Hello, I wonder how externally different it'd be from the normal serial production concorde, more windows? Different doors? I'm tempted to do this one in model using a revell or airfix kit.
Thanks for your answers!

AFAIK Concorde was planned for 144 pax in a nominal configuration. At least, that's the number I remember from coffee table books when I was a kid.

Premium interiors limited this to 100. I can't imagine it would have been very different externally. Just a different interior.

It's always like this. The manufacturer says you can fix X number of pax, but few operators squeeze that many in. The number X is just a reference based on some nominal two-class config that never exists in reality.

Looks like 128pax was the highest possible in high-density layout but I am not aware of any configured with that many. Assuming you mean the -100 version, there would not be any external differences I would imagine. They had been planning a -200 stretched version but obviously that never saw the light of day, sadly. I imagine it would have been longer forward of the wing more so than aft.

Ok, this french article from 1968 uses the 132 figure https://cap-avenir-concorde.fr/les-doss ... l-concorde
So no differences with the windows arrangement, thanks!

It was only certified for up to 128 pax.
This being the definitive production version.
It would not be unreasonable to ask ‘with all the charters BA and AF did, wouldn’t it have been worth having one or two in that configuration?’
The operation did not however work like that, charters varied greatly, from the better known ‘round the bay’ ones, right up to extended round the world ones, the of those we did was in 1999 with G-BOAD. Though a shorter one around various African destinations was done in early 2000.
With all manner of ones in between with link ups to cruise liners, Christmas ones to RVN etc.

For the most common, the round the bays, the aircraft allocated would often be the standby the the morning scheduled service to JFK, once that was away the charter aircraft would be ready.
Or for the evening JFK.
Same during the BGI services at weekends from November to March.

In the late 1990’s BA were doing around 300 charters per year, though even with the premium ones they made up 10% of revenue.
Great PR though, the round the bays started in the late 70’s, allowing the public to experience supersonic flight albeit not for as long as a scheduled service at an affordable price.

The 100 pax configuration which traded seats for not just legroom (38 inch pitch) but also galley equipment, stowage, optimized for the scheduled service but on a shorter charter allowed the crew to serve the pax.

There were ideas for more pax, would more than 128 mean removing galley?

thebunkerparodi wrote:

There were ideas for more pax, would more than 128 mean removing galley?

Hard to say as it was never done, reduced seat pitch for certain.

The only other different configuration I saw, including the drawings when sorting through BA Concorde's archives to museums etc, was the brief idea to convert one for no pax, as Federal Express had an interest for a short time, in 1980, for 'supersonic mail'.
I read about it at the time in the aviation press as it was.
it went nowhere as the sums did not likely add up and BA, as the recession eased, wanted the two 'white tails', which eventually became G-BOAG and G-BOAF, 214 and 216 frames. Richard Branson will tell anyone we got them for a £ each, as with much else he said on the subject, it was misleading to say the least.

But for more pax, you could have cut back on the stowage space between the front and rear cabins.
But as it turned out, 100 was a good number, it was a highly specialized market, with very regular pax, so comfort and facilities were more important.
This was decided by both operators and it was certified for service, with that number in mind.

I knew about the cargo idea, different door configuration where on the prototype/pre production aircraft too. I'm tempted to do mine as a leased plane from transairbail international.with more seats (maybe).

Starlionblue wrote:

AFAIK Concorde was planned for 144 pax in a nominal configuration. At least, that's the number I remember from coffee table books when I was a kid.

Premium interiors limited this to 100. I can't imagine it would have been very different externally. Just a different interior.

It's always like this. The manufacturer says you can fix X number of pax, but few operators squeeze that many in. The number X is just a reference based on some nominal two-class config that never exists in reality.

Kinda like a 737-800 with a single class, 194 pax config???

Didn't knew they got that far to reduce the weight, I know concorde didn't had a low fuel consumption and the polemics over its price in france or Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber.

Founded a drawing showing what the 136 seats configuration would like like in a pre production plane

The french article it's from: https://cap-avenir-concorde.fr/les-doss ... -neuf-mois

Don't give Spirit, Ryanair, et al. ideas. They'd find a way to cram 200 pax in there

CrewBunk wrote:

kalvado wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

I was always under the impression that weight on Concorde was a major consideration. If so, one has to wonder not that it could carry 128 passengers, but could it lift the extra 28 passengers? Then, carrying them, would it have sufficient range to fly anywhere worthwhile with a 3000 Kg fuel hit?

