Seven Years Ago Today

7/31/2019 Seven Years Ago Today

1/32

Seven years ago today, commercial flights of the world's onlysupersonic airliner resumed after a break of 18 months following acrash in 2000. Less than two years later, operations endedpermanently and the fleet of Concorde aeroplanes was retired. Hereare ten facts about Concorde.

FACT ONEConcorde was one of only two commercial supersonic aircrafts to have

operated. The other one was the Soviet Union's Tupolev Tu-144 which wasmuch less successful, beginning passenger flights in November 1977, endingthem in June 1978.

FACT TWOConcorde was developed and built by British and French engineers. The

arrangement was part of an international treaty between the two countriesrather than a commercial agreement. This meant that if either countrybacked out and broke the treaty, it would face heavy penalties. The two

companies involved in the development (British Aircraft Corp and France's

Aerospatiale) merged into one and worked together to build the planes.

FACT THREESeveral of the world's major airline companies placed non-binding orders forConcorde aircraft but most of these backed out of any agreements to go

ahead with any of the orders due to several factors (the crash of one of theSoviet Union's supersonic aircraft, worries about environmental and noise

pollution and cost of purchasing and operating to craft). The only two


2/32

airlines that were left were Air France and British Airways, and that was

probably largely due to the fact that the two countries built that aircraft. Intotal, 20 Concordes were built and 14 flew commercially, 7 for France and 7

for Britain.

FACT FOURAs Concorde travelled at more than twice the speed of sound (mach 2.0 or

about 1520 mph), it created a sonic boom, which could sound like a loudbang, crack or deep rumble. This loud noise and the complaints that

inevitably came with it resulted in Concorde being unable to fly certainroutes, or having to fly sub-sonically (at the speed of normal airliners) to

complete certain journeys. It is one of the main reasons why airlines backed

out of purchasing Concordes or developing their own supersonic aircrafts.

FACT FIVEBritish Prime Minister Harold changed the name of Concorde to the lessFrench-looking Concord as a way to spite his French counterpart. However,the British government's Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, changed it

back to Concorde with an "e". To appease British moaners, he stated thatthe "e" at the end stood for Excellence, England, Europe and Entente (as

in Entente Cordial). In response to complaints from the Scots who pointedout that Concorde was actually British and not just English, Benn claimed

that the "e" also stood for ecosse, the French word for Scotland. It's a good

job the Welsh and Irish didn't start whinging.

FACT SIX

Concorde 001 (built in France) made its first test flight on March 2nd 1969.Concorde 002 (built in the UK) first flew on April 9th 1969. The firstcommercial flights of Concorde took place on January 21st 1976. British

Airways flew their Concorde from Heathrow Airport to Bahrain, and AirFrance flew from Paris to Rio. British Airways Concorde flights from London

to New York and back used the flight numbers BA001 to BA004. Since theretirement of Concorde, these flight numbers are no longer used.

FACT SEVENFor its first few years, Concorde operated at a loss. The British Government,

which financed the British side of the Concorde project, took 80% ofConcorde's revenue. It was discovered in the early eighties that public

perception of Concorde was that it cost more to fly on it than it actually did.So the prices were put up to what people thought they were, and with oilprices reducing, Concorde began making money. In 1984, financialownership of the crafts were passed over for the government to British

Airways who operated the crafts at a profit. It is believed that part of thereason for the crafts being retired in 2003 was that, while they were


3/32

grounded, British Airways and Air France realised that they made more profit

out of the passengers who would have flown on Concorde by them flyingFirst Class on their standard aircrafts.

FACT EIGHT

As well as flying fasterthan other aeroplanes,

Concorde also flew higher,flying at an altitude of

about 50,000 to 55,500feet (although it could fly

up to 60,000 feet). At thisheight, it was possible to

see the curvature of theEarth as if you were on

the edge of space. Airturbulance is also less of a

problem at that height,meaning a less bumpy

flight.

FACT NINEConcorde recorded itsfastest journey from New

York to London on January1st 1983, taking 2 hours

56 minutes. The was no inflight entertainment on

Concorde flights, but yougot free champagne and

posh food on Wedgwoodcrockery.

FACT TENUp to 2000, Concorde was the world's safest aircraft with no crashes and no

fatalities. One of the Concordes belonging to Air France crashed on July 25th

2000 after debris from a punctured tyre ruptured the fuel tank. It is believedthat the debris had fallen off another aircraft operated by Continental.Concorde lost its Certificate of Airworthiness on July 26th 2000, not

regaining it until September 5th 2001 and made its first operational flightwith passengers (non-paying airline staff) on September 11th 2001. It

returned to commercial operations on November 7th 2001 but ended thesein 2003 with Air France flying its final Concorde flight on May 31st 2003 and

British Airways on October 24th 2003. An offer by Richard Branson to


4/32

purchase the remaining Concorde fleet and fly them for Virgin Atlantic was

rejected. Concorde will never fly again.

Places & LandmarksScience & NatureEntertainmentTechnology & SpaceHistorySportsFood & DrinkAll Facts

Caverswall Palace

Productions

Aerospatiale-British Aerospa ...British Airways

Aerospatiale-British Aerospa ...British Airways

Aerospatiale-Briti

British Ai

ConcordeThe Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport (SST) was one of only two models of supersonic pairliners to have seen commercial service. Concorde had a cruise speed of mach 2.04 and a cruise altitud(17,700 metres) with a delta wing configuration and an evolution of the afterburner equipped engines orifor the Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. It is the first civil airliner to be equipped with an analogue fly-by-control system. Commercial flights, operated by British Airways and Air France, began on January 21, 1

on October 24, 2003, with the last "retirement" flight on November 26, that year.

OriginsIn the late 1950s the British, French, Americans, and Soviets were all interested in developing a supersonBritain's Bristol Aeroplane Company and France's Sud Aviation were both working on designs called theSuper-Caravelle, respectively. Both were largely funded by their respective governments as a way of gaifoothold in the aircraft market that was, until then, dominated by the United States.

Both designs were ready to start prototype construction in the early 1960s, but the cost was so great that (and governments) decided to join forces. The development project was negotiated as an international treBritain and France rather than a commercial agreement between companies. This included a clause, origi

by Britain, on penalties for cancellation. It turned out that Britain was the country that actually tried to getreaty was signed on November 28, 1962. By this time both companies had been merged into new ones aproject was thus a part of the British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatiale. The consortium secured ordenew airliners from the leading airlines of the time. Pan Am, BOAC, and Air France were the launch custConcordes each.

The aircraft was initially referred to in Britain as "Concord". In 1967 the British Government announcedchange the spelling to "Concorde" to match the French. This created an uproar but it died down after a go
http://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicplaces.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicent.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topichistory.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicfooddrink.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicfooddrink.htmhttp://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=900http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=899http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=270http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=900http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=899http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=270http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=900http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=899http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=270http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=900http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=899http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=270http://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicfooddrink.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicfooddrink.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topichistory.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topichistory.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicent.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicent.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicplaces.htmhttp://www.tenfactsabout.co.uk/topicplaces.htm


5/32

minister stated that the suffixed "e" was for excellence. Concorde 001 took off for the first test flight fromMarch 2, 1969, and the first supersonic flight followed on October 1. As the flight program of the first deaircraft progressed, 001 started off on a sales and demonstration tour beginning on September 4, 1971. Cfollowed suit on June 2, 1972, with a sales tour of the Middle and Far East. Concorde 002 made the first United States in 1973, landing at the new Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to commemorate its op

trips led to an influx of orders for over 70 aircraft. However, a combination of factors caused a sudden cacancellations, including the 1970s oil crisis, acute financial difficulties of the partner airlines, a spectaculcompeting Soviet Tupolev Tu-144, and environmental issues such as sonic boom noise and pollution. AiBritish Airways ended up as the only buyers. The aircraft and parts were later sold to them for the nominBritish pound apiece.

