Concorde?

CaptainSkidmark

Ive never seen this picture before!

IM guessing by the reg that this livery was a very short term affair?



Was there any other airlines did this?

And also.... What other routes did the concorde offer bar Paris-London-new york?

scudzilla

I'm pretty sure it made frequent trips to The Bahamas

That pic not photoshopped in anyway?

CaptainSkidmark

no, not on airliners id say

troposphere

On 26 October 1977, BA and Singapore Airlines announced an agreement for a thrice-weekly Concorde service between London and Singapore via Bahrain. On 09 December 1977, BA and Singapore Airlines started a service between LHR and Singapore - Paya Lebar via Bahrain, bringing the travel time to only 9 hours.

The Concorde assigned to the Singapore route was G-BOAD (c/n 210), The airplane was easily identified, as it had been repainted with the Singapore Airlines' livery on its left side, while BA's was kept on the right side.

The service was withdrawn on 13 December 1977 after only 3 return flights, because of complaints from the Malaysian government about the supersonic boom over the Straits of Malacca, on the West coast of Malaysia. But in the summer of the same year, Malaysia Airlines plans of further capacity increase on the London route were denied in order to protect BA and Cathy Pacific, causing a clash between the Malaysian and British governments. In addition to these difficult relations, Singapore Airlines was a tough Malaysian competitor.

Even though the service was not running the aircraft kept the Singapore Airlines livery during this time, giving them a free adverts as the aircraft was utilised on other routes, including flights to the USA

On 24 January 1979 the service was resumed with new routings avoiding Malaysia and a recommended take-off from runway 02 at SIN to avoid flying over the Malaysian state of Johore. The service was ended for good on 01 November 1980, mainly because of falling traffic on the route, which was reportedly losing around £2 millions a year. The loads had been very low, especially on westbound flights. The operations, especially at subsonic speeds, were extremely expensive, demanding load factors that could not be achieved.

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/sia.html

mickdw

As far as Im aware, the only other operator of concorde was braniff airways in the us who operated a route between dallas & washington.
They never painted an aircraft as it was short lived but interestingly, braniff for some reason had to obtain there own US airworthyness certification & this had to be swapped in to the aircraft when being operated by Braniff. A Braniff crew also flew this route. The aircraft had to also carry a braniff registration number for this flight also but they had some way of just changing the number temporary

There was also a PEPSI branded concorde for a period of time.


In 3d for extra effect!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Run_to_da_hills

Iran Air placed an order for two Concordes in 1972 but had them cancelled after the revolution, they managed to lease one for a short period.



Picture of promotional model in Iran Air livery.

lord lucan

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Concorde SST site says that's an artists impression apparently.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

lord lucan

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

LOL,never noticed the lack of windows myself!:D

Run_to_da_hills

lord lucan wrote: »

LOL,never noticed the lack of windows myself!:D

Freight version.

Danbo!

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Windows are probably in the red strip. Concorde windows were really tiny.

mickdw

They definitely never painted it in those Braniff colours. Im 100% certain of that. Its a mock up but yes the windows would be in the red stripe if it was real

pclancy

Am I right in saying concorde had no in flight entertainment? Feck imagine 9 hours of sitting in a tiny cabin...even flying supersonic would get old after a few hours

drBill

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I seem to remember hearing way back that the Pepsi colours caused problems in that the darker colour caused the flying surface to overheat at supersonic speeds (due to increased friction? radiation absorbancy?) and consequently the aircraft could not reach its top speed while in those colours. I agree, it still looks great though.

Apparently this was one of a series of marketing disasters that hit Pepsi around that time. Hard to imagine overheating at such high altitude though. Anyone else remember that or did I imagine it?

Danbo!

pclancy wrote: »

Am I right in saying concorde had no in flight entertainment? Feck imagine 9 hours of sitting in a tiny cabin...even flying supersonic would get old after a few hours

It did have a display saying how fast they were going (mach) and the altitude. That'd be enough for me.

mikedragon32

Danbo! wrote: »

It did have a display saying how fast they were going (mach) and the altitude. That'd be enough for me.