Concorde fuel capacity was about 95000 kg. Using 100 kg per pax (+ seat weight, -lower seat weight in denser config) 28 pax would be 2.8 metric tons. If fuel has to be removed for that, it is 2.8 tons out of 95 max fuel.
There is a 20 tons/hour burn number (not sure about exact conditions), so 8.4 minutes. If that is in cruise, 2.8 tons less is 180 nm / 330 km of range, give or take. Everything is on a backside of an envelope, of course.
THat is, assuming regular takeoff happened at MTOW - and I believe there was not much range for Concorde to spare in regular service.

I’m old enough to remember when Concorde first entered passenger service. I remember when British Airways and Air France were talking about weight reduction. It was fascinating. Things like finer/thinner china and crystal (lighter), only offering three choices of champagne instead of five, galley components and lavatories being specially designed with weight reduction in mind. As the interiors of the aircraft evolved, weight reduction was a factor.

I flew on Concorde several times, I noted a difference from when I first flew SIN-BAH-LHR and IAD-DFW than when I last flew on her, YYZ-LHR. Very subtle differences …. much lower seat backs, smaller caviar tins and quite a reduced selection of wines. I don’t imagine it was cost cutting as much as weight issues.

I am not familiar with the finer points of Concorde operation, but I am guessing an extra 2800 Kgs would be a consideration. Not to mention the weight of catering an additional 28 passengers. (Not included in the 100 Kgs per). Granted, if current BA standards of premium cabin on flights of 3 hours were used, a huge weight saving would be realized.

BA did a number of major cabin overhauls, the first major one starting in 1985, the next in the early 1990’s, the final, only partially done, started in 2000.
The aim was always to update the pax experience, from the more informative cabin bulkhead displays, new seats, updated galleys etc.
Weight reduction came by default, more modern seats mean usually more modern and lighter materials, ditto galleys.
Or at least I evened out, the real issue was maintaining the vendor base for these, it helped if they had previous experience, if not, learning curve time, usually around space restrictions.

As to range, well we started the scheduled BGI services in the late 1980’s with a stop usually at LIS but as operational experience was gained they became non stop if there were no technical issues en route, to prevent the more likely one, extra checks were performed on the actuation system of the thrust reversers, as any issue that might cause them to dip, would mean a stop, so that was usually avoided by allocating aircraft that had just passed that to the next BGI service. This would not be an issue on a JFK service due to being nearer and unlike BGI, plenty of diversion options.

People often assume Barbados is in the Caribbean but it’s off the coast of South America, however at the latitudes for that route, in the tropical area, at 60,000 ft (which the longer BGI flight reached, it did on my last flight, one of 75 BA Concorde staff delivering G-BOAE to retirement in BGI November 2003, the penultimate ever and last international Concorde flight, best curvature of the Earth view I got on any of mine, the rest being up 58,000ft, North Atlantic).
This means at these altitudes the air temp is, in a counterintuitive way, cooler than on the JFK or IAD routes, meaning increased engine efficiency, thus longer range.
As the opposite is true over the poles, it never did that.

Contrary to what is often stated, the load limits on BGI flights was not as great, though compared to the largely business traffic to and from JFK, there tended to be more luggage, I’ve seen ones go nearly full, the usual load for these was 70-85%, being full fare a great earner so worth the extra maintenance.
Of course being a small island, coming back was easier by default, over the sea right away so straight into going supersonic and getting to Mach 2/50,000ft+ when it finally became very efficient.

I have focused on this route as a demonstration of how operational experience and if anything, reducing the weight a bit, made an unattainable non stop route possible.

N965UW wrote:

Don't give Spirit, Ryanair, et al. ideas. They'd find a way to cram 200 pax in there

That's how you make the economics really work!

GDB, the talk of flight deck upgrades, did that actually get anywhere at all such as people coming up with designs or did it just exist as “ideas”.

I would love to have seen what that might have looked like.

Was the flight engineer going to become endangered as a result of this?

Would this have brought any weight reductions with the talked about changes?

cpd wrote:

GDB, the talk of flight deck upgrades, did that actually get anywhere at all such as people coming up with designs or did it just exist as “ideas”.

I would love to have seen what that might have looked like.

Was the flight engineer going to become endangered as a result of this?

Would this have brought any weight reductions with the talked about changes?

No, in a nutshell.
Too few airframes, to do the extensive testing either BA or AF, possibly both, would have to lose an aircraft for this period, that with normal servicing demands, would mean a drastic reduction in services.
To put it in context, when in the late 90’s the reliability of the Air Intake Control Units became a concern, options were considered, one of which seemed to make the most sense.
Replace the 8 A.I.C.U.s, each roughly the same size as a carton of 200 cigarettes, with much smaller, more reliable units that would be easier to do B.I.T.E. tests on.
This would also have entailed losing an aircraft for an extended period for certification tests.
So it was a case of remaking the original units, meaning the vendor was calling people out of retirement.

