Why did the supersonic concorde fail

[Dennis Toy]

Everyone in here knows that the Concorde, or the supersonic jet plane that was supposed to usher in a new Supersonic Era last flown in 2001. Why did it fail and why isnt there a replacement being planned.

[weemadando]

Economics.

Turns out people weren't prepared to pay what, more than double the price, for a service than took a little more than half as much time as a conventional one...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Because they were extremely expensive to purchase, and extremely expensive to maintain. They also required long runways, limiting the number of hubs they could get to. The result being that they were never very profitable, compared to a bog-standard Boeing 747.

[Dennis Toy]

also i heard the technology inside the concorde was actually obsolete even when the plane first launched in 1976. By then, computers and microprocessors had replaced the analog controls that the concorde used.

For example look inside a 737 cockpit, you will find only 3 people are needed to fly it, because it uses computers, where the concorde needed 4 including an engineer. The concorde was also cramped and only carried 110 people.

[Quadlok]

The fact that it is not legal to operate an aircraft within the US at supersonic speeds was another big drawback.

[The Grim Squeaker]

There is a replacement being made that should be much quiter and would allow flight over cities in the U.S.

[Broomstick]

There is a replacement being made that should be much quiter and would allow flight over cities in the U.S.

Only if the FAA changes the regulations.

Civilan supersonic flight over the US is NOT permitted. (Even military supersonic flight is heavily restricted) There is no exception for "quiet" supersonic flight as the rules now stand. If you wish an exception to be made you need to ask the FAA for a waiver, which entails a lot of paperwork and isn't done overnight. This is not practical for scheduled passenger service.

(Yes, rules can be changed... but it's a looooooooong process)

The Concorde failed for a number of reasons, but "obsolete" technology wasn't one of them. There are thousands of both passenger and cargo planes flying with analog controls and avionics and making a profit for their owners. Computers are not necessary for profitable aviation.

The Concorde engines weren't efficient by today's standards, but a next generation plane could have solved that problem easily. However, the fuel consumption involved certainly didn't help matters any.

The cost of a ticket was certainly a factor. A few business people could justify it because of time needs. The extremely wealthy would sometimes pay for it. There were some middle-class folks who'd save up for a once-in-a-lifetime trip. But overall, there was never enough people willing/able to fork over money often enough for the operation to be profitable.

There were heavy restrictions on where the Concorde could operate, being limited in the US pretty much to just New York. There were occassions where a Concorde went somewhere else - if I recall, it made at least one appearance at Oshkosh, Wisconsin (as has just about every other piece of aviation hardware over the last 40 years), but that was an exception. It kind of cuts down on the utility of an airplane if you're only allowed one landing spot on an entire continent. That didn't help profitability at all.

And a lot of the restrictions had to do with not being permitted supersonic flight over land. The Concorde was designed to be most efficient at high altitude and high speed. Forcing it to fly slower made it much less efficient, made it burn more fuel, reduced profits, and took away it's one biggest selling point - speed.

There's no doubt we could build another supersonic transport - and probably make it more efficient and therefore cheaper per unit distance than the Concorde - but if there's not sufficient demand it won't be done.

[Sir Sirius]

Why does the FAA restrict supersonic flight so strictly?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why does the FAA restrict supersonic flight so strictly?

Because nobody likes being woken up at 4 AM by sonic booms. That, I suspect, is the short answer, and I admit that I'm pulling it out of my ass.

[spikenigma]

Everyone in here knows that the Concorde, or the supersonic jet plane that was supposed to usher in a new Supersonic Era last flown in 2001. Why did it fail and why isnt there a replacement being planned.

because Richard Branson was told he couldn't buy the aeroplane despite his claims that he could make it profitable

[Deathstalker]

A Concorde is awesome to look at close up though.

[Master of Ossus]

Why does the FAA restrict supersonic flight so strictly?

Because nobody likes being woken up at 4 AM by sonic booms. That, I suspect, is the short answer, and I admit that I'm pulling it out of my ass.

