Editing Concorde (section)

==Development==

===Early studies===
In the early 1950s, [[Arnold Hall]], director of the [[Royal Aircraft Establishment]] (RAE), asked [[Morien Morgan]] to form a committee to study [[supersonic transport]] (SST). The group met in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=35}} [[Robert Thomas Jones (engineer)|Robert T. Jones]]' work at [[NACA]] had demonstrated that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/robert-t-jones/|title=Robert T. Jones|date=10 August 2015|website=NASA}}</ref> This led to the use of short-span, thin, trapezoidal wings such as those seen on the control surfaces of many missiles, or aircraft such as the [[Lockheed F-104 Starfighter]] interceptor or the planned [[Avro 730]] strategic bomber that the team studied. The team outlined a baseline configuration that resembled an enlarged Avro 730.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}}

This short wingspan produced little lift at low speed, resulting in long take-off runs and high landing speeds.<ref>Meyer, Jan. [http://starfighter.no/web/hi-alt.html "High altitude flying with F-104"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140103071113/http://www.starfighter.no/web/hi-alt.html |date=3 January 2014}}, Starfighterens veneer Norge.</ref> In an SST design, this would have required enormous engine power to lift off from existing runways, and to provide the fuel needed, "some horribly large aeroplanes" resulted.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}} Based on this, the group considered the concept of an SST infeasible, and instead suggested continued low-level studies into supersonic aerodynamics.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}}

===Slender deltas===
Soon after, [[Johanna Weber]] and [[Dietrich Küchemann]] at the RAE published a series of reports on a new wing [[Planform (aeronautics)|planform]], known in the UK as the "slender delta".<ref name='deltawing'>{{cite journal |url=http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A6825061AH&q=Concorde+Delta&uid=788872723|title=The development of the slender delta concept|journal=Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology|author=Maltby, R.L.|volume=40|issue=3 |pages=12–17|date=1968|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130526165008/http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A6825061AH&q=Concorde+Delta&uid=788872723&setcookie=yes|archive-date=26 May 2013|doi=10.1108/eb034350|issn=0002-2667|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=aerosoc>{{cite web|url=http://aerosociety.com/News/Society-News/2742/OBITUARY-DR-JOHANNA-WEBER|title=Obituary: Dr Johanna Weber|publisher=[[Royal Aeronautical Society]]|date=12 January 2015|last=Green|first=John|access-date=16 July 2015|archive-date=13 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150713072633/http://aerosociety.com/News/Society-News/2742/OBITUARY-DR-JOHANNA-WEBER|url-status=live}}</ref> The team, including Eric Maskell whose report "Flow Separation in Three Dimensions" contributed to an understanding of separated flow,<ref>''Three Centuries To Concorde'', Charles Burnet, Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., {{ISBN|0 85298 412 X}}, p. 236</ref> worked with the fact that [[delta wing]]s can produce strong [[vortex|vortices]] on their upper surfaces at high [[angle of attack|angles of attack]].{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}} The vortex will lower the air pressure and cause lift. This had been noticed by [[Chuck Yeager]] in the [[Convair XF-92]], but its qualities had not been fully appreciated. Weber suggested that the effect could be used to improve low-speed performance.<ref name=aerosoc />{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}}

Küchemann and Weber's papers changed the entire nature of supersonic design. The delta had already been used on aircraft, but these designs used planforms that were not much different from a [[swept wing]] of the same span. Weber noted that the lift from the vortex was increased by the length of the wing it had to operate over, which suggested that the effect would be maximised by extending the wing along the fuselage as far as possible. Such a layout would still have good supersonic performance, but also have reasonable take-off and landing speeds using vortex generation.<ref name=aerosoc /> The aircraft would have to take off and land very "nose high" to generate the required [[vortex lift]], which led to questions about the low-speed handling qualities of such a design.<ref name=brown />

Küchemann presented the idea at a meeting where Morgan was also present. Test pilot [[Eric Brown (pilot)|Eric Brown]] recalls Morgan's reaction to the presentation, saying that he immediately seized on it as the solution to the SST problem. Brown considers this moment as being the birth of the Concorde project.<ref name=brown>Eric Brown, [https://books.google.com/books?id=MMEK1jwD03AC&pg=PT121 "Wings On My Sleeve"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161122100612/https://books.google.com/books?id=MMEK1jwD03AC&pg=PT121 |date=22 November 2016}}, Hachette UK, 2008, end of Chapter 12</ref>

===Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee===
[[File:HP.115.gif|thumb|The HP.115 tested the low-speed performance of the slender delta layout.]]

