AHC: Keep the Concordes in the air

As the title says, after the air france concorde air disaster, keep the concorde's in operating afterwards and into the present. It can be even taken out of commission for redevelopment.

How exactly does this happen?
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
I wonder if it could have been used as a VIP Transport for France or Britain as a prestife thing.

Then again, HM Treasury and the french equivalent would have had a fit.
 
What if more airframes had been delivered? Say a place for W Germany in its manufacturing so Lufthansa bought another 5 to 7 or Braniff or PanAm or TWA got another 7 or more. It hurts the London to NYC market to double or triple the number of supersonic flights but with a fatter inventory you have airframes to replace the loss(es) giving it more depth.
 
keep the concorde's in operating afterwards and into the present.

To keep the concorde, or its modern equivalent flying to the present day, you need to keep oil price. Because if the concorde wasn't retired in the early 2000's it will certainly got once the oil price went to the roof in 2008 onward.
 
Boeing 2707 *or* NAC-60 with J58 engines, the same used on the A-12/SR-71 (especially the 'J' or better still 'K' variant - if not a more modernized version. A variant of this idea was actually proposed for a US supersonic transport but did not come to fruition. Max thrust on an SR-71 will burn 8000 gallons/hour of JP-7, which will probably be more expensive in the beginning due to the nature of what is needed to make it. This amount per engine is actually not much different than the four Olympus 593 engines on the Concorde despite producing twice as much speed with only two engines. Please note that the J58 engines are also each 1000 lb lighter than the Rolls Royce Olympus 593s used in the Concorde. Gross takeoff weight for the Concorde (vs SR-71) is 245k lbs (152k lbs), fuel capacity is just shy of 211,000 lbs / 31,595.5 gallons (12,219 gallons [6.675 lb/gallon for JP-7]), and range would be calculated further. Given that the SR-71 range at 3250 miles with twice as many engines carrying 61.184% more weight (80.6% weight/engine) with 258.6% more gas (129.3% more per engine) I figure on a range of ([3250/0.806]*1.293) = 5213 miles if pursuing top speed most of the way (i.e. about Mach 3.3). If those 4000 pounds became 600 gallons more JP-7 that range becomes approx. ([3250/0.806]*1.31762) = 5313 miles for a Concorde body, though max speed is more than doubled from Mach 1.5 to Mach 3.3 so range might be 2.2x this (approx. 10,000 miles ferry range).

For real fun, resurrect the Orenda Iroquois engine from Canada. It weighs 4650 lbs (2350 lb *per engine* savings over the Rolls Royce and 1350 lb per engine over the J-58), it will probably get to Mach 2.5 (its thrust is approx. 0.75 that of the J58), its fuel consumption at max thrust is comparable on a per-kN basis (although this means it will have greater range) and it actually performs fairly well at subsonic speeds - all without the need for special fuel. Thus its fuel weighs 6 lb/gallon instead of 6.675 lb/gallon and you could get 5400 lb more for fuel, or 900 gallons. Using a Breguet range calculator (https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/aeronautics/breguet-range-calculator.php) if it travels at max speed (850.72 m/s) with a lift/drag ratio of 15, specific fuel combustion of 1.9, starting weight of 413000 lbs, and ending weight of 190,000 lbs, the theoretical range is about 5200 miles. A lift/drag ratio of 7 yields a range of 2786 miles using the Iroquois engines. Using the actual specs from the concorde gives a theoretical range of just over 3050 miles, though reported range is almost 4500 miles, or about 1.48x greater that theoretical while the Iroquois would also travel about 25% faster with additional fuel. Given these parameters, (2786*1.48*1.25*1.044) = just over 5380 miles, about 62 miles shy of the distance from LA to London. Again, specific flight testing would be needed to find out for sure.

https://www.456fis.org/PRATT_&_WHITNEY_J58_ENGINE.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Iroquois
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

Other possible bodies for a competing supersonic transport in the 1970s or, if reworked, 1980s/1990s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-244
 
After a 27 year service life and 16 airframe production run the Concorde probably couldn't be saved in 2003.

However, with a big production run of Concorde B (76 orders in May 1971) and the US SSTs (115 orders May 1971) the inevitable crash wouldn't have forced the fleet out of service.
 
With regards to the Iroquois? Take that wiki page with a HUGE grain of salt.
It was indeed far ahead of it's time (on paper) but was thoroughly immature at the point of the project cancellation.

Imagine a CF-104 with this beast of an engine pushing it?
The fact that this never happened shows that Orenda still had a long row to hoe in achieving IOC with this particular powerplant, but I am on board with the idea that this part of the "Arrow2" should have remained funded by the RCAF.
The OEL-7 (Canadian/Orenda built J79) which later powered our CF-104's actually incorporated some minor engineering "tweaks" that were a result of the work done on Iroquois and these motors were indeed "peculiar" to the CF-104G/D.