There are also legitimate concerns regarding sonic booms. Even military aircraft have occasionally failed at the wrong moments when attempting to hit their engines and break the sound barrier, and this has led to damage to property on the ground. Overall, it's not too surprising that the FAA would want to cut down on the risks of damage and the accompanying lawsuits that would doubtless be filed.

[Broomstick]

Why does the FAA restrict supersonic flight so strictly?

Because nobody likes being woken up at 4 AM by sonic booms. That, I suspect, is the short answer, and I admit that I'm pulling it out of my ass.

There are also legitimate concerns regarding sonic booms. Even military aircraft have occasionally failed at the wrong moments when attempting to hit their engines and break the sound barrier, and this has led to damage to property on the ground. Overall, it's not too surprising that the FAA would want to cut down on the risks of damage and the accompanying lawsuits that would doubtless be filed.

Yeah, but mostly it's the disturbing the peace and scaring the public aspect. Most folks in the US don't want the dishes rattled or, as pointed out, to be woken up at 4 am - or even from an afternoon nap - by sonic booms.

When there is an intended sonic boom the authorities generally try to notify the public somewhat in advance. I remember one shuttle landing that was routed over the Chicago area where it was announced that there "might" be a sonic boom audible on the ground and please don't panic about it.

On September 11 there were unscheduled sonic booms by military aircraft.

And when the Columbia broke up there were some booms as well.

When Rutan launched SpaceShipOne for trans-sonic test flights as well as the X-prize flights he had to apply for waivers to the regs from the FAA, and part of that involved routing the flight over terrirtory that was essentially uninhabited so that the noise wouldn't disturb anyone and if the worst happened danger to those on the ground would be minimized. The latter restriction is a common one for any test-flight of new aircraft, by the way, so I'm sure it's a routine thing for Mr. Rutan and his company.

I want to emphasize that asking the FAA for a waiver really isn't that big a deal - I've known folks who've done it for one reason or another. Just give a reason ("because I want to do this cool thing" has actually been known to work) and describe how you will make sure no one but you is at any risk of getting hurt and you'll likely get it - after you fill out a shitload of paperwork. That's really the hassle part of it - the damn paperwork. What's unlikely-to-impossible is a waiver that would allow regular sonic booms over the continental US, such as you would get from scheduled passenger service.

[Dennis Toy]

The Concorde failed for a number of reasons, but "obsolete" technology wasn't one of them. There are thousands of both passenger and cargo planes flying with analog controls and avionics and making a profit for their owners. Computers are not necessary for profitable aviation.

it was one of the factors, If you look at todays 737's, you will see that everything is computer-controlled, the engines, the moving surfaces and the radar. Look inside the cockpit and you will see computer screens that can be changed to output data from any part of the plane. You will also see that you only need 2 people to fly the plane.

The Concorde's technology was ONE of the factors, a lot of airlines don't want to pay a lot for 2 more crew members to do things that can be done by 2 people with computer systems that are more advanced than the technology of the 60's.

If you look inside the cockpit of the concorde, you will see that it takes 4 crew members to fly the thing. 2 pilots, 1 Flight engineer and 1 radio guy. the controls are 60's tech, full of analog meters, lights, and radar systems that cannot be repaired because part for them have long run out. Yes planes that fly use analog tech but the concorde has tech that became obsolete in the 1970's.

[Broomstick]

The Concorde failed for a number of reasons, but "obsolete" technology wasn't one of them. There are thousands of both passenger and cargo planes flying with analog controls and avionics and making a profit for their owners. Computers are not necessary for profitable aviation.

it was one of the factors, If you look at todays 737's, you will see that everything is computer-controlled, the engines, the moving surfaces and the radar. Look inside the cockpit and you will see computer screens that can be changed to output data from any part of the plane. You will also see that you only need 2 people to fly the plane.