On 1 October 1956, the [[Ministry of Supply]] asked Morgan to form a new study group, the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC){{sfn|Conway|2005|p=39}} (sometimes referred to as the Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee), to develop a practical SST design and find industry partners to build it. At the first meeting, on 5 November 1956, the decision was made to fund the development of a test-bed aircraft to examine the low-speed performance of the slender delta, a contract that eventually produced the [[Handley Page HP.115]].<ref name=brown /> This aircraft demonstrated safe control at speeds as low as {{convert|69|mph|abbr=on}}, about one-third that of the F-104 Starfighter.{{sfn|Winchester|2005b|p=134}}

STAC stated that an SST would have economic performance similar to existing subsonic types.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}} Lift is not generated the same way at supersonic and subsonic speeds, with the [[lift-to-drag ratio]] for supersonic designs being about half that of subsonic designs.<ref>{{cite tech report |url=https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trcircular/333/333-004.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220331221930/https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trcircular/333/333-004.pdf |archive-date=31 March 2022 |url-status=live |page=43 |title= The Impact of Emerging Technologies of an Advanced Supersonic Transport |first1=Cornelius |last1=Driver |first2=Domenic |last2=Maglieri}}</ref> The aircraft would need more thrust than a subsonic design of the same size. Although they would use more fuel in cruise, they would be able to fly more revenue-earning flights in a given time, so fewer aircraft would be needed to service a particular route. This would remain economically advantageous as long as fuel represented a small percentage of operational costs.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}}

STAC suggested that two designs naturally fell out of their work, a transatlantic model flying at about Mach 2, and a shorter-range version flying at Mach 1.2. Morgan suggested that a 150-passenger transatlantic SST would cost about £75 to £90&nbsp;million to develop, and be in service in 1970. The smaller 100-passenger short-range version would cost perhaps £50 to £80&nbsp;million, and be ready for service in 1968. To meet this schedule, development would need to begin in 1960, with production contracts let in 1962.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=67}} Morgan suggested that the US was already involved in a similar project, and that if the UK failed to respond, it would be locked out of an airliner market that he believed would be dominated by SST aircraft.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=68}}

In 1959, a study contract was awarded to [[Hawker Siddeley]] and [[Bristol Aeroplane Company|Bristol]] for preliminary designs based on the slender delta,{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=69}} which developed as the [[Hawker Siddeley HSA.1000|HSA.1000]] and [[Bristol Type 223#STAC|Bristol 198]]. [[Armstrong Whitworth]] also responded with an internal design, the M-Wing, for the lower-speed, shorter-range category. Both the STAC group and the government were looking for partners to develop the designs. In September 1959, Hawker approached [[Lockheed Corporation|Lockheed]], and after the creation of [[British Aircraft Corporation]] in 1960, the former Bristol team immediately started talks with [[Boeing]], [[General Dynamics]], [[Douglas Aircraft]], and [[Sud Aviation]].{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=69}}

===Ogee planform selected===
Küchemann and others at the RAE continued their work on the slender delta throughout this period, considering three basic shapes - the classic straight-edge delta, the "gothic delta" that was rounded outward to appear like a [[Gothic architecture#Equilateral arch|gothic arch]], and the "[[ogive|ogival]] wing" that was compound-rounded into the shape of an [[ogee]]. Each of these planforms had advantages and disadvantages. As they worked with these shapes, a practical concern grew to become so important that it forced selection of one of these designs.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=40}}

