I once saw a Concorde on approach and then land at Kennedy Airport in NYC. Once you’ve seen a Concorde in flight, every other plane looks hopelessly obsolete.
I don't really know the whole story, just that some bad things happened and they no longer are used. Is there any potential for such a plane to exist again in the future?
I don't think it was ever profitable, more of a status symbol for Air France and British Airways (IIRC). So when 1 Concorde crashed, they decided to retire them all.
At least 1 company is working on a new supersonic passenger plane again.
Yes! Boom Supersonic is trying to bring back supersonic travel to the commercial market. NASA is also researching a way to reduce the sonic boom made when crossing the sound barrier. Lookup "X59 Quesst" for the test jet.
Thing is, as cool as it is, I don’t think the proposed supersonic jets will carry as much passengers as Concorde nor even be as fast. At least not yet.
Also, Concorde was a symbol of its time. That thing (having seen it take off and land many times) was loud as a motherfucker. It used to shake everything and set off all the car alarms 😂.
If they make a new supersonic jet it will be all nicey nicey and “green”.
Fuck that, I want a long white arrow, glinting off the sun, billowing black smoke behind it, throttling through the air and making everybody in the streets stop in their tracks and look up and marvel at such overwhelming power and beauty. That was Concorde!
Expensive, noisy, cramped. One blew up due to runway FOD, but it was essentially just a bad business model.
It’s like the 747, today other planes just do what it does better. And the Concorde’s time savings didn’t make up for the other stuff.
Truth. But the question remains. Why do airplanes flying today look pretty much the same as they did 50 years ago? Can’t the design be modernized a little? Cars change styles all the time, why can’t planes?
Cars change as a result of style. The tail fins never had a function. Aircraft are relentlessly optimized to perform and the shape reflects this. The closer your design can look like a Peregrine, the better you can fly. There is no room for extravagance or embellishment.
Cars have changed because of regulations and technological advances…I would say it has very little to do with style, most new sedans look like every other sedan, same with trucks.
Airliners are designed to be as efficient as possible at cruise altitude where aerodynamics are the main driver for design. You can’t change aerodynamics.
Cars have similar design considerations, but those are weighed differently than how you’d weigh an airplane. Cars are expected to crash, be comfy and spacious for fat people, look cool, etc.
You have more trade space when designing a car, and designing a car is cheaper. Airplane development is insanely expensive. And there has been significant innovation in commercial aviation, you just haven’t noticed
It's pretty expensive to retool a simple vehicle manufacturing press to make different panels, I can't imagine how much more it would cost for an airframe.
Not strictly true. Air France’s didn’t but BA’s we’re making good money up to the crash in Paris and decent money after it - the issue was both political and financial as when Air France pulled out, then it did become unprofitable since the fixed maintenance costs were spread less thin
Minor point of correction - It didn’t blow up, and though the first domino was indeed FOD as you describe, the plane crashed short of its planned landing spot after a series of poor choices. It may have been survivable but for those and one of them included possibly having overfilled a fuel tank above the hard limit allowed
Air France Flight 4590 was pretty explodey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#/media/File%3AConcorde_Air_France_Flight_4590_fire_on_runway.jpg
One had a piece of metal puncture the wing fuel tank on takeoff from Paris. It crashed into a hotel, which was almost empty.
[This Freak Aviation Disaster Brought Supersonic Idealism Down in Flames](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/freak-aviation-disaster-brought-supersonic-idealism-down-flames-180970459/)
Here is a Vox video on why it failed. Skip to ~5:15 if you want to get right to the reasons and skip out on 5 minutes of people talking about the Concorde in general. Short answer is the cost for the airlines running the Concorde was too high (which made it costly for passengers) due to many factors like: limited customer base, limited seats on plane, limited routes available, high fuel consumption, high maintenance costs, etc.
[This plane could cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours. Why did it fail?](https://youtu.be/a_wuykzfFzE)
For anyone interested, Real Engineering did a cool video on the technology/ engineering on the Concorde.