It was a job of work when TCAS became mandatory a few years before, the system and display needing some repositioning in the flight deck.
Then calibration as the off the shelf TCAS units were designed for conventional airliner speeds, Concorde even within airspace requiring TCAS at subsonic speeds was still faster.

Now extend this to the whole flight deck.....
As for the E/O, unlike say refitting a DC-10 into a MD-10, the sheer range of Concorde’s flight envelope meant it was essentially two aircraft in one, a subsonic and supersonic, so with many unique systems, the variable intakes being just one.
Fuel management being another, 13 tanks which also had to move to adjust the center of gravity throughout that flight envelope and cool structure and systems in supercruise.
It would be easier to build a new aircraft.

Not that it lacked for innovation that would find its way into conventional airliners, first with carbon brakes, first with electronic engine controls, a stepping stone from conventional to fly by wire with a hybrid system, Airbus would not have attempted that on an airliner without that experience, (the side stick was tested on an airframe 201 IIRC, before Airbus fitted an A300 with full FBW in the early 80’s, those who saw the displays it gave at displays like F.I. 84 haven’t forgotten it).

MadameConcorde would have been very helpful, alas she has not been here for a number of years

GDB wrote:

Now extend this to the whole flight deck.....
As for the E/O, unlike say refitting a DC-10 into a MD-10, the sheer range of Concorde’s flight envelope meant it was essentially two aircraft in one, a subsonic and supersonic, so with many unique systems, the variable intakes being just one.
Fuel management being another, 13 tanks which also had to move to adjust the center of gravity throughout that flight envelope and cool structure and systems in supercruise.
It would be easier to build a new aircraft.

I suspected as much - I've seen very clever development teams trying to "automate" these functions on their virtual Concordes (such as in Lockheed P3D software) and those are massively complicated efforts with any number of detailed scenarios that could go wrong. Doing it on the real thing would be a nightmare.

I have no idea of the workings inside BA, but I suppose such things are a great idea in the minds of those who don't have to make it work.

GDB,

I can't say how much I enjoy reading your posts about Concorde.

Thanks a lot!

I also greatly enjoy reading GBD’s knowledgeable and informative contributions about Concorde - some of which remind me just how much I’ve forgotten since 2003!

If I may add a few comments to the points GBD and others are making:

… It was a job of work when TCAS became mandatory …

Yes indeed! And after our engineers had laboured long and hard to overcome the technical difficulties associated with fitting TCAS to Concorde, it was a little ironic that the system inhibited itself from issuing any Resolution Advisory (RA) or any aural messages whilst in supersonic flight, ie most of the time! Whilst subsonic however, in my view, TCAS was priceless.


… There is a 20 tons/hour burn number (not sure about exact conditions) …

Not a bad estimate, although at M2.00 and FL500+, I think a more representative figure would have been around 23,000 kg/hr or 20kg/nm.


… we started the scheduled BGI services in the late 1980’s with a stop usually at LIS but as operational experience was gained they became nonstop … [

I’m told (I wasn’t involved at the time), the route was set up as an 80 passenger only route, allowing an extra two tonnes of fuel to be carried which solved the fuel flight planning problems.

Sales eventually prevailed on Flight Ops to accept more than the 80 passengers originally agreed upon, being willing to accept the slightly increased risk of a diversion or refuelling stop against the prize of selling more seats on Concorde, and the allowable booking level was gradually allowed to creep up over the years.


… I was always under the impression that weight on Concorde was a major consideration …

You’re correct, it was, but the main reason LHR-BGI was so limiting was not actually the 3,658 nm distance between the two airfields, it was, as GBD has already alluded to, the lack of suitable en-route diversion airfields, once South of the Azores, that caused the flight planning and en-route problems.


… Richard Branson will tell anyone we got them for a £ each, as with much else he said on the subject, it was misleading to say the least …

You might very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment!

Best Regards to all

Bellerophon

kalvado wrote:

Bellerophon wrote:

I also greatly enjoy reading GBD’s knowledgeable and informative contributions about Concorde - some of which remind me just how much I’ve forgotten since 2003!

If I may add a few comments to the points GBD and others are making:

… It was a job of work when TCAS became mandatory …

Yes indeed! And after our engineers had laboured long and hard to overcome the technical difficulties associated with fitting TCAS to Concorde, it was a little ironic that the system inhibited itself from issuing any Resolution Advisory (RA) or any aural messages whilst in supersonic flight, ie most of the time! Whilst subsonic however, in my view, TCAS was priceless.


… There is a 20 tons/hour burn number (not sure about exact conditions) …

Not a bad estimate, although at M2.00 and FL500+, I think a more representative figure would have been around 23,000 kg/hr or 20kg/nm.