[[File:Bristol Type 223 top-view silhouette.png|thumb|Plan-view silhouette of the Bristol Type 223 SST project]]
Generally, the wing's [[Center of pressure (fluid mechanics)|centre of pressure]] (CP, or "lift point") should be close to the aircraft's [[centre of gravity]] (CG, or "balance point") to reduce the amount of control force required to [[Pitch axis (kinematics)|pitch]] the aircraft. As the aircraft layout changes during the design phase, the CG commonly moves fore or aft. With a normal wing design, this can be addressed by moving the wing slightly fore or aft to account for this. With a delta wing running most of the length of the fuselage, this was no longer easy; moving the wing would leave it in front of the nose or behind the tail. Studying the various layouts in terms of CG changes, both during design and changes due to fuel use during flight, the ogee planform immediately came to the fore.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=40}}

To test the new wing, NASA assisted the team by modifying a [[Douglas F5D Skylancer]] to mimic the wing selection. In 1965, the NASA test aircraft successfully tested the wing, and found that it reduced landing speeds noticeably over the standard delta wing. NASA also ran simulations at Ames that showed the aircraft would exhibit a sudden change in pitch when entering ground effect. Ames test pilots later participated in a joint cooperative test with the French and British test pilots and found that the simulations had been correct, and this information was added to pilot training.<ref>Memoirs of an aeronautical engineer: flight testing at Ames Research Center. Seth B. Anderson, United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. History Office, Ames Research Center. p. 38</ref>

===Partnership with Sud Aviation===
France<!-- do not link major countries--> had its own SST plans. In the late 1950s, the government requested designs from the government-owned Sud Aviation and [[Nord Aviation]], as well as [[Dassault]]. All three returned designs based on Küchemann and Weber's slender delta; Nord suggested a [[ramjet]]-powered design flying at Mach 3, and the other two were jet-powered Mach 2 designs that were similar to each other. Of the three, the [[Sud Aviation Super-Caravelle]] won the design contest with a medium-range design deliberately sized to avoid competition with transatlantic US designs they assumed were already on the drawing board.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=70}}

As soon as the design was complete, in April 1960, [[Pierre Satre]], the company's technical director, was sent to Bristol to discuss a partnership. Bristol was surprised to find that the Sud team had designed a similar aircraft after considering the SST problem and coming to the same conclusions as the Bristol and STAC teams in terms of economics. It was later revealed that the original STAC report, marked "For UK Eyes Only", had secretly been passed to France to win political favour. Sud made minor changes to the paper and presented it as their own work.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=49}}

France had no modern large jet engines and had already decided to buy a British design (as they had on the earlier subsonic [[Sud Aviation Caravelle|Caravelle]]).{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=47}} As neither company had experience in the use of heat-resistant metals for airframes, a maximum speed of around Mach 2 was selected so aluminium could be used&nbsp;– above this speed, the friction with the air heats the metal so much that it begins to soften. This lower speed would also speed development and allow their design to fly before the Americans. Everyone involved agreed that Küchemann's ogee-shaped wing was the right one.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=70}}

The British team was still focused on a 150-passenger design serving transatlantic routes, while France was deliberately avoiding these. Common components could be used in both designs, with the shorter-range version using a clipped fuselage and four engines, and the longer one a stretched fuselage and six engines, leaving only the wing to be extensively redesigned.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=41}} The teams continued to meet in 1961, and by this time it was clear that the two aircraft would be very similar in spite of different ranges and seating arrangements. A single design emerged that differed mainly in fuel load. More-powerful [[Rolls-Royce Olympus|Bristol Siddeley Olympus]] engines, being developed for the [[TSR-2]], allowed either design to be powered by only four engines.{{sfn|Owen|2001|p=50}}

===Cabinet response, treaty===
While the development teams met, the French Minister of Public Works and Transport [[Robert Buron]] was meeting with the UK Minister of Aviation [[Peter Thorneycroft]], and Thorneycroft told the cabinet that France was much more serious about a partnership than any of the US companies.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=71}} The various US companies had proved uninterested, likely due to the belief that the government would be funding development and would frown on any partnership with a European company, and the risk of "giving away" US technological leadership to a European partner.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=69}}