[The Insane Engineering of the Concorde](https://youtu.be/hnrpXxbVhME)
I was in our London office when the last Concorde flights arrived to Heathrow. All the remaining aircraft lined up to fly in line astern formation following the last commercial flight.
As I watched from our conference room window they flew past & I shed a tear for the loss of a great aircraft & a larger world from now on.
Yup. That's the point. Earth is moving relative to the the Solar system is moving relative to the galaxy. Galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies. There are no fixed points of reference in the universe.
What's nice about things that try to go fast in general they end up artistic. Even in nature.
You think the cheater at full sprint, a humming bird at a hover or Falcon in a dive. Then fast cars have the smooth lines, the faster aircraft all the same.
[A ruptured tire on a Concorde caused Air France Flight 4590 to catch fire during takeoff and crash two minutes later.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590)
The tires on Concorde were thickened because of the particularly intense takeoff forces, leading to a lot of blowouts. But those re-engineered tires played a role in the crash.
> Whilst taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate.
The crash was not caused by the Concorde itself.
The thickening of the tires did play a role in the rubber having enough mass to rupture the tank. Yes the debris ruptured the tire, but thinner tires wouldn’t have had the force to rupture the fuel tank.
Source: just watched a Nat geo show about this like two weeks ago.
Edit:
> During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic
The crash in Paris was caused by debris that fell off a DC-10 - which is from McDonnell Douglas who are part of Boeing (via a merger)
So they managed to fuck up Concorde as well
While this is true, the airport was also at fault because they were super lax about debris spotting on the runways, which was something that should have been done far more often than they were. Once the cause was identified they stepped up their checks on runway debris.
Oh yes - absolutely
Even with the fire - it should have been survivable but other things also went wrong
Plane crashes often have multiple contributing factors given that there are supposed to be overlapping controls
I dunno, doesn’t seem like this “fact” would be reasonably true.
I would imagine the company who made &/or owns the jet would have more than a single picture of this thing at cruising speed.
Edit: I am in fact very wrong here. No known photos were ever taken of the Concorde at Mach 2. OP’s is not one. I do find that pretty interesting.
[Well, we’re all wrong, certainly my take was wrong as well. Interestingly enough, this post is a lie, as this photo was **not** taken at Mach 2, and no known photos were ever taken of the plane at Mach 2.](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/not-a-single-photo-of-concorde-flying-at-mach-2-exists-heres-why/amp/)
Neither do you lol
People have proven this shit time and time again for literally thousands of years. Why should I waste effort trying to prove something that you will just flat out refuse any and all evidence, no matter how convincing it is.
Hi. Welcome to the discussion. Do you have any of value to add or just dropping by to say how wild it is to encounter a person without their head up NASA’s asshole?
Great job literally parroting things you don't understand.
[This](http://www.btobey.com/learn/images/barrel-distortion.jpg) is a square grid with barrel distortion applied.
What happens to the horizontal grid lines in the bottom half or the image?
Got to see one up close in a museum. When flying at mach 2 the whole plane would stretch. One of the pilots during mach 2 placed his hat between two cabinets. Plane landed and compressed and that hat is now stuck there. We were hanging off of it with our whole body weight it won't budge.. stuck for life the guy said .. must of been a crazy ride going mach 2
Funny. We got to where we had commercial flights flying faster than the speed of sound, but now where taking steps backwards where planes are falling apart in flight.
It was basically only for flying from New York to Paris/London and the people living near the airports didn't like the sonic booms. Also the crashes of the plane ended things quickly.
They only ever had one fatal crash in the entire history of Concorde, and that was because debris fell from a DC10 and the airport failed to properly check run ways for debris as normally required.
The real reason they shelved it was because the planes were 30 years old, expensive to maintain and had to be regularly x rayed to check for cracks or failure points. Furthermore fuel became expensive an the time when video conferencing meant that wasn’t a crucial need for in person meetings so paying for very expansive seats to cut down on about 4 hours of travel time became less of a thing.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
These planes were insanely expensive to operate and maintain, and were never profitable. It was a money-loser on every flight.