The United States had cancelled its supersonic (SST) program in 1971. Two designs had originally been Lockheed L-2000, looking like a scaled-up Concorde, lost out to the Boeing 2707 which originally had bbe faster, carry 300 passengers, and feature a swing-wing design. It was suggested in France and the Unipart of the American opposition to Concorde on grounds of noise pollution was in fact orchestrated or at by the United States Government out of spite at not being able to propose a viable competitor. However

such as Malaysia, also ruled out Concorde supersonic overflights due to noise issues.

Both European airlines operated demonstration and test flights to various destinations from 1974, onwardConcorde set records which are still not surpassed; it undertook 5,335 flight hours in the prototype, preprfirst production aircraft alone. A total of 2,000 test hours were supersonic. This equates to approximatelymany as for similarly sized subsonic commercial aircraft.

Technological featuresMany features common in the early 21st century airliners were first used in Concorde.

For speed optimization:double-delta (ogive) shaped wingsafterburning Roll-Royce/Snecma Olympus turbojets with supercruise capabilitythrust-by-wire engines, ancestor of today's FADEC controlled enginesdroop-nose section for good landing visibility

For weight saving and enhanced performance:Mach 2.04 'sweet spot' for optimum fuel consumption (supersonic drag minimum, while jet engines are mhigh speed)mostly aluminium construction for low weight and relatively conventional build full-regime autopilot anallowing "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landingfully electrically-controlled, analog fly-by-wire flight controls systemsmultifunction flight control surfaceshigh-pressure hydraulic system of 28 MPa (4,000 lbf/in) for lighter hydraulic systems componentsfully electrically controlled analog brake-by-wire systempitch trim by shifting fuel around the fuselage for center-of-gravity controlparts milled from single alloy billet reducing the part number count.

Experience in making Concorde later became the basis of the Airbus consortium and many of these featustandard equipment in Airbus airliners. Snecma Moteurs, for example, got its first entry into civil engine


6/32

Experience with Concorde opened the way for it to establish CFM International, with GE producing the International 56 series engines. The primary partners, BAC, later to become BAE Systems, and Aerospatbecome EADS, are the joint owners of Concorde's type certificate. Responsibility for the Type CertificatAirbus with formation of Airbus SAS.

Scheduled flightsScheduled flights started on January 21, 1976, on the London-Bahrain and Paris-Rio routes. The U.S. Cobanned Concorde landings in the US mainly due to citizen protest over sonic booms, preventing launch otransatlantic routes.

When the US ban was lifted in February, for over-water supersonic flight, New York quickly followed bConcorde locally. Left with little choice on the destination, AF and BA started transatlantic services to Won May 24. Finally, in late 1977, the noise concerns of New York residents gave way to the advantages otraffic and scheduled service from Paris and London to New York's John F. Kennedy airport started on N1977. Flights operated by BA were coded 'Speedbird 1' through 'Speedbird 4'. The average flight time onroutes was just under 3.5 hours. Up to 2003, both Air France and British Airways continued to operate th

services daily. Additionally, Concorde flew to Barbados's Grantley Adams International Airport during tseason and, occasionally, to charter destinations such as Rovaniemi, Finland. On November 1, 1986, a chcircumnavigated the world in 31 hours and 51 minutes.

For a brief period in 1977, and again from 1979 to 1980, British Airways and Singapore Airlines used a sfor flights between Bahrain and Singapore Changi Airport. The aircraft, G-BOAD, was painted in Singaplivery on the port side and British Airways livery on the starboard side. The service was discontinued aftbecause of noise complaints from the Malaysian government: it could only be reinstated when a new rouMalaysian airspace, was designed. However, an ongoing dispute with India prevented the Concorde fromsupersonic speeds in Indian airspace, so the route was eventually declared not viable. From late 1978, to Air France flew the Concorde on a regular basis to Mexico City's Benito Juarez International Airport.

From 1979, to 1980, Braniff International leased two Concordes, one from both British Airways and Air were used on flights from Dallas-Fort Worth to JFK, feeding the routes of BA and AF to London and Parwere registered in both the United States and their home countries. For legal reasons a sticker would covaircraft's European registration while it was being operated by Braniff. On DFW-JFK flights the Concordflight crews, although they maintained their native airline livery. However the flights were not profitablewere usually less than 25% booked which forced Braniff to end its term as the only U.S. Concorde operaexperienceCompared to other commercial airliners, Concorde provided an unusual passenger experience. Both BritAir France configured the passenger cabin as a single class with around 100 seats four seats across with aDespite being a luxury class, most passengers were surprised to find how cramped the cabin was. Headroaisle was barely six feet (1.8 m), and the leather seats were unusually narrow with legroom comparable toother planes.

In the 1990s many features which were common in the first class and business class cabins of a long hauflight such as video entertainment, rotating or reclining seats, perambulatory areas, were completely abseConcorde. The only video entertainment was a plasma display at the front of the cabin showing either thetemperature or current speed in mach number. With no room for overhead storage, even carry on luggagerestricted. The ratio of cabin crew and lavatories per passenger was also considerably lower than typical


7/32

cabin. These privations were offset by the much shorter flight time (typically three and a half hours to NeLondon), making the Concorde attractive to business executives. To make up for these missing features, Concorde was to be "first class" in every sense of the word. Orders for drinks or other needs were met inwith a flourish. Meals were served using specially designed compact Wedgwood crockery with short silv

The unique experience of passing through the sound barrier was less dramatic than would be expected. Twould be announced by one of the pilots, and could be seen on the cabin display, otherwise the slight surcould easily be missed. At twice the normal cruising altitude, turbulence was rare and the view from t heshowed the curvature of the Earth. During the supersonic cruise, although the outside air temperature waair friction would heat the external skin at the front of the plane to around +120 C making the windows wand producing a noticeable temperature gradient along the length of the cabin. Most remarkably Concordpassenger airliner able to overtake the terminator. On certain early evening transatlantic flights departingor Paris, it was possible to take off at night and catch up with the sun from the cockpit you could see the west.

Paris crash

The Concorde was the safest airliner in the world according to passenger deaths per distance travelled un2000 crash of Air France Flight 4590 in Gonesse, France, although it should be noted that the Boeing 73more passenger miles and service hours in one week than the Concorde fleet acquired in the course of itscareer. In any case, all of the people on board the flight perished, as well as four people on the ground. Aon its take-off run, a metal piece punctured the tires which then burst, puncturing the fuel tanks and leadithe aircraft. The report of the investigation was published on 14 December 2004, attributing the crash to damage from a titanium strip that fell from another aircraft, a Continental Airlines DC-10 which had takeminutes before; the piece had not been approved by the US Federal Aviation Administration.

However, there was skepticism about this report which solely blamed the strip for the accident. The Frenhave been extremely reluctant to share information during the investigation, implying a cover up. The BrFrench Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalandistribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear, which hinted at the Concorde veering off course on reducing take-off speed below the crucial minimum. Some suspect that the cover up was an attempt to saof the Concorde, and to hide the fact that the Concorde had veered very close to a Boeing 747 carrying FJacques Chirac. Nonetheless, the crash of the Concorde was the beginning of the end of its career, regardfor the accident. The accident would make way for modifications to be made to Concorde. After safety usufficient aircraft, including more secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining to the fuel tanks, and speciallyburst-resistant tires, both routes were re-opened on November 7, 2001. The new-style tires would be yet contribution from the Concorde programme to future aircraft development.