When the STAC plans were presented to the UK cabinet, the economic considerations were considered highly questionable, especially as these were based on development costs, now estimated to be {{GBPConvert|150|m|year=1961|lk=on|showdate=no|mode=historical}}, which were repeatedly overrun in the industry. The Treasury Ministry presented a negative view, suggesting that the project in no way would have any positive financial returns for the government, especially because "the industry's past record of over-optimistic estimating (including the recent history of the TSR.2) suggests that it would be prudent to consider" the cost "to turn out much too low."{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=71}}

This led to an independent review of the project by the Committee on Civil Scientific Research and Development, which met on the topic between July and September 1962. The committee rejected the economic arguments, including considerations of supporting the industry made by Thorneycroft. Their report in October stated that any direct positive economic outcome would be unlikely, but that the project should still be considered because everyone else was going supersonic, and they were concerned they would be locked out of future markets. The project apparently would not be likely to significantly affect other, more important, research efforts.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=71}}

At the time, the UK was pressing for admission to the [[European Economic Community]], and this became the main rationale for moving ahead with the aircraft.{{sfn|Conway|2005|p=66}} The development project was negotiated as an international treaty between the two countries rather than a commercial agreement between companies, and included a clause, originally asked for by the UK government, imposing heavy penalties for cancellation. This treaty was signed on 29 November 1962.<ref name="earlyhist">{{cite web |url=http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh1.html#a |title=Early History |work=Concorde History |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110124174147/http://concordesst.com/history/eh1.html#a |archive-date=24 January 2011 |access-date=8 September 2007 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Charles de Gaulle]] vetoed the UK's entry into the European Community in a speech on 25 January 1963.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hollingworth |first1=Clare |last2=Prittie |first2=Terence |date=25 January 2018 |title=French determined to block Britain's entry to Common Market – archive, 1963 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/25/french-france-block-britain-entry-common-market-de-gaulle-1963 |access-date=28 February 2021 |url-status=live |archive-date=14 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414095431/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/25/french-france-block-britain-entry-common-market-de-gaulle-1963}}</ref>

===Naming===
At Charles de Gaulle's January 1963 press conference, the aircraft was first called "Concorde".<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Myddelton |first=David R. |title=They Meant Well, Government Project Disasters |publisher=The Institute of Economic Affairs |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-255-36601-4 |edition=1st |location=London, UK |pages=110 |language=English}}</ref> The name was suggested by the 18-year-old son of F.G. Clark, the publicity manager at BAC's Filton plant.<ref name=":2" /> Reflecting the treaty between the British and French governments that led to Concorde's construction, the name ''Concorde'' is from the French word ''[[wikt:concorde#French|concorde]]'' ({{IPA|fr|kɔ̃kɔʁd|IPA}}), which has an English equivalent, ''[[wikt:concord#English|concord]]''. Both words mean ''agreement'', ''harmony'', or ''union''. The name was changed to ''Concord'' by [[Harold Macmillan]] in response to a perceived slight by de Gaulle. At the French roll-out in [[Toulouse]] in late 1967,<ref name="ssccunv">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KSdJAQAAMAAJ |title=Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 – Chronology on Science, Technology, and Policy |date=1968 |page=373 |language=en}}</ref> the British [[Minister of Technology]], [[Tony Benn]], announced that he would change the spelling back to ''Concorde''.<ref name="Benn">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,1064752,00.html |title=Sonic booms and that 'e' on the end: Tony Benn remembers his role in getting Concorde off the ground |first=Tony |last=Benn |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London |date=17 October 2003 |access-date=14 December 2016 |archive-date=25 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125024459/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/oct/17/theairlineindustry.g21 |url-status=live}}</ref> This created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed "e" represented "Excellence, England, Europe, and [[Entente Cordiale|Entente (Cordiale)]]". In his memoirs, he recounted a letter from a Scotsman claiming, "you talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." Given Scotland's contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, "it was also 'E' for 'Écosse' (the French name for Scotland)&nbsp;– and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation as well!"{{sfn|McIntyre|1992|p=20}}