The brand recognition they brought. The passengers they convinced to join their airline miles clubs in the hope of one day having enough to fly concord the free advertising and brand recognition. It's not as simple as they were money losers.
Fuel price was their undoing. It shot up and they guzzled the stuff per pax mile. Sure maintenance was expensive on an aging airframe that wasn't being produced/renewed. But it was fuel.
My musing was in today's day and age I'd imagine they'd have had orange paint thrown at them and a load of vicars and retirees glueing themselves to parts and that would have been their undoing. Imagine the guardian headlines about the ultra wealthy flying on these fuel guzzlers.
So it's pretty clear we don't give a shit about the environment, so can we bring back the concord already?? You never know, maybe the sonic boom will disrupt the pollution or something, who knows?
I once saw a Concorde on approach and then land at Kennedy Airport in NYC. Once you’ve seen a Concorde in flight, every other plane looks hopelessly obsolete.
It used to fly over our house near London regularly. It was as unmistakable as the Avro Vulcan!
I don't really know the whole story, just that some bad things happened and they no longer are used. Is there any potential for such a plane to exist again in the future?
I don't think it was ever profitable, more of a status symbol for Air France and British Airways (IIRC). So when 1 Concorde crashed, they decided to retire them all. At least 1 company is working on a new supersonic passenger plane again.
Yes! Boom Supersonic is trying to bring back supersonic travel to the commercial market. NASA is also researching a way to reduce the sonic boom made when crossing the sound barrier. Lookup "X59 Quesst" for the test jet.
Thing is, as cool as it is, I don’t think the proposed supersonic jets will carry as much passengers as Concorde nor even be as fast. At least not yet. Also, Concorde was a symbol of its time. That thing (having seen it take off and land many times) was loud as a motherfucker. It used to shake everything and set off all the car alarms 😂. If they make a new supersonic jet it will be all nicey nicey and “green”. Fuck that, I want a long white arrow, glinting off the sun, billowing black smoke behind it, throttling through the air and making everybody in the streets stop in their tracks and look up and marvel at such overwhelming power and beauty. That was Concorde!
Expensive, noisy, cramped. One blew up due to runway FOD, but it was essentially just a bad business model. It’s like the 747, today other planes just do what it does better. And the Concorde’s time savings didn’t make up for the other stuff.
True but the Concorde was a better looking plane.
Cool as shit on every count, but it didn’t make money.
Truth. But the question remains. Why do airplanes flying today look pretty much the same as they did 50 years ago? Can’t the design be modernized a little? Cars change styles all the time, why can’t planes?
Cars change as a result of style. The tail fins never had a function. Aircraft are relentlessly optimized to perform and the shape reflects this. The closer your design can look like a Peregrine, the better you can fly. There is no room for extravagance or embellishment.
Cars have changed because of regulations and technological advances…I would say it has very little to do with style, most new sedans look like every other sedan, same with trucks.
Airliners are designed to be as efficient as possible at cruise altitude where aerodynamics are the main driver for design. You can’t change aerodynamics. Cars have similar design considerations, but those are weighed differently than how you’d weigh an airplane. Cars are expected to crash, be comfy and spacious for fat people, look cool, etc. You have more trade space when designing a car, and designing a car is cheaper. Airplane development is insanely expensive. And there has been significant innovation in commercial aviation, you just haven’t noticed
It's pretty expensive to retool a simple vehicle manufacturing press to make different panels, I can't imagine how much more it would cost for an airframe.
Compare a 787 to a 707.
Not strictly true. Air France’s didn’t but BA’s we’re making good money up to the crash in Paris and decent money after it - the issue was both political and financial as when Air France pulled out, then it did become unprofitable since the fixed maintenance costs were spread less thin
Today you could make the entire thing first class and charge a huge premium and you'd book every flight.
Wasn’t it already that way?
Minor point of correction - It didn’t blow up, and though the first domino was indeed FOD as you describe, the plane crashed short of its planned landing spot after a series of poor choices. It may have been survivable but for those and one of them included possibly having overfilled a fuel tank above the hard limit allowed
Air France Flight 4590 was pretty explodey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#/media/File%3AConcorde_Air_France_Flight_4590_fire_on_runway.jpg
No, not until it impacted the ground it wasn’t.
