[avernon]

The Concorde basically used afterburners. It used fuel at incredible rates. Boom is using more modern engine technology that can achieve the high cruise speeds using less fuel. This also increases effective range.

So it solves 2,3, and 4. Can do Pacific. Cheaper to operate. Can be used on all overseas routes.

[mshook]

Concorde engines were actually some of the most efficient ones while cruising above Mach 1.7 (because afterburners were only used to take off and to go transonic until M1.7). So it was efficient but only when flying fast.

Wiki says: The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in supersonic cruising flight (supercruise) was about 43%, which at the time was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

[masklinn]

That's basically all fast flying planes. Engines are designed and tuned for cruising speed, not for going up to cruising speed.

The SR-71 was not exactly manoeuvrable or efficient at low speeds, its efficiency range was above M3.

[defaultname]

Flying above the speed of sound without using afterburners is referred to as supercruise, and it is something the Concorde was capable of doing.

There aren't a lot of supercruise aircraft out there. The F22, for instance, can supercruise effectively, but the F35 cannot.

[iab]

True, but in defense of the F-35 it also can't fly very far

[kayodelycaon]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

The Concorde only needed afterburners to get to speed and altitude. They did not use afterburners for supersonic flight at altitude.

According to someone on the talk page, the Concord's engines acted as ramjets at high altitude.

[mshook]

Not at all, the magic was in the intake which slowed down the air so the turbojet engine could use it. And that's why it was so efficient when flying at VMAX.

Wiki again: Forces from the internal airflow on the intake structure are rearwards (drag) on the initial converging section, where the supersonic deceleration takes place, and forwards on the diverging duct where subsonic deceleration takes place up to the engine entry. The sum of the 2 forces at cruise gave the 63% thrust contribution from the intake part of the propulsion system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

[kayodelycaon]

Wow. This is cool. Looks like cutting-edge technology for 1972. (Apollo 11 landing was in 1969) The engines had digital control system connected to digital sensors in the front of the plane.

[mshook]

It was cutting edge and in a way the Franco-British Apollo program in terms of engineering. I mean not only in terms of speed, but engines, material, fly by wire, anti skid (aka abs), carbon brakes, CoG adjustment to reduce drag, even the now common Airbus flight stick was tested on Concorde...

I remember reading a book by an engineer from the Concorde program (he's from the UK) who got invited by the Americans working on the B-1 bomber (which was initially supposed to be a M2.2 thing).

They wanted to exchange about air intakes problems such as efficiency, surges, and all. The author was not impressed at all by what had been developed and tested on the B-1. And he thought what they had on Concorde was so much more advanced (he might have been totally biased of course).

Because as people say, Concorde was not tested, it was developed (hence the many prototypes, pre-production and first production models) because a lot of the technology had to be created and if it didn't, it had to be modified to be usable on a civilian aircraft.

A classic example is pulling the throttle all the way back while at full speed: on most fighter jets of the era, you'd completely trash the turbine if you did that. So they had to create a plane which did the right thing for pilots who weren't trained like fighter pilots...

It was also a case of doing all the wrong thing in terms of management. Like assembling two of the same things on each side of the Channel to please respective governments...

[kleton]

>[Concorde] used reheat (afterburners) only at take-off and to pass through the upper transonic regime to supersonic speeds

The Concorde was capable of supercruise.

[gsnedders]

Note that the Concorde B (which never happened due to the eventual low sales of Concorde A) would've had no afterburners, and been quieter for climb-out and significantly lower fuel burn; it certainly was getting within reach during the time period of its development.

[avernon]

https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/will-boom-supersonics-...

[mnw21cam]

Concorde only used the afterburner in takeoff, and while transitioning to supersonic. It would happily cruise supersonic without the afterburner.

Still, we have had a few years of engine technology improvements since then.