A brand new 737 that just rolled off the assembly line might be"fly by wire" (although Boeing's fly by wire system has some significant differences from Airbus, to the point that many people do not consider it to be true fly by wire) but most of them out there flying weren't originally - if they are now, it's because they've been retrofitted

And, strictly speaking, one person is perfectly adequate to fly the airplane if necessary - a second pilot is one of those redundant safety features all passenger aircraft have. If the airlines could get rid of co-pilots they would, but the regs won't allow for it.

It was physcially possible to fly the Concorde with less than four people. If British Airways and Air France had wanted to they certainly could have upgraded the avionics - hell, there airplanes built 40 or 50 years ago that have modern radios, GPS, flight management systems (those screens you talk about) and even digital engine management all installed post-construction over the past couple decades. If they chose not to it could have been that the old systems were still adequate and they didn't want to spend the money. I really don't think those things broke the economic back of the Concorde. I really do think it was fuel costs which drove prices up to levels the public wouldn't buy and limited landing locations.

The Concorde's technology was ONE of the factors, a lot of airlines don't want to pay a lot for 2 more crew members to do things that can be done by 2 people with computer systems that are more advanced than the technology of the 60's.

Except that many overseas flights have two complete cockpit crews due to the duration of the flights and limits on the length of time crew members can be actively flying. The Concorde is faster, the trip is shorter, and you wind up with the same or fewer pilots AND you don't have to pay them for as many hours. Your argument here only works on short hops, which the Concorde never was intended to fly.

Limiting the Concorde to just London-Paris-New York is what killed it. The Concorde's greatest selling point was always speed. A London-Hong Kong route, or a Paris-Tokyo, or other similar extremely long distance flights would have made much more sense even if you might have to make a few fuel stops. Instead of 12-16 hours on an airplane you'd only need, what? - 6-8? HUGE difference.

the controls are 60's tech, full of analog meters, lights, and radar systems that cannot be repaired because part for them have long run out.

Nonsense. The entire US Air Traffic Control system is still running on 1960's - or earlier - tech (with just two or three exceptions I'm aware of) and I'm sure we'd be happy to sell them vacuum tubes when needed (Just kidding about the vacuum tubes). Parts are available from specialty suppliers. Of course, that does drive the costs up.

Even the most elaborate, computerized airplanes STILL have analog gauge backups for their equipment because sometimes computers crash, and no one wants the airplane to crash after that happens.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Going supersonic over the US isn't a problem. The whole point of supersonic aircraft if to make intercontinental travel faster. For that, you travel mainly over ocean. There are numerous companies now looking at reviving the supersonic airliner concept using cheaper materials and designs. These concepts are for 2015 at the least, but they are supposed to help soften sonic boom effects, though the prime concern is economy. Fuel prices alone are putting a strain on all but the biggest carriers today, so having supercruise would be one bonus for a future design.

Watch this space. Big point-to-point airliners may be in vogue now, but depending on how well these aerospace companies go on their projects for 250 seater (or thereabouts) SSTs, it could be a quicker future.

[Broomstick]

Going supersonic over the US isn't a problem.

No, except for the potential fines for breaking regs, no problem at all....

The continental US is a pretty big place. Flying Los Angeles to New York City is similar to flying London to Istanbul. It's a long way and many hours. Slowing to sub-sonic over the land mass would add considerable time to a NYC to Sydney flight (as an example)

The whole point of supersonic aircraft if to make intercontinental travel faster. For that, you travel mainly over ocean.

Unless you're going Moscow to Beijing.

You aren't always over ocean over all possible routes between major cities.

These concepts are for 2015 at the least, but they are supposed to help soften sonic boom effects, though the prime concern is economy.

If they can't get the boom down below a certain level economy won't matter - the voters on the ground won't stand for constant shaking.

Fuel prices alone are putting a strain on all but the biggest carriers today, so having supercruise would be one bonus for a future design.

As of yesterday, fuel prices are affecting the big carriers, too - to the point that American Airlines is canceling flights between majors hubs to cut back on fuel usage.