Withdrawal from serviceThe first test-flight of the newly-improved Concorde flew from England to the mid-Atlantic and back in return to full scheduled service that week. The flight took place on September 11, 2001, and was in the aattacks on the World Trade Center were taking place. On April 10, 2003 British Airways and Air Franceannounced That they would retire the Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers follow2000 crash, the slump in air travel following 9/11, and rising maintenance costs. Critically, many of the v9/11 attacks were business executives based within the World Trade Center buildings who were either recustomers themselves, or authorised others to travel on the aircraft.


8/32

That same day Sir Richard Branson offered to buy British Airways' Concordes at their original price of 1service with his Virgin Atlantic Airways, but was refused. He later wrote to The Economist (23 October final offer was "over 5 million" and that he had intended to operate the fleet "for many years to come". AConcorde remaining in service was further thwarted by Airbus' unwillingness to provide maintenance suaging airframes.

Air FranceAir France made its final Concorde landing in the United States in New York City from Paris on May 30sprayed the traditional arcs of water above the aircraft on the tarmac of John F. Kennedy airport. It madecommercial flight back to Paris the following day. The end of Air France's Concorde services was also mcharter around the Bay of Biscay. An auction of Concorde parts and memorabilia for Air France was helParis, on November 15, 2003. One thousand three hundred people attended, and several lots exceeded thvalues by ten or more times.

British AirwaysBA's last Concorde departure from the Grantley Adams International Airport in Barbados was on Augus

final week of farewell flights saw Concorde visiting Birmingham on October 20, Belfast on October 21, October 22, Cardiff on October 23, and Edinburgh on October 24. Each day the aircraft made a return fliinto Heathrow to the cities concerned, often overflying those cities at low altitude. Over 650 competitionspecial guests were carried. On the evening of October 23, 2003, the Queen consented to the illuminationCastle, as Concorde's last ever west-bound commercial flight departed London, and flew overhead. This normally restricted to major state events and visiting dignitaries.

British Airways retired its aircraft the next day, October 24. One Concorde left New York to a fanfare simFrance predecessor's, while two more made round-trips, one over the Bay of Biscay, carrying VIP guestsformer Concorde pilots, and one to Edinburgh. The three aircraft then circled over London, having receivpermission to fly at low altitude, before landing in sequence at Heathrow. The two round-trip Concordesand 4:03 PM BST, followed at 4:05 by the one from New York. All three aircraft then spent 45 minutes airport before finally disembarking the last supersonic fare-paying passengers. The pilot of the New Yorkwas Mike Bannister.

Passengers on the final transatlantic flight included:Tony Benn, former US model Christie Brinkley, ballerina Darcey Bussell, TV motoring correspondent JJoan Collins and her husband Percy Gibson, Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone, Sir David Frost, Stocchairman Chris Gibson-Smith, actor Nigel Havers, model Jodie Kidd, British Airways chairman Lord Madvertising mogul Lord Saatchi Piers Morgan, then editor of the Daily Mirror, CNN anchor Richard Queor chief executives of: GlaxoSmithKline, BAE Systems, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, P&O, the RoyalScotland, and a lucky traveller who had booked a regular ticket over a year earlier.

Bonhams held an auction of British Airways' Concorde artifacts on December 1, 2003, at Olympia ExhibKensington, London. Items sold included a machmeter, a nose cone, Concorde pilot and passenger seats,cutlery, ashtrays, and blankets used onboard. About 3/4 million was earned with the first half- million goGoing!' a charity which gives disabled children and young people the opportunity to participate in sports

Aircraft historiesOnly 20 Concordes were built, six for development and 14 for commercial service.


9/32

These were:two prototypestwo pre-production aircraft16 production aircraft

The first two of these did not enter commercial service. Of the 14 which flew commercially, 12 were stilApril, 2003.

All but two of these aircraft - a remarkably high percentage for any commercial fleet - are preserved. Thenot are F-BVFD (cn 211), which was withdrawn from service in the 1980s and s

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help

Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | AdChoices

2004 - 2012 Flightlevel350.comAviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!

Partner Sites:Airplanes|Travel

Invention

it was a product of a Franco-British government treaty, combining the manufacturing efforts

ofArospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation.

Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFvention

The Rise & Fall Of The SST

v1.1.0 / 01 oct 11 / greg goebel / public domain

* In the 1960s there was an international competition to build a supersonic transport(SST), which resulted in the development of two supersonic airliners, the Anglo-French "Concorde" and the Soviet Tupolev "Tu-144". Although the SST was seen asthe way of the future, that wasn't how things actually turned out. This documentprovides a short history of the rise and fall of the supersonic transport.
http://www.flightlevel350.com/http://www.flightlevel350.com/webmail.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/linktous.php#random_videohttp://www.flightlevel350.com/linktous.php#linkhttp://www.flightlevel350.com/aircraft_facts.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/help.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/tutorials.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/videographer.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/terms.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/privacy.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/contact.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/about.phphttp://www.airliners.net/http://www.airliners.net/http://www.airliners.net/http://www.travels.com/http://www.travels.com/http://www.travels.com/http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFventionhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFventionhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFventionhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFventionhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Concorde_plane#ixzz24yBaGZJFventionhttp://www.travels.com/http://www.airliners.net/http://www.flightlevel350.com/about.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/contact.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/privacy.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/terms.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/videographer.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/tutorials.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/help.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/aircraft_facts.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/linktous.php#linkhttp://www.flightlevel350.com/linktous.php#random_videohttp://www.flightlevel350.com/forum/index.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/webmail.phphttp://www.flightlevel350.com/


10/32

[1] BOEING 2707-300[2] AEROSPATIALE-BAC CONCORDE[3] TUPOLEV TU-144[4] FUTURE SSTS?[5] COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY

[1] BOEING 2707-300

* With the push towards supersonic combat aircraft during the 1950s, aircraftmanufacturers began to think about developing a supersonic airliner, what wouldeventually become known as a "supersonic transport (SST)". In 1961, DouglasAircraft publicized a design study for an SST that would be capable of flying at Mach3 at 21,350 meters (71,000 feet) and could be flying by 1970. Douglas forecast amarket for hundreds of such machines.

At the time, such a forecast seemed realistic. During the 1950s, commercial airtransport had made a radical shift from piston-powered airliners to the new jetlinerslike the Boeing 707. Going to an SST was simply the next logical step. In fact, as

discussed in the next section, Europe was moving even faster down this road than theUS. In 1962 the British and French signed an agreement to actually build an SST, the"Concorde". With the Europeans committed to the SST, of course the Americans hadto follow, and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) set up a competition foran SST that would be faster, bigger, and better than the Concorde.
http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m1http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m1http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m2http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m2http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m3http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m3http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m4http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m4http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m5http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m5http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m5http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m4http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m3http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m2http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html#m1


11/32

In 1964, SST proposals from North American, Lockheed, and Boeing were selected asfinalists. Although North American had built the two XB-70 Valkyrie experimental

Mach 3 bombers, which had a configuration and performance similar to that of anSST and were used as testbeds for SST concepts, the company was eliminated fromthe competition in 1966. Lockheed proposed the "L-2000", a double-delta machinewith a capacity of 220 passengers, but the winner was Boeing's "Model 2707", thename obviously implying a Mach 2 aircraft that would be as significant as the classicBoeing 707. Boeing was awarded a contract for two prototypes on 1 May 1967.

The 2707 was to be a large aircraft, about 90 meters (300 feet) long, with a maximumload of 350 passengers. It would be able to cruise at Mach 2.7 over a range of 6,440kilometers (4,000 miles) with 313 passengers. At first, the 2707 was envisioned as

fitted with variable geometry "swing wings" to permit efficient high-speed flight --with the wings swept back -- and good low-speed handling -- with the wingsextended.