In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" without an [[article (grammar)|article]], rather than "{{em|the}} Concorde" or "{{em|a}} Concorde".<ref>Note this British convention is used throughout this article: {{cite news |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/concorde_retirement/default.stm |title= In depth: Farewell to Concorde |work= [[BBC News]] |date= 15 August 2007 |access-date= 4 October 2007 |archive-date= 27 October 2007 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071027143003/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/concorde_retirement/default.stm |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/aboutconcorde.html |title= About Concorde&nbsp;– main page |publisher= British Airways |access-date= 11 January 2010 |archive-date= 11 March 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090311003638/http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/aboutconcorde.html |url-status= live}}</ref>

===Sales efforts===
[[File:British Concorde.jpg|thumb|[[British Airways]] Concorde in early BA livery at [[Heathrow Airport|London-Heathrow Airport]] in the early 1980s]]

Advertisements for Concorde during the late 1960s placed in publications such as ''Aviation Week & Space Technology'' predicted a market for 350 aircraft by 1980.<ref>48 years ago in AW&ST, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 25 May – 7 June 2015, p. 14.</ref> The new consortium intended to produce one long-range and one short-range version, but prospective customers showed no interest in the short-range version, thus it was later dropped.<ref name="earlyhist" />

Concorde's costs spiralled during development to more than six times the original projections, arriving at a unit cost of £23&nbsp;million in 1977 (equivalent to £{{Inflation|UK|23|1977|r=2}} million in {{Inflation-year|UK}}).<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1352927/Is-this-the-end-of-the-Concorde-dream.html |url-access=subscription |title=Is this the end of the Concorde dream? | publisher=The Daily Telegraph |first=Paul |last=Marston |date=16 August 2000 }}</ref> Its sonic boom made travelling supersonically over land impossible without causing complaints from citizens.<ref name="Concordes limited to 16">{{cite news |title=Concordes limited to 16 | publisher=Virgin Islands Daily News|date=5 June 1976}}</ref> World events also dampened Concorde sales prospects; the [[1973–74 stock market crash]] and the [[1973 oil crisis]] had made airlines cautious about aircraft with high fuel consumption, and new [[wide-body aircraft]], such as the [[Boeing 747]], had recently made subsonic aircraft significantly more efficient and presented a low-risk option for airlines.{{sfn|Ross|1978|pp=47–49}} While carrying a full load, Concorde achieved 15.8 [[passenger miles per gallon]] of fuel, while the [[Boeing 707]] reached 33.3&nbsp;pm/g, the Boeing 747 46.4&nbsp;pm/g, and the [[McDonnell Douglas DC-10]] 53.6&nbsp;pm/g.{{sfn|Ross|1978|p=49}} A trend in favour of cheaper airline tickets also caused airlines such as [[Qantas]] to question Concorde's market suitability.{{sfn|Gunn|2010|p=45}} During the early 2000s, ''[[Flight International]]'' described Concorde as being "one of aerospace's most ambitious but commercially flawed projects",<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%202360.html |title=Concorde – 2003–2360 – Flight Archive |publisher=Flight International |access-date=12 November 2016 |archive-date=12 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212240/https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%202360.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Concorde Special – Flawed Icon |date=21 October 2003 |publisher=Flight Global |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/concorde-special-flawed-icon-172669/ |access-date=12 November 2016 |archive-date=12 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112211651/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/concorde-special-flawed-icon-172669/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

