Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks  
User currently offlinetjcab From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 334 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

Wondering how much shorter the flight time would have been if Concorde were allowed to fly on the regular Atlantic tracks at its full capability. Certainly under 3hrs?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3373 times:

Regular tracks only applicable up to FL410. Concorde flew higher, so really they were not practical to being with.

But the 3 fixed northern tracks worked out fine as wind component effects were minimized at the much higher flight levels anyhow.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetjcab From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

Ok I see, bu if they could fly the regular track at their regular cruise, would it not have cut flight time? Also if the sonic boom were not an issue and they could go supersonic earlier and slow down later?


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4653 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

You have an interesting point. The Concorde tracks were a little longer and usually to the south of the regular, subsonic tracks, which of course move north and south depending on winds. I believe the Concorde tracks were fixed.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 584 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

tjcab

...if they could fly the regular track at their regular cruise, would it not have cut flight time..

As others have said, Concorde cruise-climbed at levels well above the normal NATS tracks.

Even if the track system had existed up to FL600, I strongly suspect that ATC (Shanwick and Gander) would not have been amused at trying to maintain (procedural) separation (without radar coverage) between an aircraft flying well over twice as fast as any other aircraft on the tracks as well as one that was constantly changing its altitude, both up and down.

The sheer amount of airspace that ATC would have had to "block-off" just to allow one Concorde to cross would have played havoc with the NAT system and would have been unworkable.

It also happens quite frequently that subsonic aircraft are not cleared at their requested cruise Mach number or FL, due to traffic constraints, both of which would have been unacceptable to Concorde.

However, if we had ever been allowed to go supersonic in the climb out of LHR, booming England, Wales and Ireland in the process, and cleared to route from LHR direct to JFK, decelerating very late in the descent and booming New York, New Jersey and possibly Connecticut as well, then, Yes, it would have cut the flight time and been a lot quicker!


Max Q

...The Concorde tracks were a little longer and usually to the south of the regular, subsonic tracks, which of course move north and south depending on winds. I believe the Concorde tracks were fixed...

Well remembered!

The tracks were shown on an Aerad chart BA used, entitled CONCORDE EN ROUTE HIGH ALTITUDE, which detailed the four fixed NA tracks, although I suspect that chart may not be available now!
    * SM was the Westbound SSC NA track.

    * SN was the Eastbound SSC NA track.

    * SO was a spare track, to the South of the other two, usable in either direction, which was available in case of a traffic conflict between AF and BA on the other two tracks.

    * SP was the SSC NA track down to the Caribbean, used by BA on the LHR-BGI service.


Best Regards to both

Bellerophon


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4653 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

Thank you Bellerophon,


I was hoping you would contribute a real experts opinion.


Best wishes.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
If DL Were To Order More 764ERs... posted Wed Apr 8 2009 15:55:08 by 1337Delta764
If You Were To Put Water In Tires? posted Wed May 14 2008 23:43:30 by ThreeFourThree
What If The Nose Gear Collapsed On Takeoff? posted Sat May 20 2006 11:31:42 by F.pier
What If A Passenger Had To Land? posted Mon Sep 30 2002 20:49:14 by Bruce
If You Were To Bounce... posted Mon Jul 15 2002 13:22:50 by Mr.BA
If Bombardier And EMB Were To Design A W/B? posted Fri Apr 30 2010 19:06:32 by 747400sp
What To Expect On The PPL Practical? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 02:31:23 by IAirAllie
What If G-YMMM Had Made It To The Runway? posted Wed Jun 25 2008 14:30:45 by Starglider
What Is The Most Difficult Airliner To Fly? posted Sun May 18 2008 10:17:53 by UAL747
How To Fly An Airliner If Pressurization Fails? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:26:08 by A380900

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format