This photo of the Concorde (Flight 4590) is as beautiful as tragic,

File: P11674_143322_10.jpg (206KB, 1040x1536px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1040x1536px

>>1087678

No picture sorry but if anyone has a spare 2 hours highly recommend listening to this podcast with a former Concorde pilot about the cause of the accident, flying the Concorde and the plane in general.

http://omegataupodcast.net/166-flying-the-concorde/

File: baircraft.jpg (32KB, 557x351px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 557x351px

tfw we will never see the improved B model.

>>1087757
Good god that's an amazing shot, how the fuck

>>1087865
There was a concorde flight tracking the eclipse as it moved across the planet

File: 8_concord_bomber.jpg (76KB, 800x265px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x265px

>>1087672
It makes me sad

>>1087971
low-wing bomber? wtf, m8

>>1088095
The B-1B and Tu-160 are low-wing bombers in service currently

File: 41ss.jpg (44KB, 803x535px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 803x535px

>>1088095
The proposed payload is the three things that you see. What does the position of the wing have to do with that?

>>1088602
those are blended-wing-bodies, nigga

File: 061122-F-1234P-019.jpg (233KB, 1491x1162px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1491x1162px

>>1088628
This thing has a B
XB-70

>>1087830
Very nice. thanks

>we will never see boeing insane 300+ foot 300 passenger mach 3+ cruise swing win canard with double drooping nose

WHY LIVE

File: boeing_2707_200_by_davidjoseco-d53zd1s.png (325KB, 900x359px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 900x359px

>>1089236
>this plane lands on your runway and slaps your gfs ass, what do you do?

>>1089237
Return at home crying, and make a KSP version of this plane.

File: Tu-144LL.jpg (896KB, 3030x1315px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 3030x1315px

Russians really know how to make things spectacular.
>"Sir, we can nut surpass the Concorde. It is virtually impossible."
>"Comrade, do your best."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mnOApwhRyI

>>1087672
So, time for a debate.

was the noise issue over land crossing flights a meme to make the concord fail or actually legit?

If legit, what could have been made to hamper the issue?

>>1089416
>was the noise issue over land crossing flights a meme to make the concord fail or actually legit?

Mostly a meme.

Concorde was *incredibly* loud at takeoff with full afterburners on: I live in Bristol, and it used to roar overhead when it took off from Filton. You'd hear it rumbling for a good five minutes.

But at supersonic speeds, at cruising height? You wouldn't hear it. You *certainly* wouldn't get the sorts of physical effects that people claimed; look at the Mythbusters episode where they deliberately tried to break a window with a jet fly-by. It basically has to shave the roof off the building to produce enough pressure to do anything at all. At 60,000ft? Hell no. At *worst* you'd hear a slight rumble.

In the end it was immaterial anyway: fuel & maintenance costs sealed the fate of Concorde more than anything else.

>>1089416
No, it was a problem to an extent. Look up the Oklahoma City sonic boom for context. Problems with SST
>Expensive
>Fuel guzzling (read, expensive)
>Little room in cabin
>Loud on the ground and in the cabin
>Aerodynamics suck at high speeds due to drag from increasing mach speed
>Get hot real quick
>Low range
>Flying at slow speeds is not easy due to design

Its a dead design, and people want cheap seats, not expensive ones

>>1089450
the travel ban over landmasses is what made it so expensive to produce a more efficient and modern aircraft tho.

>>1089554
>Oklahoma City sonic boom

The Oklahoma City boom tests are precisely the sort of horseshit that created the meme that "Concorde is too loud to fly over land!"

You'll notice that compensation claims started to rise as soon as people realised that the government would pay out for any old shit; and at the end the claims were clearly total bullshit.

>The federal Bureau of the Budget lambasted the FAA about poor experiment design
>the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints.
>At least 15,452 complaints and 4,901 claims were lodged against the U.S. government, most for cracked glass and plaster. The FAA rejected 94% of all the claims it received

>>1089554
FWIW, the small-cabin problem was specific to the Concorde design. The American SST program settled on a train-aisle widebody design

>>1089554
>and people want cheap seats

Poor people want cheap seats. Rich people don't want their time wasted. When you see a 747 fly overhead, you can comfort yourself with the fact that most of the people onboard paid peantus to get jammed into economy. And overlook the business/first class tha has it relatively comfy. When an SST flies overhead, you know that everyone paid extra for a faster flight. And the proletariat just rages at that.