One had a piece of metal puncture the wing fuel tank on takeoff from Paris. It crashed into a hotel, which was almost empty. [This Freak Aviation Disaster Brought Supersonic Idealism Down in Flames](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/freak-aviation-disaster-brought-supersonic-idealism-down-flames-180970459/)
Here is a Vox video on why it failed. Skip to ~5:15 if you want to get right to the reasons and skip out on 5 minutes of people talking about the Concorde in general. Short answer is the cost for the airlines running the Concorde was too high (which made it costly for passengers) due to many factors like: limited customer base, limited seats on plane, limited routes available, high fuel consumption, high maintenance costs, etc. [This plane could cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours. Why did it fail?](https://youtu.be/a_wuykzfFzE) For anyone interested, Real Engineering did a cool video on the technology/ engineering on the Concorde. [The Insane Engineering of the Concorde](https://youtu.be/hnrpXxbVhME)
I was in our London office when the last Concorde flights arrived to Heathrow. All the remaining aircraft lined up to fly in line astern formation following the last commercial flight. As I watched from our conference room window they flew past & I shed a tear for the loss of a great aircraft & a larger world from now on.
Just yesterday I was inside a Concorde. In a museum in Sinsheim, Germany.
but that was flying at Mach 0.... right?
I’m sure it looked just as fast as this still photo
some german humor right there lmao
A very efficient joke
True. But it was *in the air* though (suspended by some 30 ft. posts or so).
🤓🤓🤓well akshually we a re travelling across the universe at ,,30kms therefore nothing on earth is ever mach0
Relative to what though?
Gravitational pull of your mom!
relative to a point such that relative to it, Earth is moving at 30km/s
What's the point fixed to?
[удалено]
Yup. That's the point. Earth is moving relative to the the Solar system is moving relative to the galaxy. Galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies. There are no fixed points of reference in the universe.
Because of decimals and rounding float vs int errors. Mach 0 is actually 6.34 miles per hr. Also, look at the month.
I drove past that on the way to Turkey. The Concordes look amazing from the Autobahn
Fyi: One is a [Concorde](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde), the other is a [Tu-144](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144).
What was it like? What were your thoughts on it?
In my book, not only a peerless, supreme technical achievement, also a sublime artistic and aesthetic artefact.
What's nice about things that try to go fast in general they end up artistic. Even in nature. You think the cheater at full sprint, a humming bird at a hover or Falcon in a dive. Then fast cars have the smooth lines, the faster aircraft all the same.
How does cheating make a sprinter more aesthetic?
A spouse with a good arm.
I'm also confused what Ben Johnson has to do with this?
The dominican-canadian Ben Johnson who raced a jet and a car? He's fine.
Very good
Except for those wheels
Wheels?
[A ruptured tire on a Concorde caused Air France Flight 4590 to catch fire during takeoff and crash two minutes later.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590) The tires on Concorde were thickened because of the particularly intense takeoff forces, leading to a lot of blowouts. But those re-engineered tires played a role in the crash.
> Whilst taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, the aircraft ran over debris on the runway, causing a tyre to explode and disintegrate. The crash was not caused by the Concorde itself.
The thickening of the tires did play a role in the rubber having enough mass to rupture the tank. Yes the debris ruptured the tire, but thinner tires wouldn’t have had the force to rupture the fuel tank. Source: just watched a Nat geo show about this like two weeks ago. Edit: > During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic
You wrote a book?
Only a paper.
And yet like two crashes took this plane out of commission. Meanwhile Boeing is fucking up and nothing.
The crash in Paris was caused by debris that fell off a DC-10 - which is from McDonnell Douglas who are part of Boeing (via a merger) So they managed to fuck up Concorde as well
While this is true, the airport was also at fault because they were super lax about debris spotting on the runways, which was something that should have been done far more often than they were. Once the cause was identified they stepped up their checks on runway debris.
