45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
45 points (89.5% liked)
Technology
87002 readers
2906 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I was not aware that the concorde flew for about 25 years? That's honestly pretty amazing.
Overall unnecessary though. Unless they demonstrate that it's somehow more efficient, by flying higher and faster and the trip being shorter? I doubt it though.
The Concorde cut a 7-8 hour transatlantic flight to under 3.5 hours. People didn't fly the Concorde to arrive four hours sooner. The difference of not being stuffed in a giant Tylenol for an extra four hours was the greatest selling point.
People absolutely used the Concorde to arrive four hours sooner. It's short flight time made it possible for bussiness execs to have meetings on the other side of the ocean and be back home on the same day back when video calls weren't an option yet.
I’m reminded of when Phil Collins flew the concorde so he could perform at both Live Aid concerts in 1985.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-phil-collins-played-at-wembley-stadium-hoped-a-flight-on-the-concorde-and-landed-three-hours-later-to-play-at-jfk-stadium-in-philadelphia/amp/
Efficiency per passenger mile is the big question. I'll probably be worse than subsonic aircraft, but I'd guess that some of the technologies that make SS travel possible may make subsonic travel more efficient.
I wouldn't count on that. if a plane is optimized for efficiency during the longest part of its flight, which would presumably be supersonic cruise at high altitude, a bunch of things that make modern airliners as efficient as they are (blended winglets, and turbofan engines where the fan generates more thrust than the actual turbine engine exhaust) are directly counter to that
It's an entirely different kind of flying. All together!
It's an entirely different kind of flying.