Talk:Concorde

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concorde article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 180 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Concorde. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Concorde at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Concorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 30, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 11, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 25, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 21, 2005, January 21, 2006, January 21, 2007, January 21, 2011, January 21, 2013, and January 21, 2016.
Current status: Good article

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.

Bristol High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Gothic architecture#Equilateral arch|gothic arch]] The anchor (#Equilateral arch) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

XB70 converted for commercial use (?)

Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections Jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? There are only 2 prototypes built and they are on display now.-Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion was in the design stage, it was mentioned in a recent documentary on British TV. Needs a proper source for addition here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's a derivative design, not a simple conversion as implied. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adapting might be a better word than converting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

920,000 flying hours, over 600,000 supersonic, by March 1999?

Although this claim added in 2009 seems to be as stated in Jane's (https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140324/http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jae/jae000725_1_n.shtml), and appears elsewhere on the Internet, it is not consistent with the hours planes flew in the article (a total to retirement in 2003 of under 244,000 hours).

Nor does it make sense with an airframe design life of 45,000 flying hours (even if all 20 planes built did this number of hours it would not get to the total - and 5 did less than 1,000 flying hours).

(I wonder if Jane's actually intended to refer to engine hours rather than plane hours.)

Also is there an estimate anywhere of total supersonic hours flown in the western world, as that bit could be true? Robertm25 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertm25 Well spotted! The claims of 920k hours and 600k hours are definitely implausible for the reasons you have given. I have looked at the website you provided immediately above. It is focussed on the Olympus engine so I agree with you that the hours quoted are likely engine hours, not airframe hours. Dolphin (t) 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum speed

The maximum speed says in the first line "1,354 mph (2,179 km/h (...))" (which is btw only a few mi/km above the indicated cruising speed) but in the second titled the same it is "Mach 2.04" (which according to Google is around 2450 km/h, or 2518 km/h by another source). Anyone to clarify this (relatively glaring inconsistency for an awarded article)? Martin Gazdík (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of sound varies depending on the altitude at which the vehicle is operating. I'm not a physicist, so I don't understand all the nuances, but I believe it has something to do with the thinner air at higher altitudes. 1995hoo (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of sound does not vary depending on altitude, although this fact regularly puzzles most people. It can be proved that the speed of sound varies with the temperature of the air. At progressively higher altitudes the air temperature decreases (at the rate of approximately 2 degrees Celsius every 1,000 feet.) As a consequence of the decline in air temperature with increasing altitude, the speed of sound also declines with altitude. In the stratosphere the temperature remains approximately constant regardless of altitude so, in this part of the atmosphere, the speed of sound also remains approximately constant.

All aircraft have a maximum indicated airspeed specified in knots, kilometres per hour, etc. Jet-engine aircraft and other high-flying and high-speed aircraft also have a maximum Mach number. At low altitudes the limit on indicated airspeed is the more restrictive of the two so it is the one the pilot must monitor closely; at high altitudes the limit on Mach number is the more restrictive so it is the one the pilot must monitor more closely. Dolphin (t) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add a Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era?

I tried today to add this template, but ended up just messing up the See also area and I gave up, but I would love to have this in the article. I'm thinking Boeing 2707, Tu-144, and the Lockheed L-2000 to be added. Forevernewyes (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practice there is just the Tupelov, the others never left the drawing board. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive seen many real planes have the "See also" section have drawing board planes, also both had mockups made of them, so i see that as pretty reasonable to add. Just a thought A-37Dragonfly (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that the B-2707 had been developed for several years, and had a mockup built like the L-2000. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that in any way relevant to this article? Congress pulled the plug before a prototype was even assembled, much less flew. We don’t need to lard up every article with trivia. 1995hoo (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have all ready been spun out) or reduced as too much detail.
In relation to the above, there are some sections that are too long. I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs.
The lede, at 5 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended 4 paragraphs at WP:LEADLENGTH.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns. I had a quick look and can see scope for some major pruning. John (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]