My God we were certainly ambitious as a Nation back then...
If it were that some other (RR/Turbonecma) entity wanted to pursue it (Iroquois) further, then there's always the problem of the large scale destruction of the engineering records accumulated during the development/testing phase.
This is the part that irks me the most about the manner in which the project was cancelled.
An air frame and it's attendant avionics suite are both subject to (almost immediate) obsolescence... but an aero-engine design that is on the cutting edge will remain relevant for decades to come, once it goes operational. See the J85, F101, F404 and J79 as exemplars.
The RCAF (that's who ACTUALLY binned the entire CF-105 project) was justified in canning the air frame and weapon system (due to budget pressures), but they missed the boat when they canned the Iroquois project.
This (Arrow) has always been one of those "hot button" topics and it's not my intent to re-open that particular can of worms.

My Dad is a 35 year RCAF guy; Joined in 1952 and got out in 1987 (CWO Retired). We've had a few "interesting" conversations about the "Arrow thing" over the years...(his perceptions vs. my research).
At the time it (Arrow cancellation) was a serious punch in the gut to guys like him, and I grew up listening to his "thoughts" about John Diefenbaker (NSFW...LOL).
In the Spring of 1959 he was in (1F Wing) Marville with the Air Division (Air Traffic Controller).
Anyways? Just chirping off for lack of anything better to do at the moment.

More than a Iroquois powered Concorde? I'd really love to see Kelly's death tube with this kind of power up its arse.
But I digress.
 
As the title says, after the air france concorde air disaster, keep the concorde's in operating afterwards and into the present. It can be even taken out of commission for redevelopment.

How exactly does this happen?

Following the July 2000 crash of an Air France Concorde, eighteen of the original twenty hulls were left in existence: 7 in British Airways, 5 in Air France (of the other two, one had crashed and another broken up for spares) and six prototypes, 3 in France (001, 102, 201) and 3 in Britain (002, 101, 202). After some discussion the British Cabinet decided to purchase all of them and militarise them. The nominal reason was to create unique executive transport under the Queen's Flight and high-level research aircraft for various research establishments. Four were dedicated to the Queen's Flight (Spirit of Albion, Spirit of Belfast, Spirit of Cardiff and Spirit of Dundee) and the rest to 666 Squadron at Filton.

The QF Concorde's livery is distinctive, with each aircraft being Eurowhite with detailing in the various national colours : green, red, blue and white, although there is some debate as to whether this was a Thunderbirds in joke, encouraged by the font on the lettering.

The research aircraft ply their courses regularly across the Atlantic, testing classified scanning equipment underpinned by black budget contributions from a joint US/Canadian research program and occasionally carrying out classified missions for the US DoD or UK research programs descended from SOE.

Each aircraft has been modified to include a refuelling probe and receptacle, a shielded cargo hold for the scanning equipment, an APU in the tail and a cradle to retrieve balloon- or parachute-tethered cargo dropped from orbit, flying at altitude, or ascending from the ground. With auxiliary fuel tanks and a skeleton crew of four, the aircraft has a much-increased range and with airborne refuelling routinely do six to seven thousand mile round trips.

They are regarded as extremely valuable and versatile aircraft by their overt and covert client organisations who regard their capabilities as akin to a sleeping giant on awakening. Hence the squadron motto "The Sleeper Awakes", although the Everyman Ministry (2014-present) has ordered a new more inclusive motto, the "Black Pharaohs" to reflect a more racially mixed RAF.
 
Last edited:
With regards to the Iroquois? Take that wiki page with a HUGE grain of salt.
It was indeed far ahead of it's time (on paper) but was thoroughly immature at the point of the project cancellation.]

The whole B-47 thing didn't help either, but the performance of the jet IMO was also concerning to the other powers as the US had very few competitive engines at the time and one of them needed *very* specialized fuel to run. The 1959 UK White Paper that essentially ended manned fighter aircraft development at the time did not help either. Please also note that prototype Iroquois engines ran for a combined 7000 hours of testing including at simulated altitudes as high as 70k feet and speeds of 1750+ MPH, so I'm not sure about the design being so immature. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Engines)

Imagine a CF-104 with this beast of an engine pushing it?
The fact that this never happened shows that Orenda still had a long row to hoe in achieving IOC with this particular powerplant, but I am on board with the idea that this part of the "Arrow2" should have remained funded by the RCAF.
The OEL-7 (Canadian/Orenda built J79) which later powered our CF-104's actually incorporated some minor engineering "tweaks" that were a result of the work done on Iroquois and these motors were indeed "peculiar" to the CF-104G/D.

An Iroquois variant (mk3 if memory serves) was already underway when the Arrow project was cancelled. Net thrust was *much* greater than that of the original model with a flight ceiling in the 70k foot range, albeit the aircraft would be at least 25% heavier. A fighter in the 1950s that would more closely match one from the 1970s might be a threat to...well, everyone, in some way. It would be ten years before the YJ93 would appear in the US with similar characteristics, granted there were other engines that were able to perform to that level but most were *very* specialized. There was also some investigation into a long-range Arrow derivative with performance in the range of the A-12/SR-71.