Powerplants were to be four General Electric GE-J5P afterburning turbojet engines,derived from the GE J93 engines used on the XB-70, with a maximum afterburningthrust of 267 kN (27,200 kgp / 60,000 lbf) each. The engines were to be fitted intoseparate nacelles under the wing. Further work on the design demonstrated that theswing-wing configuration was simply too heavy, and so Boeing engineers came upwith a new design, the "2707-300", that had fixed wings.


12/32

However, America in the late 1960s was all but overwhelmed by social upheaval thatinvolved questioning the need to come up with something bigger and better, as well asmuch increased concerns over the environment. Critics massed against the SST,voicing worries about its sonic booms and the possible effects of its high-altitudecruise on the ozone layer. The US Congress finally zeroed funds for the program on24 March 1971 after the expenditure of about a billion USD on the project. Therewere 121 orders on the books for the aircraft when it was canceled. SST advocateswere dismayed, but later events would prove that -- even ignoring the arguments over

environmental issues -- the SST was simply not a good business proposition andproceeding with the project would have been a big mistake.

BACK_TO_TOP

[2] AEROSPATIALE-BAC CONCORDE

* As mentioned, the British and French were actually ahead of the US on SST plans.In 1955, officials of the British aviation industry and British government agencies haddiscussions on the notion of an SST, leading to the formation of the "SupersonicTransport Aircraft Committee (STAC)" in 1956. STAC conducted a series of designstudies, leading to leading to the Bristol company's "Bristol 198", which was a slim,delta-winged machine with eight turbojet engines designed to cross the Atlantic atMach 2. This evolved into the somewhat less ambitious "Bristol 223", which had fourengines and 110 seats.
http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/avsst.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html


13/32

In the meantime, the French had been conducting roughly similar studies, with Sud-Aviation of France coming up with a design surprisingly similar to the Bristol 223,named the "Super Caravelle" after the innovative Caravelle twinjet airliner developed

by Sud-Aviation in the 1950s. Given the similarity in the designs and the high cost ofdeveloping an SST, British and French government and industry officials began talksin September 1961 to see if the two nations could join hands for the effort.

After extensive discussions, on 29 November 1962, the British and Frenchgovernments signed a collaborative agreement to develop an Anglo-French SST,which became the "Concorde". It was to be built by the British Aircraft Corporation(BAC), into which Bristol had been absorbed in the meantime, and Rolls-Royce in theUK; and Sud-Aviation and the SNECMA engine firm in France. The original planwas to build a 100-seat long-range aircraft for transoceanic operations and a 90-seat

mid-range aircraft for continental flights. In fact, the mid-range aircraft would neverbe built.

The initial contract specified the construction of two flight prototypes, two static-testprototypes, and two preproduction aircraft. BAC was responsible for development andproduction of:

The three forward fuselage sections. Rear fuselage and tailfin. Engine nacelles and engine installation. Electrical system, fuel system, and oxygen system. Sound and thermal insulation. Fire warning and extinguishing systems.

Sud-Aviation was responsible for development and production of:

The rear cabin section.


14/32

Wings and flight control surfaces. Hydraulic systems. Flight controls. Navigation avionics. Radios. Air conditioning.

Design of the automatic flight control system was subcontracted by Aerospatiale toMarconi (now GEC-Marconi) in Britain and SFENA (now Sextant Avionique) inFrance. Final assembly of British Concordes was at Filton and of French Concordeswas at Toulouse.

Airlines began to place options for purchase of Concordes in June 1963, with servicedeliveries originally expected to begin in 1968. That proved a bit over-optimistic.Prototype construction began in February 1965. The initial "001" prototype was rolled

out at Toulouse on 11 December 1967, but it didn't perform its first flight for another15 months, finally taking to the air on 2 March 1969, with a flight crew consisting ofAndre Turcat, Jacques Guignard, Michel Retif, and Henri Perrier. The first flight ofthe "002" prototype took place from Filton on 9 April 1969. Flight trials showed thedesign to be workable, though it was such a "bleeding edge" machine that there were alot of bugs to be worked out. First supersonic flight by 001 wasn't until 1 October1969, and its first Mach 2 flight wasn't until 4 November 1970.

The first preproduction machine, "101", performed its initial flight from Toulouse on17 December 1971, followed by the second, "102", which performed its initial flightfrom Filton on 10 January 1973. The first French production aircraft, "201",performed its initial flight from Toulouse on 6 December 1973, by which time Sud-Aviation had been absorbed into Aerospatiale. The first British production machine,"202", performed its initial flight from Filton on 13 February 1974, both machineswell exceeding Mach 1 on their first flight. These two production machines were usedfor flight test and never entered commercial service.

14 more production machines were built, the last performing its initial flight on 20April 1979, with seven Concordes going into service with British Airways and seveninto service with Air France. The Concorde received French certification forpassenger operations on 13 October 1975, followed by British certification on 5December 1975. Both British Airways and Air France began commercial flights on 21January 1976. The Concorde was finally in service.

There has never been a full accounting of how much it cost the British and Frenchgovernments to get it there, but one modern estimate is about 1.1 billion pounds in1976 values, or about 11 billion pounds or $18.1 billion USD in 2003 values. Of the


15/32

20 Concordes built, six never carried any paying passengers. In fact, only nine of theproduction machines were sold at "list value". The other five were simply given toBritish Airways and Air France for literally pocket change, apparently just to get themout of the factories.

* The initial routes were London to Bahrain, and Paris to Rio de Janiero via Dakar.Service to Washington DC began on 24 May 1976, followed by flights to New YorkCity in December 1977. Other routes were added later, and there were also largenumbers of charter flights, conducted mostly by British Airways.

The manufacturers had obtained options for 78 Concordes, most prominently from theUS carrier Pan-American, but by the time the aircraft was ready to enter serviceinterest had evaporated. Sonic boom ensured that it could not be operated on overlandroutes, a consideration that had helped kill off the mid-range Concorde, and even onthe trans-Atlantic route the thundering noise of the four Olympus engines led to

restrictions on night flights to New York City, cutting the aircraft's utilization on theprime trans-Atlantic route in half.

The worst problem, however, was that the 1970s were characterized by rising fuelprices that rendered the thirsty SST clearly uneconomical to operate. It required 3.5times more fuel to carry a passenger in the Concorde than in a Boeing 747 with itsmodern, fuel-efficient high-bypass turbofans. The Americans had been sensible to killoff the Boeing 2707-300: even if the environmental threat of the machine had beengreatly exaggerated, the 2707-300 would have never paid itself off.

There was some muttering in Britain and France that Pan-Am's cancellation of itsConcorde orders and the restrictions on night flights into New York City were part ofa jealous American conspiracy to kill the Concorde, but Pan-Am brass had simplydone the numbers and wisely decided the Concorde didn't make business sense. PanAm had analyzed use of the Concorde on trans-Pacific flights, such as from SanFrancisco to Tokyo, and quickly realized that its relatively limited range meantrefueling stops in Honolulu and Wake Island. A Boeing 747 could make the long-haultrip without any stops, and in fact would get to Tokyo faster than the Concorde undersuch circumstances. First-class customers would also have a much more comfortableride on the 747.

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey was mainly worried about iratetownspeople raising hell over noisy Concordes waking them up in the middle of thenight. These "townspeople" were assertive New Yorkers, after all, and they had beenpressuring the Port Authority with various complaints, justified or not, over aircraftoperations from Idlewild / Kennedy International Airport since 1958. In fact therewere few jetliners noisier than the Concorde, and in another unfortunate irony the new


16/32

high-bypass turbofans used by airliners such as the 747 were not only much morefuel-efficient than older engines, they were much quieter, making the Concorde lookall that much worse in comparison.