Also - supersonic flight is always going to be a fuel hog. The faster you go the faster you burn fuel. Granted advancing technology and various efficiencies will make the situation better, but the faster flight = more gas per unit of time/distance still holds. The most efficient powered aircraft, from the standpoint of distance per unit fuel burned, are not fast jets but slow speed props. Problem is, prop planes fly in the weather, which makes for an uncomfortable ride, and they don't get people where they want to go fast enough. Which is why jets became so popular for people transport.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No, except for the potential fines for breaking regs, no problem at all....


The continental US is a pretty big place. Flying Los Angeles to New York City is similar to flying London to Istanbul. It's a long way and many hours. Slowing to sub-sonic over the land mass would add considerable time to a NYC to Sydney flight (as an example)

No, it's not a problem because no one's going to do that. Which I pointed out later on. The SST designers cannot change the laws, and since Concorde was meant as a continent connecting craft with the use of shuttles for standard over land travel, it's not part of the problem here.

Now, if the Feds decide to alter that (highly doubtful) then the US may be able to have cheap (cheaper at least) and fast transit via air all over CONUS. Right now, that is a whole other can of worms since actually building a craft of this type is tricky enough.

Unless you're going Moscow to Beijing.

You aren't always over ocean over all possible routes between major cities.

No, that is, of course, an oversimplification. But the same happened with Concorde and it was permitted routes up until it finally bit the bullet. With a cheaper aircraft that could potentially reduce sonic boom signatures by quite a bit, we may see this change. I'm not holding my breath, though I would sincerely love to have such a vehicle in the near future.

If they can't get the boom down below a certain level economy won't matter - the voters on the ground won't stand for constant shaking.

Agreed. Having the EFA fly over my head with just military thrust not even touching Mach 1 is bad enough.

As of yesterday, fuel prices are affecting the big carriers, too - to the point that American Airlines is canceling flights between majors hubs to cut back on fuel usage.

My bad, I should've recalled BA was having problems with fuel prices too among other things (though they're more noticeable in the smaller companies such as easyJet and Ryan Air which do the typical cheap fares). It doesn't help that environmental restrictions will get stricter in the future most likely.

Also - supersonic flight is always going to be a fuel hog. The faster you go the faster you burn fuel. Granted advancing technology and various efficiencies will make the situation better, but the faster flight = more gas per unit of time/distance still holds. The most efficient powered aircraft, from the standpoint of distance per unit fuel burned, are not fast jets but slow speed props. Problem is, prop planes fly in the weather, which makes for an uncomfortable ride, and they don't get people where they want to go fast enough. Which is why jets became so popular for people transport.

Most of the concepts I have seen utilise waverider or similar principles to limit the fuel expenditure, that or they aim to go for methane powered engines or the like. It's all early stuff now anyway, I don't expect anything but a fuselage shape to be thought of anytime soon. Props are more fuel efficient, yes. And actually, they may make a come back. The latest prop designs enable far better fuel economy than even before and also allow near trans-sonic speeds. The Tu-95 could do the same speed as your average Boeing or Airbus, yet it had four contra-rotating turboprop engines. With the new engine and prop designs and with fuel prices being what they are, some predict such engines being bolted on to modern wide-bodies rather than use turbofans. Sounds kooky, but we'll see how it goes (discomfort is apparently not as big a problem with these things, though anything less than first or business class is not comfortable to me).

[Ypoknons]

Ever been inside? It's really cramped and low. I'm small by Western standards (5ft 7", niether under or overweight) and I'm bumping my head, feeling like I'm in a sardine can. Given the price, I'm sure the rich buisnessmen expect more.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You pay for being in New York or Sydney from London in under less than a day, not for having an en suite room in the sky. The point of Concorde was never to be amazingly posh, though it was refined. It was to be fast when you had to close that deal on another continent and still be back for your kid's birthday that day. You simply can't do that with any other airliner.

Personally, I'd like HOTOL to come back or something similar. You tend to avoid the sonic boom problem when flying straight up and then bouncing off the atmosphere at Mach 12+. Ironically, despite the increase in airliner speeds over the years, time taken to travel has increased down to simple check-in queues and so on. You spend most of the time in a gate rather than the air.