And an open door to the flight deck. Dude in 1b seems to be enjoying craning his neck!

mickdw

drBill wrote: »

I seem to remember hearing way back that the Pepsi colours caused problems in that the darker colour caused the flying surface to overheat at supersonic speeds (due to increased friction? radiation absorbancy?) and consequently the aircraft could not reach its top speed while in those colours. I agree, it still looks great though.

Yes that was said at the time. The designers insisted that speed would be limited due to the differing heat radiating properties of the blue paint. The fuselage did expand in length by about 8" when at mach 2 & one of the positions where this could be seen was at the side of the flight engineers panel in the cockpit. This is where the flight engineers famously jammed their caps.
Ive been to see concorde in filton Bristol. Very interesting. Pity its now taken off display there as its a very complete aircraft and the tour allowed great access to cockpit etc as well as a bus drive through the airbus facility to get to the concorde.

I dont think it really needed in flight entertainment. Newyork in around 3 hours. By the time the fine dining was fiinished, you would be there.

Tenger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iran Air placed an order for two Concordes in 1972 but had them cancelled after the revolution, they managed to lease one for a short period.

Sure even Aer Lingus put a deposit down for 2 of the proposed Boeing SST in the 1970s. Supersonic was seen as the future until the Oil Crisis of 1973-1974.

pclancy wrote: »

Am I right in saying concorde had no in flight entertainment? Feck imagine 9 hours of sitting in a tiny cabin...even flying supersonic would get old after a few hours

Flight time LHR-JFK was only about 3 1/2 hours I think.

Danbo!

Tenger wrote: »

Flight time LHR-JFK was only about 3 1/2 hours I think.

mickdw wrote: »

I dont think it really needed in flight entertainment. Newyork in around 3 hours. By the time the fine dining was fiinished, you would be there.

Think pclancy was referring to the London Singapore route which was 9 hours.

pclancy

Yep. I flew from Bangkok to Frankfurt with pretty much no IFE recently and it nearly killed me . 12 Hours of boredom and screaming babies.

Davidth88

Concorde's range was pretty limited , I am sure it would not have done Singapore in one leg.

I vaguely remembered the Braniff one , my reaction to this thread was Braniff straight away , but according to the ' interweb ' it never was in that colours so maybe I was mistaken.

The joking amongst the spotters at LHR during the late 70's/80s was that Concorde's biggest failing was the lack of 6 letters on the side

B O E I N G .

cyrusdvirus

Davidth88 wrote: »

Concorde's range was pretty limited , I am sure it would not have done Singapore in one leg.

I vaguely remembered the Braniff one , my reaction to this thread was Braniff straight away , but according to the ' interweb ' it never was in that colours so maybe I was mistaken.

The joking amongst the spotters at LHR during the late 70's/80s was that Concorde's biggest failing was the lack of 6 letters on the side

B O E I N G .

It suffered from the American Engineering NIH syndrome.

mickdw

Danbo! wrote: »

Think pclancy was referring to the London Singapore route which was 9 hours.

But it couldnt fly 9 hours non stop Im pretty sure. Certainly the London to Singapore route had a stopover in Bahrain which is roughly half way.

Davidth88

The original route was to Bahrain , before the US decided that having SST coming there was not going to kill everyone .

Tea 1000

Davidth88 wrote: »

Concorde's range was pretty limited , I am sure it would not have done Singapore in one leg.

I vaguely remembered the Braniff one , my reaction to this thread was Braniff straight away , but according to the ' interweb ' it never was in that colours so maybe I was mistaken.

The joking amongst the spotters at LHR during the late 70's/80s was that Concorde's biggest failing was the lack of 6 letters on the side

B O E I N G .

Probably makes sense that the 9 hours includes a refuelling stop. I think a 747 can do the run in approx 12 hours, so non-stop a Concorde should be closer to 6 hours than 9, so that explains the 9hrs.

mickdw

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Probably makes sense that the 9 hours includes a refuelling stop. I think a 747 can do the run in approx 12 hours, so non-stop a Concorde should be closer to 6 hours than 9, so that explains the 9hrs.

Much of the flight would be sub sonic too though due to the flight over land.