Some Europeans were not surprised by the Concorde's problems. In 1966, Henri

Ziegler, then head of Breguet Aviation of France, commented with classic Frenchdirectness: "Concorde is a typical example of a prestige program hastily launchedwithout the benefit of detailed specifications studied in partnership with airlines."

Ziegler would soon become the first boss of Airbus Industries, which would rise toeffectively challenge mighty Boeing for the world's airliner market. Airbus wasestablished on the basis of such consultations between aircraft manufacturers andairlines. The Concorde program would have important lessons for Airbus, thoughmostly along the lines of how notto do things. The full duplication of Concordeproduction lines in the UK and France was seen as a particular blunder that

substantially increased program costs. Airbus took the more sensible strategy ofhaving different elements built in different countries, then transporting them toToulouse for final assembly and flight check.

* The Concorde was a long, dartlike machine with a low-mounted delta wing and fourOrpheus afterburning turbojets, with two mounted in a pod under each wing. It wasmostly made of aircraft aluminum alloys plus some steel assemblies, but featuredselective high-temperature elements fabricated from Iconel nickel alloy. It wasdesigned for a cruise speed of Mach 2.2. Higher speeds would have required muchmore extensive use of titanium and other high-temperature materials.

The pilot and copilot sat side-by-side, with a flight engineer behind on the right, andprovision for a fourth seat. The crew flew the aircraft with an automatic flight controlsystem, guiding their flight with an inertial navigation system backed up by radionavigation systems. Avionics also included a suite of radios, as well as a flight datarecorder.

The nose was drooped hydraulically to improve the forward view during takeoff andlanding. A retractable transparent visor covered the forward windscreen duringsupersonic cruise flight. There were short "strake" flight surfaces beneath the cockpit,

just behind the drooping nose, apparently to help ensure airflow over the tailfin whenthe aircraft was flying at high angles of attack.

Each of the four Rolls-Royce / SNECMA Olympus 593 Mark 10 engines was rated at169.3 kN (17,255 kgp / 38,050 lbf) thrust with 17% afterburning. The engine inletshad electrical de-icing, variable ramps on top of the inlet throat, and auxiliary inlet /outlet doors on the bottom. Each engine was fitted with a bucket-style variable


17/32

exhaust / thrust reverser. The Olympus had been originally developed in a non-afterburning form for the Avro Vulcan bomber, and a Vulcan had been used in trialsof the Concorde engines. The Concorde used afterburner to get off the ground and upto operating speed and altitude, and then cruised at Mach 2 on dry (non-afterburning)thrust. It was one of the first, possibly the first, operational aircraft to actually cruise

continuously at supersonic speeds. Interestingly, at subsonic speeds the aircraft wasinefficient, requiring high engine power that drained the fuel tanks rapidly.

Total fuel capacity was 119,786 liters (26,350 Imperial gallons / 31,645 US gallons),with four tanks in the fuselage and five in each wing. Fuel trim was maintained by anautomatic system that shuttled fuel between trim tanks, one in the tail and a set in theforward section of the wings, to maintain the proper center of gravity in differentflight phases.


18/32

The wing had an elegantly curved "ogival" form factor, and a chord-to-thickness ratioof 3% at the wing root, and featured six hydraulically-operated elevon controlsurfaces on each wing, organized in pairs. The tailfin featured a two-section rudder,apparently to provide redundancy and improve safety. The Concorde had tricyclelanding gear, with a twin-wheel steerable nosewheel retracting forward, and four-

wheel bogies in a 2-by-2 arrangement for the main gear, retracting inward. Thelanding gear featured carbon disk brakes and an antiskid system. There was aretractable tail bumper wheel to protect the rear of the aircraft on takeoff and landing.

Maximum capacity was in principle 144 passengers with a high-density seatinglayout, but in practice seating was not more than 128, and usually more like 100. Of

course all accommodations were pressurized and climate-controlled, and thesoundproofing was excellent, resulting in a smooth and quiet ride. There were toiletsat the front and middle of the fuselage, and galleys front and back. Customer serviceon the flights placed substantial demands on the stewards and stewardesses because atcruise speed, the Concorde would reach the limit of its range in three hours.

AEROSPATIALE-BAC CONCORDE:_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 25.56 meters 83 feet 10 incheswing area 385.25 sq_meters 3,856 sq_feetlength 62.10 meters 203 feet 9 inchesheight 11.40 meters 37 feet 5 inches

empty weight 78,700 kilograms 173,500 poundsMTO weight 185,065 kilograms 408,000 pounds

max cruise speed 2,180 KPH 1,345 MPH / 1,175 KTservice ceiling 18,300 meters 60,000 feetrange 6,580 kilometers 4,090 MI / 3,550 NMI_____________________ _________________ _______________________

The two prototypes had been slightly shorter and had been fitted with less powerfulOlympus engines. A "Concorde B" was considered, with airframe changes --including leading edge flaps, wingtip extensions, modified control surfaces, and 4.8%more fuel capacity -- plus significantly improved Olympus engines that providedincrementally better fuel economy, allowing a nonstop trans-Pacific flight, and greaterdry thrust, allowing takeoffs without noisy afterburner. However, the Concorde B still


19/32

couldn't operate over land and it still couldn't compete with modern subsonic jetlinersin terms of fuel economy. It never got off the drawing board.

* On 25 July 2000, an Air France Concorde was departing from the Charles de Gaulleairport outside Paris when one of its tires hit a piece of metal lying on the runway. The

tire disintegrated and a piece of rubber spun off and hit the aircraft, setting up ashockwave that ruptured a fuel tank. The airliner went down in flames and crashednear the town of Gonesse, killing all 109 people aboard and four people who had thebad luck to be in the impact area. All 12 surviving Concordes were immediatelygrounded pending an investigation.

Safety modifications were made to all seven British Airways and all five survivingAir France Concordes. The bottom of the fuel tanks, except those in the wingoutboard of the engines, was fitted with flexible Kevlar-rubber liners to provide themwith a limited "self sealing" capability; minor safety modifications were made to some

electrical systems; and new "no blowout" tires developed by Michelin were fitted.British Airways also implemented a previously planned update program to fit theirseven aircraft with new passenger accommodations.

The Concorde returned to flight status on 7 November 2001, but it was a hollowtriumph. The economics of even operating the Concorde, let alone developing it, weremarginal, and with the economic slump of the early 21st century both Air France andBritish Airways were losing money on Concorde flights. In the spring of 2003, AirFrance announced that they would cease Concorde operations as of 31 May 2003,while British Airways would cease flights by the end of October 2003. Theannouncement led to unprecedented levels of passenger bookings for the final flights.

Air France's most worked aircraft, named the "Fox Alpha", had performed 5,845flights and accumulated 17,723 flight hours. One Air France technical managerclaimed that the British and French Concorde fleets had accumulated more supersonictime than all the military aircraft ever built. That may be an exaggeration -- howanyone could compile and validate such a statistic is a good question -- but it doesillustrate the unique capabilities of the aircraft. Interestingly, spares were never aproblem, despite the age and small numbers of Concordes, since large inventories ofparts had been stockpiled for the machines.

It was a sign of the Concorde's mystique that the aircraft were in great demand asmuseum pieces. Air France CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta said: "We had more requests fordonations than we have aircraft." One ended up on display at the Charles de GaulleAirport near Paris, while another found a home at the US National Air & SpaceMuseum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport in


20/32

Washington DC. In something of an irony, one of the British Concordes was given tothe Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle, Washington.

