It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by waynos
Yes it did. The Olympus engine on the Concorde was basically an afterburning variant of the Vulcan's engine, it is also related to the engine of TSR 2, which kind of makes a mockery of those claims that the TSR 2's cancellation was justified because of engine difficulties.
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
just wondering, but does the concorde use afterburners when going mach 2
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Oh, and Concorde wasnt technically the only successful SST - the Tupolev TU-144 was also a success, but only for domestic airlines (hmmm - so was the Concorde apart from a couple of short term leases) and certain routes.
Originally posted by RichardPrice
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
just wondering, but does the concorde use afterburners when going mach 2
No, it didnt. It used afterburner for two stages of its flight: takeoff and transition to Mach 2 flight. It cruised at Mach 2 without afterburner.
Oh, and Concorde wasnt technically the only successful SST - the Tupolev TU-144 was also a success, but only for domestic airlines (hmmm - so was the Concorde apart from a couple of short term leases) and certain routes.
Its a great pity that the Concorde was removed from service without a replacement even in the works - I consider it a huge step backward in our capability as a human race How many other things have been removed from our lives without something better replacing them?
Originally posted by longbow
So that was the reason for the high fuel consumption? Could a new engine without afterburner (similar to that one used in F-22) cut down the fuel costs?
I have a question : was a wing with variable geometry considered for comercial plane anytime? The B1 and Tu-160 showed that it is posible to build a large plane with variable geometry wings. How would the variable geometry benefit the fuel consumption? I just thought that an Concorde sized plane with engines able to supercruise and variable geometry would be a great solution for supersonic flights, don't you think?
Originally posted by RichardPrice
I was like 'Uhm, dude the Concorde was designed and built while you were still sucking on your mothers t*tties. There WAS no electronics or cameras capable of such a stunt '
Originally posted by longbow
I thought Tupolev had large problems (crash???) and the project was cancelled??
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
hehe outdoing the f-22s supercruise ability lol
Originally posted by longbow
You say, there were no cameras and television in the late 60ties/70ties?