body , the equally fascinating story of the beloved and iconic Boeing 747.

You probably don't remember, but I used to be a "scanner engineer" - I finally retired in July last year - but I was involved in the very early days of what are now common place diagnostic machines. At some point in the early nineties, I realised two things. I could write a bit - not incomprehensibly at any rate - and all the people who made the early scanners, did the development work and worked on them in the field before me, were either retired or passed away. I asked the management at the time if I could have a bit of time, perhaps a half day every week, to do the research and do a 'Tracy Kidder' for the EMIScanner. No answer came the stern reply and it never got done. Now I don't think it can be, so it never will.

I would love to write 'The Soul of a New Machine' for Concorde, but A) I'm probably too old now and B) I was never part of it, so I probably can't put the passion in to it, certainly not the knowledge, that she deserves.

If anyone on here who was part of it who wants to put pen to paper (Oh come on! Who doesn't use a Word Processor - which dates me on its own!) but it doesn't seem to come out right, perhaps we ought to meet?

Few of my close friends are engineers or scientists and although they all agree that Concorde was (and is) a lovely looking thing, they simply don't understand why it is that engineers get passionate and dewy eyed about her. They cannot comprehend the difficulties of flying at Mach 1+, let alone Mach 2 for three hours in a pretty frock and thus, the ability to do so just seems 'normal'. The book is there to write; the book of the people, by the people, for the people.

Landroger

Hi Dear Guys,


Amazing thread on an amazing aircraft! Red through all the posts. What an immense amount of knowledge/experience on this bird! Your valuable inputs triggerd my curiousity to the extent that I have started to study Concorde manuals trying to understand systems and operating details. Not an easy job! I think a more detailed Traning Manual would help me greatly.
Here is my question:
Going through the FM exterior inspection chapter I have run into tiny details what are really hard to find even on close-up external photos. Just to name a few: "nose gear free fall dump valve vent", "engine oil tank vent" or "hydraulic-driven fuel transfer pump drain". Was there a "pictorial" external inspection guide available on the Concorde for crew training (similar to Boeing or Airbus training aids)? If yes, could somehow, somebody send me a copy of that?


Appreciate your help,
Tamas

Most people are familiar with the space race between the US and the Soviets, but there was a very interesting race between the US, Europe and the Soviet Union to build a supersonic passenger aircraft. Europe built the successful Concorde, the US had the unsuccessful Boeing SST, and the Soviets had the unsuccessful Tu-144.

Somewhere there is a taped phone conversation of President Kennedy raising heck with someone over the fact that the US does not have a supersonic passenger aircraft program to compete with Concorde.