The last operational flight of the Concorde was on 24 October 2003, with a BritishAirways machine flying from New York to London. British aviation enthusiasts

flocked to Heathrow to see the arrival. As it taxied off the runway it passed under anhonorary "water arch" created by the water cannons of two fire engines. During thetype's lifetime, Air France had racked up 105,000 hours of commercial flightoperations with the Concorde, while British Airways had run up a tally of 150,000hours.

On 25 November 2003, a Concorde that had landed at Kennedy on 10 November washauled up the Hudson river on a barge past the Statue of Liberty for display at NewYork City's Intrepid Air Museum. New Yorkers turned out along the waterfront togreet the arrival.

The very last flight of a Concorde was on 26 November 2003, when a British AirwaysConcorde took off from Heathrow, performed a ceremonial loop over the Bay ofBiscay and then flew back to Filton, where it was to be put on display. The aircraftperformed a "photo op" by flying over Isambard Kingdom Brunel's famous chainsuspension bridge at Clifton, not far from Filton; as the crew taxied the airliner afterlanding, they hung Union Jacks out the windows and raised the nose up and down toplease the crowd of 20,000 that was on hand. When the Olympus engines were shutdown for the very last time, the crew got out and handed over the flight logs to HRHPrince Andrew in a formal ceremony.

BACK_TO_TOP

[3] TUPOLEV TU-144

* Of course, during the 1960s the Soviets and the West were in competition, andanything spectacular the West wanted to do, the Soviets wanted to do as well. Thatincluded an SST.

The Soviet Tupolev design bureau developed the USSR's answer to the Concorde, theTupolev "Tu-144", also known by the NATO codename "Charger". The Tu-144prototype performed its first flight on 31 December 1968, with test pilot Eduard Elyanat the controls, beating the Concorde by three months. 17 Tu-144s were built, the lastone coming off the production line in 1981. This sum includes one prototype; two"Tu-144C" preproduction aircraft; and 14 full production machines, including nineinitial-production "Tu-144S" aircraft, and five final production "Tu-144Ds" withimproved engines.


21/32

* The Tu-144 got off to a terrible start, the second Tu-144C preproduction machinebreaking up in midair during a demonstration at the Paris Air Show on 9 June 1973and the debris falling into the village of Goussainville. All six crew in the aircraft andeight French citizens on the ground were killed, 15 houses were destroyed, and 60people were injured. Since the initial reaction of the crowd watching the accident was

that hundreds of people were likely to have been killed, there was some small reliefthat the casualties were relatively light. The entire ghastly accident was captured onfilm.

The details of the incident remain murky. The Concorde had put on a flight displayjust before the takeoff of the Tu-144, and a French air force Dassault Mirage fighterwas in the air, observing the two aircraft. The Concorde crew had been alerted that thefighter was in the area, but the Tu-144 crew had not. The speculation is that the pilotof the Tu-144, M.V. Kozlov, saw the Mirage shadowing him. Although the Miragewas keeping a safe distance, Kozlov might have been surprised and nosed the Tu-144down sharply to avoid a collision. Whatever the reason for the nosedive, it flamed outall of the engines. Kozlov put the aircraft into a dive so he could get a relight andoverstressed the airframe when he tried to pull out.

This scenario remains speculation. Other scenarios suggest that Kozlov was trying toohard to outperform the Concorde and took the machine out of its envelope. After ayear's investigation, the French and Soviet governments issued a brief statementsaying that the cause of the accident could not be determined. Some suspect a cover-up, but it is impossible to make a credible judgement given the muddy trail,particularly since the people who could have told exactly what had happened weren'tamong the living any more.

* The Tu-144 resembled the Concorde, sometimes being called the "Concordski", andthere were accusations that it was a copy. Many Western observers pointed out thatthere were also similarities between the Concorde and American SST proposals, andthere was no reason to believe the resemblances between the Concorde and the Tu-144 were much more than a matter of the normal influence of published designconcepts on organizations -- as well as "convergent evolution", or the simple fact thattwo machines designed separately to do the same task may out of simple necessitylook alike.

The truth was muddier. Building an SST was an enormous design challenge for theSoviet Union. As a matter of national prestige, it had to be done, with the Sovietaircraft doing it first, and since the USSR was behind the West's learning curve thelogical thing to do was steal. An organization was established to collect and analyzeopen-source material on SSTs from the West, and Soviet intelligence targeted theConcorde effort for penetration.


22/32

In 1964, French counterintelligence got wise to this game and sent out an alert torelevant organizations to beware of snoops and to be careful about releases ofinformation. They began to keep tabs on Sergei Pavlov, the head of the Paris office ofAeroflot, whose official job gave him legitimate reasons for obtaining informationfrom the French aviation industry and put him in an excellent position to spy on the

Concorde effort. Pavlov was not aware that French counterintelligence was on to him,and so the French fed him misinformation to send Soviet research efforts down deadends. Eventually, on 1 February 1965, the French arrested him while he was going toa lunch date with a contact, and found that he had plans for the Concorde's landinggear in his briefcase. Pavlov was thrown out of the country.

However, the Soviets had another agent, Sergei Fabiew, collecting intelligence on theConcorde effort, and French counterintelligence knew nothing about him. His coverwas finally blown in 1977 by a Soviet defector, leading to Fabiew's arrest. Fabiew hadbeen highly productive up to that time. In the documents they seized from him, theyfound a congratulations from Moscow for passing on a complete set of Concordeblueprints.

* Although the Soviets did obtain considerable useful intelligence on the Concorde,they were traditionally willing to use their own ideas or stolen ideas on the basis ofwhich seemed the best. They could make good use of fundamental research obtainedfrom the Concorde program to avoid dead ends and get a leg up, and they couldleverage designs of Concorde subsystems to cut the time needed to build subsystemsfor the Tu-144.

In other words, the Tu-144 was still by no means a straight copy of the Concorde. Thegeneral configuration of the two aircraft was similar, both being dartlike delta-typeaircraft with four afterburning engines paired in two nacelles; a drooping nose topermit better view on takeoff and landing; and a flight crew of three. Both weremostly built of conventional aircraft alloys. However, there were many differences indetail:

The Tu-144 was slightly longer and larger, with five-abreast seating comparedto the four-abreast layout of the Concorde, giving the Soviet machine acapacity of 140 passengers.


23/32

The Tu-144 was somewhat faster than the Concorde, with a cruise speed of upto Mach 2.4, and incorporated steel and titanium assemblies on wing leadingedges and other high-temperature elements of the airframe.

While the Concorde wing outline was an elegant ogival curve, the Tu-144's

wing was a more straightforward double delta, with a sweep of 76 degrees onthe forward part of the wing and a sweep of 57 degrees on the rear part of thewing.

The Tu-144's engine nacelles were spaced closer together, with four elevonsoutboard of the engines on each wing and, unlike the Concorde, no elevonsinboard of the engines. The Tu-144 did have a two-part rudder like theConcorde's.

The Tu-144's main landing gear was also much "busier" than that of the

Concorde, featuring eight-wheel bogies in a four-across arrangement retractingforward into the engine nacelles. The prototypes had featured twelve-wheelbogies. It is unclear why so many tires were used. The Soviets had a stronginclination to design aircraft to operate from rough airstrips, though operatingan SST from a dirt strip would seem to be pushing the limits. It is possible therewasn't enough space in the engine nacelles for a landing gear assembly withbigger tires. The gear doors were insulated to protect the landing gear from heatin flight. The two-wheel nose gear was steerable and retracted forward.

The most significant visible difference between the Concorde and the Tu-144

was that the Tu-144 had a set of canard "winglets" behind the cockpit that wereextended for takeoffs and landings. Apparently the French were very interestedin the canards and the Mirage fighter that may have led to the accident at theParis Air Show in 1973 was trying to obtain imagery of them in operation.