File: 1366_2000.jpg (111KB, 818x960px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 818x960px

This is supposed to be the only photography of a Concorde flying at Mach 2. It's taken from a Panavia Tornado.

>>1090179
He did well to get a Tornado up as high and fast as Concorde doing Mach 2. The EE Lightning was the only western military fighter that could keep up with Concorde for long.

>>1091687
Do we not count the Swede? Both Viggen and Draken outdoes the Lightning.

>>1090119
I recall reading that there was another segment of their passenger business was not oft talked about: people who were afraid of flying. They'd rather get stuck in a tin can for ~120 mins rather than ~5.5 hrs (or whatever the avg flt time is). I recall reading that several rock stars fell into that category. Irc Elton John publicly said so and was one of the most frequent Concorde passengers.

>>1087830

It was good.

>>1090119
As someone who has paid out of pocket for business class on an international flight, it's hard to justify despite the insane difference in personal space, food/drink, and a lie flat bed. For 1/3 the cost I could have been in premium economy, with plenty of personal space but no bed, and decent food. For 1/7th I would have been in econ, and still could have gotten exit row seat (my brother did) and had all the legroom I could ever need. And that was on a relatively cheap business class ticket.

>>1090119
If you are rich enough why dont you just buy a business jet? Its more flexible as is. Most people in business dont actually pay for their ticket, their company does

>>1090179
Any interceptor aircraft from that era could keep up with the Concorde with ease, hell, there are bombers that can do that too.

>>1088628
Tu-22M3

>>1092336
Business jets don't do Mach 2. At least they don't unless Boom pulls a miracle, and if they do you'll find that people *will* buy them.

File: 1280px-Tu-22M_Backfire-B,_escorted_by_an_F-14A.jpg (109KB, 1280x846px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x846px

>>1092378
Do you need to do Mach 2 as is? The trend of new airliners is no where near speed as is, they are pushing for ETOPS aircraft, which an SST wont be.

>>1092367
And that is a sexy aircraft, a carrier killer also

>>1092337
Attached picture proves that other interceptor aircraft could keep up with it. The TU-22M did ~ Mach 2

>>1092430
>Do you need to do Mach 2 as is?

Since when did "need" apply to people with enough money and will to purchase a private jet? There are plenty of people who'd happily pay for it, and yes there are business people who'd probably benefit from it.

>>1090179
Why do people claim that the earth's curvature can't be seen at this altitude when images clearly show otherwise?

File: hamburg-fish-eye-lens.jpg (52KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x323px

>>1095798
could be curvature from a wide-angle lens, though

>>1095807
That image does not use a wide angle lens, though

What killed the Concorde, from a more philosophical point of view? Putting aside the inherent issues:

> Poor fuel economy

> Noise

> High operational/maintenance costs

> Residents' complaints over sonic booms forcing it to stay subsonic over land

> The one-two punch of AF4590 and 9/11 (RIP cheap fuel)

Putting all that aside, the Concorde still managed to cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. You could depart London at 10:30 am and arrive in New York at 9:30 am. That must have been extremely useful in the 70s and 80s considering the ties between London and New York in the international business scene. When did these time savings start becoming less relevant to the Concorde's cost-efficacy, and what were the major catalysts for this change? High speed internet? Business jets? Cell phones?

>>1095830
>When did these time savings start becoming less relevant to the Concorde's cost-efficacy
They never did. It was always fully booked. Thing is, it was fucking ancient and no one wanted to front the cash to develop a successor. Remember, it took two(!) government(!) investors to get it designed itfp. We'll see if the market is still strong when/if Boom comes to fruition.

>>1095830
The 747's debut

spaceplane when?

>>1095811
Fun fact: your eyes actually have a fish eye effect naturally but your brain normally compensates but when youre on acid its noticeable.

Even relatively normal lenses curve things a bit.

>>1096041
Don't tell me you're a flat earther

Has anyone paid extra to the see Concorde and Space shuttle at the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier Museum in Manhattan? Is it worth it? I went once already to Intrepid but only paid extra for the audio tour(which I regretted and stopped using quickly), and want to go again since there is so much to see and was thinking of paying extra this time to see those two. IMHO if you only go once there is so much to see just on the Prowler submarine and Intrepid I wouldn't recommend wasting extra money on either the audio tour or Space Shuttle/Concorde.