Make it this one.

Nice one, Cheers. I had no idea that ever took place.

Still makes me sad the way that Concorde’s life in the air ended. As Tinie Tempah said “I’m pissed I never got to fly in a Concorde”…..

We used to drive to Heathrow sometimes when I was a uni (Brunel in Uxbridge), park on the access road & watch Concorde take off….
You could see it from our halls of residence, but it was better to be there and feel the ground shake….

Oh, and if you’ve never read it The Concorde Story by Christopher Orlebar is worth a read.
It’s frequently on ebay for not a lot of money….

Great read that, thanks 😀 Knew it had happened but not the background.

Concorde is the only example in modern technology of us taking a massive step back. In a world that wants more, faster it’s a bit of an oddity. Fantastic plane.

I was fortunate enough to have a couple of trips on it. London to New York and Washington to London.

Fantastic take-off, particularly when the afterburners were switched off and you felt that the engines had stopped!

Acceleration to Mach 1 was two kicks in the back like kick down on an automatic then smoothly through the sound barrier.

Cruise at 60,000 feet, a mile every 2 3/4 seconds.

Beautiful aircraft and magnificent engineering.

EDIT.
Washington London – worst jetlag I’ve ever had.

If the wind is blowing, Boston to LHR can be like that! So short a flight that the jetlag is almost crippling!

Why would the jet lag be worse? Isn’t it a factor of different time zones and the duration of your stay?

The flight departed around 10:30 in the morning (if I remember correctly). 3 hours flight time and 5 hours time difference meant I got to Heathrow at about 6:30pm. Bed time then becomes halfway through the body clocks day.

Travelling west is much easier than going east. Coming in from the far east, landing early in the morning just requires stamina to stay up for the day and everything is back to normal.

The Concorde’s engines were optimized for the upper atmosphere, though this made them less efficient on the ground. Just taxiing for take-off, the Concorde burned more fuel than a 737 flying from London to Amsterdam,

😯

If that’s true … Why was it not just towed out to the run way ?

(thanks for post btw … great read)

Always thought Concorde was amazing, never failed to make everyone look skyward as it flew over the Reading festival at quite low altitude on its way out to the states and when visiting relatives on the south coast of Ireland you could set your watch by the sonic boom.

Ro5ey – Member
The Concorde’s engines were optimized for the upper atmosphere, though this made them less efficient on the ground. Just taxiing for take-off, the Concorde burned more fuel than a 737 flying from London to Amsterdam,

If that’s true … Why was it not just towed out to the run way ?

(thanks for post btw … great read)

You have to remember the Olympus engine was a pure jet, where as all modern passenger engines mostly consist of a big fan providing most of the thrust; a bit like a fancy contained prop, and a tiny compressor/turbine engine in the middle to run it.