Oh yes - absolutely Even with the fire - it should have been survivable but other things also went wrong Plane crashes often have multiple contributing factors given that there are supposed to be overlapping controls
I feel like a bunch of episodes of Seconds from Disaster featured DC-10s.
Boeing, via McDonald Douglas was the root cause of the one Concorde crash by shedding debris on the runway.
There was only one Concorde crash.
taken from a RAF fighter jet that could only keep up for 5 minutes? before it drained it fuel tanks.
There are some that would say 'taken from a Canberra'
Doubtful given that the Canberra can’t even break Mach 1
It was a tornado and this photo was taken at Mach 1.5
I was thinking a selfie stick
r/PraiseTheCameraMan
I dunno, doesn’t seem like this “fact” would be reasonably true. I would imagine the company who made &/or owns the jet would have more than a single picture of this thing at cruising speed. Edit: I am in fact very wrong here. No known photos were ever taken of the Concorde at Mach 2. OP’s is not one. I do find that pretty interesting.
i guess a jet fighter could take the pic but why would they bother? you're probably right just subsonic approach or whatever.
[Well, we’re all wrong, certainly my take was wrong as well. Interestingly enough, this post is a lie, as this photo was **not** taken at Mach 2, and no known photos were ever taken of the plane at Mach 2.](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/not-a-single-photo-of-concorde-flying-at-mach-2-exists-heres-why/amp/)
ah duh. i don't think concorde can do mach 2 to begin with. anyway, cool photo but no way of knowing anything else about it.
Mach 2.04, in super cruise at 60,000ft
Why is the horizon curved? The interwebs lied to me again.
Shhh. It's our secret. Don't tell the flerfs.
To be fair, the Concord in this photo is curved too.
Fisheye lens. The horizon appears completely flat at the altitude planes fly.
The Concorde flew at 18km. It was visible at that altitude.
Interesting. I wonder why videos from [amateur balloon footage at 37km](https://youtu.be/7pSynBkmls4?si=iOGOIVPZS1ip8Dhk) don’t show a curve.
An actual flat earther lol
Can you tell me specifically what I have wrong?
I could but you wouldn’t listen anyways. But really, the world is a big ass sphere.
So you don’t actually have any data to back up your claims. Gotcha.
Neither do you lol People have proven this shit time and time again for literally thousands of years. Why should I waste effort trying to prove something that you will just flat out refuse any and all evidence, no matter how convincing it is.
That was refreshing to read that you don’t have any data to back up your beliefs. Thanks for that.
Holy shit I’ve encountered one in the wild. I’ve always thought your kind was a myth Occam’s Razor is far too sharp for you
Hi. Welcome to the discussion. Do you have any of value to add or just dropping by to say how wild it is to encounter a person without their head up NASA’s asshole?
Anytime a flerf has tried to use science to prove it’s flat they prove the opposite.
Can you provide examples of this happening? I’m curious. Thanks!
Due to the narrow field of view of the lens. Probably 70mm>
Oh ok. So definitely not because a fisheye lens is being used? Gotcha.
let me put this simply the foreground isn’t curved the background is that isn’t how fisheye lenses work !
Because that is a lens with barrel distortion and the horizon appears below the focal point.
And the Concorde at 18km is using a wide angle/fisheye lens to produce the exaggerated curve.
Why isn't the plane curved?
Because that is a lens with barrel distortion and the plane appears below the focal point.
Great job literally parroting things you don't understand. [This](http://www.btobey.com/learn/images/barrel-distortion.jpg) is a square grid with barrel distortion applied. What happens to the horizontal grid lines in the bottom half or the image?
I was mocking you from your response above 🧠
Got to see one up close in a museum. When flying at mach 2 the whole plane would stretch. One of the pilots during mach 2 placed his hat between two cabinets. Plane landed and compressed and that hat is now stuck there. We were hanging off of it with our whole body weight it won't budge.. stuck for life the guy said .. must of been a crazy ride going mach 2
Idk looks stationary to me.
My brother-in-law had to make a sudden trip for a partner at his firm and she sent him on the Concorde. He said it was awesome! What an experience!