… we started the scheduled BGI services in the late 1980’s with a stop usually at LIS but as operational experience was gained they became nonstop … [

I’m told (I wasn’t involved at the time), the route was set up as an 80 passenger only route, allowing an extra two tonnes of fuel to be carried which solved the fuel flight planning problems.

Sales eventually prevailed on Flight Ops to accept more than the 80 passengers originally agreed upon, being willing to accept the slightly increased risk of a diversion or refuelling stop against the prize of selling more seats on Concorde, and the allowable booking level was gradually allowed to creep up over the years.


… I was always under the impression that weight on Concorde was a major consideration …

You’re correct, it was, but the main reason LHR-BGI was so limiting was not actually the 3,658 nm distance between the two airfields, it was, as GBD has already alluded to, the lack of suitable en-route diversion airfields, once South of the Azores, that caused the flight planning and en-route problems.


… Richard Branson will tell anyone we got them for a £ each, as with much else he said on the subject, it was misleading to say the least …

You might very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment!

Best Regards to all

Bellerophon

Is it just me, or we were missing you on this forum for a few years? Great to see you!

Seconded.
Talking of pax capacity, in 1991, after the Royal US tour using IIIRC G-BOAB, before my time on the fleet, BA Engineering magazine did a feature on the unique VIP modifications to the forward cabin, I am dammed if I can find it, physically or on line.
Or on board footage, though that's to be expected.

Then again, I never found references to the BA L1011-200 for another Royal Tour, to the Mid East, in a time a greater tension it was, again uniquely, fitted with Infra Red Counter Measures, essentially to eject flares, common on military and VIP aircraft now, this was in 1984, not one of the ex BA, now RAF -500's, BA News did a piece, again no trace. Unless it's me?

kalvado wrote:

Bellerophon wrote:

I also greatly enjoy reading GBD’s knowledgeable and informative contributions about Concorde - some of which remind me just how much I’ve forgotten since 2003!

If I may add a few comments to the points GBD and others are making:

… It was a job of work when TCAS became mandatory …

Yes indeed! And after our engineers had laboured long and hard to overcome the technical difficulties associated with fitting TCAS to Concorde, it was a little ironic that the system inhibited itself from issuing any Resolution Advisory (RA) or any aural messages whilst in supersonic flight, ie most of the time! Whilst subsonic however, in my view, TCAS was priceless.


… There is a 20 tons/hour burn number (not sure about exact conditions) …

Not a bad estimate, although at M2.00 and FL500+, I think a more representative figure would have been around 23,000 kg/hr or 20kg/nm.


… we started the scheduled BGI services in the late 1980’s with a stop usually at LIS but as operational experience was gained they became nonstop … [

I’m told (I wasn’t involved at the time), the route was set up as an 80 passenger only route, allowing an extra two tonnes of fuel to be carried which solved the fuel flight planning problems.

Sales eventually prevailed on Flight Ops to accept more than the 80 passengers originally agreed upon, being willing to accept the slightly increased risk of a diversion or refuelling stop against the prize of selling more seats on Concorde, and the allowable booking level was gradually allowed to creep up over the years.


… I was always under the impression that weight on Concorde was a major consideration …

You’re correct, it was, but the main reason LHR-BGI was so limiting was not actually the 3,658 nm distance between the two airfields, it was, as GBD has already alluded to, the lack of suitable en-route diversion airfields, once South of the Azores, that caused the flight planning and en-route problems.


… Richard Branson will tell anyone we got them for a £ each, as with much else he said on the subject, it was misleading to say the least …

You might very well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment!

Best Regards to all

Bellerophon

Is it just me, or we were missing you on this forum for a few years? Great to see you!

GDB and Bellerophon both do excellent posts.

Due to the memory getting vague now as it is 23 years since I retired off Concorde , so i had to go and dig out an old manual to confirm the following .
The maximum number of passengers was 128
With the addition of max number of crew being 11 so giving the max number of souls on board being 139

The aircraft cabin config was altered a number of times with biggest one that I can remember was when carry on wardrobe bags became fashionable , but on Concorde there was no where to stow them. This resulted in two Hanging spaces being added aft of the front galley which would result in taking up one row of of seats Now when the aircraft was delivered new it had 3 toilets in the mid ships position and so one was removed to allow the row to be placed in it's place. The fitting of the wardrobe cause an immediate problem as it covered the front row of windows and so they could not be checked for cracks . This was resolved by replacing the glass with a metal window insert .
When it comes to the number of pax Concorde could have had, you have to always ask yourself where alll their luggage would go, as with 100 pax on board it sometimes was difficult to fit all their luggage in due to space and weight considerations.