4
$\begingroup$

Here is a report of the last journey of Concorde from JFK-LHR, which mentions "The highest altitude we reached was 58000 feet." Is this height aerodynamically feasible to reach?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sure, why not? You should check out the U-2 or SR-71 ceiling. $\endgroup$ – Greg Hewgill Jun 18 '15 at 20:24
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRicherby I mainly wanted an answer to "Is this height aerodynamically feasible to reach?", which can't be googled. I have been here for more than a month now, and do care to not ask those silly questions! $\endgroup$ – anshabhi Jun 19 '15 at 16:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @anshabhi You're asking if the height is feasible to be reached by a specific plane. Googling "concorde maximum height" immediately tells you "Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft)" without you even needing to follow a link. Comparing that answer with the value you're asking about (58,000ft) immediately tells you that it is aerodynamically feasible to reach such an altitude. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Jun 19 '15 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ See also aviation.stackexchange.com/a/17667/1289 $\endgroup$ – RedGrittyBrick Aug 7 '15 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ That answer is a "Peter Kämpf ", the mark of excellence! And ya, if I could I would have marked that as accepted. $\endgroup$ – anshabhi Aug 7 '15 at 17:23
12
$\begingroup$

Yes. The extra height was necessary in order to reach lower pressure air, and thereby reduce drag, and heating of the airframe from supersonic compression of the air.

Concorde's windows were extra small, so that if a window did blow out, the air compression system could actively compensate by pumping air in faster than it could escape, until the pilot completed his emergency descent.

More details can be heard on this podcast.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That was a great episode! Definitely recommended for any Concorde (or even aviation) fan. $\endgroup$ – Greg Hewgill Jun 23 '15 at 20:04
7
$\begingroup$

Yes. According to Wikipedia, Concorde's service ceiling was 60,000ft.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

The density will go down a bit at that altitude compared to normal aircraft, but your airspeed is Mach 2, so that's good. Lift is (among others) a factor of both parameters. Be aware that there is a bit more going on though with supersonic stuff as well.

An increasing number of aircraft are approaching this altitude domain. For instance, the subsonic corporate Gulfstream G650 tops at 51,000ft.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you avoid the term "dynamic pressure"? Adding this should improve the precision of your answer. $\endgroup$ – Peter Kämpf Jun 19 '15 at 16:39
3
$\begingroup$

As per its service celling that would not have been an issue. It should also be noted that Mach 1 (the speed of sound) is about 90 Knots Slower at that altitude.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So when Concorde was said to go Mach 2, is that at the altitude it was flying at or at sea level? $\endgroup$ – Holloway Jun 19 '15 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ Mach 2 is relative to the exterior pressure. I think it could only reach those speeds at higher altitudes for pressure reduction needs. However at that altitude Mach 2 would be slower (ground speed) than at sea level. FWIW the Mach Number is not actually speed so to speak. Its a dimensionless number that depends on local factors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number $\endgroup$ – Dave Jun 19 '15 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ "Mach 2 is relative to the exterior pressure" -- strictly speaking, relative to the exterior temperature, I think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – David Aldridge Dec 26 '16 at 11:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.