Wonder what the shutter speed was in this photo. The plane is freezed but so are (mostly) the cloud, so I guess it's not a panning style shot.
Given the curvature, I'd say the clouds are quite far away...
Nice shot.
Hey man
Filter?
Camera man got skills
Amazing. By looking at the picture, I would've guessed it was only flying at Mach 1.
You can really see how fast it’s going in the picture
I was lucky enough to get a number of Concorde flights, including a few of the more unusual routes. Concorde was an experience I shall never forget.
Funny. We got to where we had commercial flights flying faster than the speed of sound, but now where taking steps backwards where planes are falling apart in flight.
damn, that doesn't really seem any more interesting than a picture of the concord flying at any other speed
Thank you for your comment
Gorgeous aircraft
Brought to you by Gillette
Spoiler alert!
Who took the pic, another Concord at Mach 2?
Probably a black Dodge Ram that has been tailing it for 27 minutes but won't go around.
White Vauxhall van driven by a 19 year old plumber.
It was a lightened Tornado, picture taken after Concorde had to slow down to M1.5
An english Electric Lighting jet aircraft capable of flying at Mach 2 for a couple minutes at most.
Looks slightly more than M2
Is the camera man superman?
Nothing captures speed like a still photo
thats fast indeed
These cameramen got balls
Sleek!
I once had an argument with someone who didn’t understand how this photo was taken, because camera phones weren’t invented back then…
Who took the photo?
Was it taken by a Canberra? If you know, you know.
Such a beautiful plane
You can't fool me, I can tell it's in park.
How can I get this as a print? Truly stunning
The folks in that hot air balloon got super lucky with the timing of this pic
I’m struggling to believe that’s the only photo of one at Mach two considering how long they flew for.
[удалено]
Adorable comment
But does it's snoot droop though?
Some say it was the droopiest
How do you know this concord is flying at mach 2, and how do you know this is the only photo in existence?
[According to this, it wasn’t at Mach 2.](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/amp/)
So this is clickbait rubbish. As I suspected.
Sure, might only be 1,9
Look again. Totally doing 2.
Love to see the repost with the same misspelling of “Concorde” as all the others. Great photo, but it’s just “Concorde” not *the* Concorde or Concord
Mmmk
I do wonder if fuel was cheap and it still economical if it would have failed because of environmentalist loons.
It was basically only for flying from New York to Paris/London and the people living near the airports didn't like the sonic booms. Also the crashes of the plane ended things quickly.
They only ever had one fatal crash in the entire history of Concorde, and that was because debris fell from a DC10 and the airport failed to properly check run ways for debris as normally required. The real reason they shelved it was because the planes were 30 years old, expensive to maintain and had to be regularly x rayed to check for cracks or failure points. Furthermore fuel became expensive an the time when video conferencing meant that wasn’t a crucial need for in person meetings so paying for very expansive seats to cut down on about 4 hours of travel time became less of a thing.
I thought they weren’t allowed to break the sound barrier until over the ocean?
Why did only travel there? Did it not have enough fuel for other places?
Not everything is a conspiracy. These planes were insanely expensive to operate and maintain, and were never profitable. It was a money-loser on every flight.
The brand recognition they brought. The passengers they convinced to join their airline miles clubs in the hope of one day having enough to fly concord the free advertising and brand recognition. It's not as simple as they were money losers. Fuel price was their undoing. It shot up and they guzzled the stuff per pax mile. Sure maintenance was expensive on an aging airframe that wasn't being produced/renewed. But it was fuel. My musing was in today's day and age I'd imagine they'd have had orange paint thrown at them and a load of vicars and retirees glueing themselves to parts and that would have been their undoing. Imagine the guardian headlines about the ultra wealthy flying on these fuel guzzlers.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/7f6png/the\_only\_picture\_ever\_taken\_of\_concorde\_flying\_at/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/7f6png/the_only_picture_ever_taken_of_concorde_flying_at/)
So it's pretty clear we don't give a shit about the environment, so can we bring back the concord already?? You never know, maybe the sonic boom will disrupt the pollution or something, who knows?