My God we were certainly ambitious as a Nation back then...
If it were that some other (RR/Turbonecma) entity wanted to pursue it (Iroquois) further, then there's always the problem of the large scale destruction of the engineering records accumulated during the development/testing phase.
This is the part that irks me the most about the manner in which the project was cancelled.
An air frame and it's attendant avionics suite are both subject to (almost immediate) obsolescence... but an aero-engine design that is on the cutting edge will remain relevant for decades to come, once it goes operational. See the J85, F101, F404 and J79 as exemplars.

I think the aircraft made its debut the same day Sputnik launched - it was an ambitious time with a lot of dreams and hopes, as well as a lot of danger and paranoia. It was indeed an advanced aircraft for its time, so much so that one of the Arrow prototypes is still missing, apparently some believe Ottawa hid it as some sort of contingency. I'm not sure which one it was or if it might have a more advanced engine on board.

The RCAF (that's who ACTUALLY binned the entire CF-105 project) was justified in canning the air frame and weapon system (due to budget pressures), but they missed the boat when they canned the Iroquois project.
This (Arrow) has always been one of those "hot button" topics and it's not my intent to re-open that particular can of worms.

Ultimately the American Space Program benefitted greatly from the Avro shutdown and breakup, two or three dozen Avro guys ended up running large parts of the design/R&D side for various manned programs...

My Dad is a 35 year RCAF guy; Joined in 1952 and got out in 1987 (CWO Retired). We've had a few "interesting" conversations about the "Arrow thing" over the years...(his perceptions vs. my research).
At the time it (Arrow cancellation) was a serious punch in the gut to guys like him, and I grew up listening to his "thoughts" about John Diefenbaker (NSFW...LOL).
In the Spring of 1959 he was in (1F Wing) Marville with the Air Division (Air Traffic Controller).
Anyways? Just chirping off for lack of anything better to do at the moment.

More than a Iroquois powered Concorde? I'd really love to see Kelly's death tube with this kind of power up its arse.
But I digress.

Personally I'd prefer to see an SST with the advanced Iroquois variant. Imagine a four-engine Concorde with *each* pushing 200kN - even weighing 25% more than the original Iroquois, these engines would be more powerful, weigh 1200 pounds less each, and potentially more fuel efficient than those on the Concorde. Now imagine the SST going Mach 3 or more - LA to Sydney in ~3.5 hours...maybe less...and potentially the range to make it possible...
 
Last edited:
*B-47 thing: CL-52 was the project name for an Iroquois engine being attached to a B-47 airframe (interestingly known for metal fatigue prior to refits in 1958 while the CL-52 trial was in 1957 I believe), which warped severely and was scrapped on return to the US. Note that B-47 engines: 6 x J47s, each weighed 2554 pounds with a thrust of 5970 lb*f (vs 6970 lb*f under certain conditions) w/ specific fuel consumption of 1.014 lb/(lb*f). The Iroquois engine, on the other had, had to be fitted on the right rear fuselage as there was reportedly nowhere else to put it. But the specs on the Iroquois engine were also of interest, weight of 4650 lb, thrust of 20,000 lb(lb*f) if not afterburning or 'dry' (30k when afterburning or 'wet'), with specific fuel consumption of 0.85 when 'dry' (1.9 when 'wet'). Feasibly it would be possible to remove *three* J47s (and replace them with *one* Orenda Iroquois engine); in doing so total weight would be decreased by over 3000 pounds per side from 7662 pounds (to 4650 pounds), thrust would change from 17,100 lb*f [or 20,100 lb*f] to 20,000 lb*f (or 30,000 lb*f if 'wet') while fuel consumption would improve by 19.3% if 'dry' (or decline if 'wet'). If the 6000 pounds saved in the engines is used for 1000 extra gallons of fuel, the total fuel onboard increases from 17,000 gallons to 18,000 gallons, or an increase of 5.88%. Total combat range then improves from 2013 miles (to 2542.6 miles) while ferry range improves from 4647 miles (to 5869.7 miles). As it was, the force of the engine was reportedly enough to warp the airframe - but the it still flew for a recorded total of 35 hours...?
 
I seem to recall reading once that a not insignificant number of the Concorde's regular passengers were people who died in 911. Even without it the Concorde would be coming to the end of it's natural lifespan anyway so the only way you would get it still flying now would be a POD in the 1970s.
 
IIRC the potential problem with the fuel tank was known beforehand, although not how dangerous it actually was. Perhaps that, or an earlier near miss incident where debris on the runway causes damage but not a disaster, prompts air safety to mandate the retrofitting of protection. Without a major incident it would allow them to run on until they become economically unviable or had technical support withdrawn.


I seem to recall that Richard Branson wanted to buy at least some of the aircraft was refused.
I've always been highly sceptical of his claims of wanting to do so. Branson has always been a showman and having been involved in some major disputes with British Airways in the past saw an opportunity to generate some good publicity for himself at no cost since he knew it was never going anywhere.


To keep the Concorde, or its modern equivalent flying to the present day, you need to keep oil price [down].
There was a Concorde B proposal which along with a number of other changes included updating the engines to improve fuel consumption and remove the need for reheat. I don't remember the exact figures but 10% seems to ring a bell. It would have made the aircraft quieter. Fuel price is still going to be a problem but every little helps.
 
Top