The Tu-144 was powered by four Kuznetsov NK-144 afterburning turbofans with196.2 kN (20,000 kgp / 44,100 lbf) afterburning thrust each. The engines had separateinlet ducts in each nacelle and variable ramps in the inlets. The Tu-144D, whichperformed its first flight in 1978, was fitted with Kolesov RD-36-51 engines thatfeatured much improved fuel economy and apparently uprated thrust. Production

machines seem to have had thrust reversers, but some sources claim early machinesused drag parachutes instead.

TUPOLEV TU-144:_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english_____________________ _________________ _______________________


24/32

wingspan 28.80 meters 94 feet 6 incheswing area 438.00 sq_meters 4,715 sq_feetlength 65.70 meters 215 feet 6 inchesheight 12.85 meters 42 feet 2 inches

empty weight 85,000 kilograms 187,395 poundsMTO weight 180,000 kilograms 396,830 pounds

max cruise speed 2,500 KPH 1,555 MPH / 1,350 KTservice ceiling 18,300 meters 60,000 feetrange 6,500 kilometers 4,040 MI / 3,515 NMI_____________________ _________________ _______________________

The Tu-144 prototype was a bit shorter and had ejection seats, though productionaircraft did not, and the prototype also lacked the retractable canards. The enginesfitted to the prototype had a lower thrust rating and were fitted into a single enginebox, not a split box as in the production machines. Pictures of the preproduction

machines show them to have had a production configuration, though no doubt theydiffered in minor details.

* The Tu-144 was not put into service until 26 December 1976, and then only forcargo and mail transport by Aeroflot between Moscow and Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, foroperational evaluation. The Tu-144 didn't begin passenger service until 1 November1977, and then apparently it was a cramped and uncomfortably noisy ride. Operatingcosts were unsurprisingly high and apparently the aircraft's reliability left somethingto be desired, which would not be surprising given its "bleeding edge" nature andparticularly the haste in which it was developed.

The next year, on 23 May 1978, the first Tu-144D caught fire, had to perform anemergency landing, and was destroyed with some fatalities. The program neverrecovered. The Tu-144 only performed a total of 102 passenger-carrying flights. Someflight research was performed on two of the aircraft up to 1990, when the Tu-144 wasfinally grounded.

That was not quite the end of the story. As discussed in the next section, even thoughthe Concorde and Tu-144 were clearly not money-making propositions, interest inbuilding improved SSTs lingered on through the 1980s and 1990s. The US National

Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) conducted studies on such aircraft, andin June 1993 officials the Tupolev organization met with NASA officials at the ParisAir Show to discuss pulling one of the Tu-144s out of mothballs to be used as anexperimental platform for improved SST design. The meeting had been arranged byBritish intermediaries.


25/32

In October 1993, the Russians and Americans announced that they would conduct ajoint advanced SST research effort. The program was formalized in an agreementsigned by American Vice-President Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister ViktorChernomyrdin at Vancouver, Canada, in June 1994. This agreement also formalizedNASA shuttle flights to the Russian Mir space station.

The final production Tu-144D was selected for the tests, since it had only 83 flighthours when it was mothballed. Tupolev performed a major refurbishment on it,providing new uprated engines; strengthening the wing to handle the new engines;updating the fuel, hydraulic, electrical, and avionics systems; and adding about 500sensors feeding a French-designed digital data-acquisition system. The modified Tu-144D was redesignated the "Tu-144LL", where "LL" stood for "Letnoya Laboritoya(Flying Laboratory)", a common Russian suffix for testbeds.

The new engines were Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans, used on the huge Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack" bomber, replacing the Tu-144's Kolesov RD-36 engines. The NK-321 provided about 20% more power than the RD-36-51 and still better fuel economy.Each NK-321 had a max dry thrust of 137.3 kN (14,000 kgp / 31,000 lbf) and an


26/32

afterburning thrust of 245.2 kN (25,000 kgp / 55,000 lbf). The details of the NK-321swere secret, and the Western partners in the venture were not allowed to inspect them.

A sequence of about 26 test flights was conducted in Russia with officials from theNASA Langley center at the Zhukovsky Flight Test Center from 1996 into 1999. Two

NASA pilots, including NASA space shuttle pilot C. Gordon Fullerton, flew themachine during the course of the trials. As also discussed in the next section, thewhole exercise came to nothing, but it was at least nice to get the machine back in theair one last time.

BACK_TO_TOP

[4] FUTURE SSTS?

* Although the US had given up on the Boeing 2707-300 in 1971, NASA continued toconduct paper studies on SSTs, and in 1985 US President Ronald Reagan announcedthat the US was going to develop a high-speed transport named the "Orient Express".The announcement was a bit confusing because it blended an attempt to develop ahypersonic spaceplane, which emerged as the dead-end "National Aerospace Plane(NASP)" effort, with NASA studies for an improved commercial SST.

By the early 1990s, NASA's SST studies had emerged as the "High Speed Research(HSR)" effort, a collaboration with US aircraft industries to develop a "High SpeedCivil Transport (HSCT)" that would carry up to 300 passengers at speeds from Mach2 to 3 over a distance of 10,500 kilometers (6,500 miles), with a ticket price only 20%more than that of a conventional subsonic airliner. The fact that an SST could movemore people in a shorter period of time was seen as a possible economic advantage.The NASA studies focused heavily on finding solutions to the concerns over high-altitude air pollution, airport vicinity noise levels, and sonic boom that had killed the2707-300.

Other nations also conducted SST studies, with Japan flying large rocket-boostedscale models in the Australian outback, and there was an interest in internationalcollaborative development efforts. The biggest non-environmental obstacle wassimple development cost. While it might have been possible to develop an SST withreasonable operating costs -- though obviously not as low as those of a subsonic fanjetairliner -- given the high development costs it was hard to see how such a machinecould be offered at a competitive price and achieve the sales volumes needed to makeit worthwhile to build.

Some aerospace firms took a different approach on the matter, proposing small"supersonic business jets (SSBJs)". The idea was that there is a market of people who


27/32

regard time as money and who would be willing to pay a high premium to shave a fewhours for a trip across the ocean. Development costs of such a machine would berelatively modest, and the business model of serving a wealthy elite, along withdelivering small volumes of urgent parcels in the cargo hold, seemed realistic. Firmssuch as Dassault in France, Gulfstream in the US, and Sukhoi in Russia came up with

concepts in the early 1990s, but the idea didn't go anywhere at the time.

* Although the NASA HSR program did put the Tu-144LL back in the air, the studywas finally axed in 1999. NASA, in good bureaucratic form, kept the program'scancellation very quiet, in contrast to the grand press releases that had accompaniedthe effort. That was understandable since NASA has to be wary of politicians out tograb headlines by publicly attacking government boondoggles, but in a sense theagency had nothing to hide: NASA studied the matter front to back, and one officialstated off the record that in the end nobody could figure out how to make money on

the HSCT. From an engineering point of view, a conclusive negative answer is asuseful as a conclusive positive answer -- but few politicians have an engineeringbackground and understand such things.

Some aircraft manufacturers didn't give up on SST research after the fall of the HSCTprogram. One of the major obstacles to selling an SST was the fact that sonic boomsprevented it from being operated at high speed over land, limiting its appeal, and of


28/32

course an SST that didn't produce a sonic boom would overcome that obstacle.Studies showed that sonic boom decreased with aircraft length and with reduction inaircraft size. There was absolutely no way the big HSCT, which was on a scalecomparable to that of the Boeing 2707-300, could fly without generating a sonicboom, and so current industry notional configurations envision an SSBJ or small

supersonic airliner.

