tjcab
Topic Author
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:13 am

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?
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:20 am

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
 
tjcab
Topic Author
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

RE: What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:26 am

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?
 
Max Q
Posts: 5645
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:38 am

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.
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:33 pm

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
 
Max Q
Posts: 5645
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What If Concorde Were To Fly On Regular Tracks

Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:41 am

Thank you Bellerophon,


I was hoping you would contribute a real experts opinion.


Best wishes.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akiss20, balair863, Bing [Bot] and 10 guests