Gulfstream released a notional configuration of a "Quiet Supersonic Jet (QSJ)" thatwould seat 24 passengers, have a gross takeoff weight of 68,000 kilograms (150,000

pounds), a length of 49 meters (160 feet), and swing wings. Gulfstream officialsprojected a market of from 180 to 400 machines over ten years, and added that thecompany had made a good profit building machines in productions runs as small as200 aircraft. Other manufacturers have envisioned small SSTs with up to 50 seats.

* In 2005 Aerion Corporation, a startup in Reno, Nevada, announced concepts for anSSBJ designed to carry 8 to 12 passengers, with a maximum range of 7,400


29/32

kilometers (4,000 NMI) at Mach 1.5, a length of 45.18 meters (149 feet 2 inches), aspan of 19.56 meters (64 feet 2 inches), and a maximum takeoff weight of 45,350kilograms (100,000 pounds). The machine is technologically conservative in mostrespects, with no flashy features such as swing wings or drooping nose. Currentconfigurations envision a dartlike aircraft, with wedge-style wings fitted with long

leading-edge strakes, a steeply swept tailfin with a center-mounted wedge-styletailplane, and twin engines mounted on stub pylons on the rear of the wings. A fly-by-wire system will provide controllability over a wide range of flight conditions.

The wings are ultra-thin, to be made of carbon composite materials, and feature full-span trailing-edge flaps to allow takeoffs on typical runways. The currently plannedengines are Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 turbofans, each derated to 80.1 kN (8,165 kgp/ 18,000 lbf). The JT8Ds are non-afterburning and use a fixed supersonic inletconfiguration. The expected power-to-weight ratio at normal operating weights isexpected to be about 40%, about the same as a Northrop F-5 fighter in afterburner.The Aerion SSBJ will be able to operate efficiently at high subsonic or low supersonicspeeds over populated areas, where sonic boom would be unacceptable.

The company believes there is a market for 250 to 300 SSBJs, and opened up thebooks for orders at the Dubai air show in 2007. The company claims to have dozensof orders on the books, but no prototype has flown yet and there is no indication ofwhen one will be.

* Even with the final grounding of the Concorde, the idea of the SST continues toflicker on. In 2011, the European Aerospace & Defense Systems (EADS) groupreleased a concept for a "Zero-Emissions Hypersonic Transport (ZEHST) that couldcarry up to 100 passengers at Mach 4 using turbofan / ramjet / rocket propulsion. Itwas nothing more than an interesting blue-sky concept with no prospect of entering


30/32

development any time soon. Most agree that the SST is a sexy idea; few are confidentthat it can be made to pay.

BACK_TO_TOP

[5] COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY

* In hindsight, the SST mania that produced the Concorde sounded persuasive at thetime, but it suffered from a certain lack of realism. Although the Concorde was alovely, magnificent machine and a technological marvel even when it was retired, itwas also a testimony to a certain naivete that characterized the 1950s and 1960s, whenpeople thought that technology could accomplish anything and set out onunbelievably grand projects. Some of these projects they incredibly pulled off, butsome of them turned out very differently than expected. It's still hard not to admiretheir dash.

There's also a certain perverse humor to the whole thing. The French and the Britishactually built the Concorde, while the Americans, in typical grand style, cooked up aplan to build a machine that was twice as big and faster -- and never got it off theground. The irony was that Americans made the right decision when they killed the2707-300. The further irony was that they did it for environmental reasons that,whether they were right or wrong, were irrelevant given the fact they would have losttheir shirts on it.

Development and purchase costs were almost guaranteed to have been greater thanthose of a subsonic airliner, the SST being much more like a combat aircraft;maintenance costs were by a good bet to have been higher as well; an SST would haveonly been useful for transcontinental operations and would have been absurd as a bulkcargo carrier, meaning production volumes would have been relatively low; and bythe example of the Concorde, which had about three times the fuel burn perpassenger-mile of a Boeing 747, there's no doubt that the costs of fuel would havemade a 300-seat SST hopelessly uncompetitive to operate for a mass market. It wouldhave been very interesting to have fielded a 12-seat supersonic business jet, a muchless challenging proposition from both the technical and commercial points of view,

in the 1970s, but people simply could not think small.


31/32

* Incidentally, interest in SSTs from the late 1950s through much of the 1960s was sogreat that most companies that came up with large supersonic combat aircraft alsocooked up concepts for SST derivatives. General Dynamics considered a "stretched"

derivative of the company's B-58 Hustler bomber designated the "Model 58-9", andthe MiG organization of the USSR even came up with an SSBJ derivative of the MiG-25 "Foxbat" interceptor. Of course, none of these notions ever amounted to muchmore than "back of envelope" designs.

* Sources include:

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE WORLD'S COMMERCIAL & PRIVATEAIRCRAFT, edited by David Mondey, Crescent Books, 1981.

MODERN COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT by William Green, GordonSwanborough, & John Mowinski, Salamander Books, 1987.

"Sukhoi and Gulfstream Go Supersonic" by Richard DeMeis, AEROSPACEAMERICA, April 1990, 40:42.

"Russian Tu-144 Advances Work Towards US SST" by Craig Covault,AVIATION WEEK, 8 September 1997, 50:53.

"End Of An Era" by Pierre Sparaco and Jens Flottau, AVIATION WEEK, 14

April 2003, 34.

"Air France Ends Supersonic Ops" by Pierre Sparaco, AVIATION WEEK, 26May 2003, 46,48.

"The Time Is Right" by David Bond, AVIATION WEEK, 20 October 2003,57,58.


32/32

"Concorde: Success & Controversy" by Dr. Rene J. Francillon, AIRINTERNATIONAL, December 2003, 30:39.

"Aerion On Own Path" by Michael A. Dornheim, AVIATION WEEK, 13 June2005, 80:84.

"Revised Design [of Aerion SSBJ]" by Edward H. Phillips, AVIATIONWEEK, 7 November 2005, 70.

The information on the Soviet effort to penetrate the Concorde program was obtainedfrom "Supersonic Spies", an episode of the US Public Broadcasting System's NOVATV program, released in early 1998. NASA's website also provided some usefuldetails on the Tu-144LL test program and the Tu-144 in general, as did thesurprisingly good Russian Monino aviation museum website.

* Revision history:

v1.0.0 / 01 aug 03 / gvgv1.0.1 / 01 nov 03 / gvg / Cleanup, comments on final Concorde flight.v1.0.2 / 01 dec 03 / gvg / Comments on QSP.v1.0.3 / 01 jan 04 / gvg / A few minor tweaks on the Concorde.v1.0.4 / 01 feb 04 / gvg / Very last flight of Concorde.v1.0.5 / 01 dec 05 / gvg / Cosmetic changes, SSBJ efforts.v1.0.7 / 01 nov 07 / gvg / Review & polish.v1.0.8 / 01 jan 09 / gvg / Review & polish.v1.0.9 / 01 nov 09 / gvg / Corrected Paris accident details.v1.1.0 / 01 oct 11 / gvg / Review & polish.

BACK_TO_TOP

INDEX|SITEMAP|GOOGLE|LINKS|UPDATES|BLOG|EMAIL|HOME
http://www.airvectors.net/avsst.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/avsst.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_vx.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_vx.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_smap.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_smap.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_smap.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idsearch.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idsearch.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idsearch.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imylinks.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imylinks.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imylinks.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_ud.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_ud.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_ud.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idredirb.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idredirb.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idredirb.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imymail.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imymail.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imymail.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/index.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/index.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/index.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/index.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imymail.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idredirb.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_ud.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/imylinks.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idsearch.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_smap.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/idx_vx.htmlhttp://www.airvectors.net/avsst.html

Documents

Seven Years Ago Today