The consortium received orders (non-binding options) for more than 100 of the long-range version from the major airlines of the day: [[Pan American World Airways|Pan Am]], [[British Overseas Airways Corporation|BOAC]], and Air France were the launch customers, with six aircraft each. Other airlines in the order book included [[Panair do Brasil]], [[Continental Airlines]], [[Japan Airlines]], [[Lufthansa]], [[American Airlines]], [[United Airlines]], [[Air India]], [[Air Canada]], [[Braniff International Airways|Braniff]], [[Singapore Airlines]], [[Iran Air]], [[Olympic Airways]], [[Qantas]], [[CAAC Airlines]], [[Middle East Airlines]], and [[Trans World Airlines|TWA]].<ref name="earlyhist" /><ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903850,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050116102945/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903850,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=16 January 2005 |title=Aerospace: Pan Am's Concorde Retreat |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=12 February 1973}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Vertrag mit Luken |trans-title=Contract with escape hatches |magazine=Der Spiegel |volume=12 |url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46437753.html |date=13 March 1967 |access-date=6 November 2012 |archive-date=3 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203050949/http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46437753.html |url-status=live}}</ref> At the time of the first flight, the options list contained 74 options from 16 airlines:<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-orders-and-options |title=Concorde orders and options |website=heritage-concorde |access-date=18 September 2020 |archive-date=29 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929093832/https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-orders-and-options |url-status=live}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Airline
! Number
! Reserved
! Cancelled
! Remarks
|-
| [[Pan Am]] || 6 || 3 June 1963 || 31 January 1973 || 2 extra options in 1964
|-
| [[Air France]] || 6 || 3 June 1963 || || 2 extra options in 1964
|-
| [[BOAC]] || 6 || 3 June 1963 || || 2 extra options in 1964
|-
| [[Continental Airlines]] || 3 || 24 July 1963 || March 1973 ||
|-
| [[American Airlines]] || 4 || 7 October 1963 || February 1973 || 2 extra options in 1965
|-
| [[TWA]] || 4 || 16 October 1963 || 31 January 1973 || 2 extra options in 1965
|-
| [[Middle East Airlines]] || 2 || 4 December 1963 || February 1973 ||
|-
| [[Qantas]] || 6 || 19 March 1964 || June 1973<ref>{{cite web |last1=Chamberlin |first1=Chris |date=16 May 2020 |title=Supersonic dreams: how Qantas almost flew the Concorde |url=https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-concorde-supersonic |website=Executive Traveller |access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref> || 2 cancelled in May 1966
|-
| [[Air India]] || 2 || 15 July 1964 || February 1975 ||
|-
| [[Japan Airlines]] || 3 || 30 September 1965 || 1973 ||
|-
| [[Sabena]] || 2 || 1 December 1965 || February 1973 ||
|-
| [[Eastern Airlines]] || 2 || 28 June 1966 || February 1973 || 2 extra options on 15 August 1966 <br/>2 other extra options on 28 April 1967
|-
| [[United Airlines]] || 6 || 29 June 1966 || 26 October 1972 ||
|-
| [[Braniff]] || 3 || 1 September 1966 || February 1973 ||
|-
| [[Lufthansa]] || 3 || 16 February 1967 || April 1973 ||
|-
| [[Air Canada]] || 4 || 1 March 1967 || 6 June 1972<ref>Peter Pigott: ''Air Canada, the History''. 2014 {{ISBN|978-1-4597-1952-1}}. p. 104</ref> ||
|-
| [[CAAC Airlines|CAAC]] || 2 || 24 July 1972 || December 1979<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-orders-and-options|title=Concorde orders and options|website=Heritage Concorde|access-date=18 September 2020|archive-date=29 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929093832/https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-orders-and-options|url-status=live}}</ref> ||
|-
| [[Iran Air]] || 2 || 8 October 1972 || February 1980 ||
|}

===Testing===
[[File:02.03.69 1er vol de Concorde (1969) - 53Fi1931 - cropped.jpg|thumb|Concorde 001 first flight in 1969]]

The design work was supported by a research programme studying the flight characteristics of low ratio [[delta wing]]s. A supersonic [[Fairey Delta 2]] was modified to carry the ogee planform, and, renamed as the BAC 221, used for tests of the high-speed flight envelope;{{sfn|Taylor|1965|p=130}} the [[Handley Page HP.115]] also provided valuable information on low-speed performance.{{sfn|Winchester|2005a|p=134}}

Construction of two prototypes began in February 1965: 001, built by Aérospatiale at Toulouse, and 002, by BAC at [[Filton]], Bristol. 001 made its first test flight from Toulouse on 2 March 1969, piloted by [[André Turcat]],<ref>{{cite news |title=Pilot Says Concorde Flight 'Perfect'|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KXoyAAAAIBAJ&pg=6573,360672 |access-date=30 June 2011 |work=Montreal Gazette |date=1 March 1969 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414095431/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KXoyAAAAIBAJ&pg=6573,360672 |archive-date=14 April 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> and first went supersonic on 1 October.{{sfn|Olivier|2018|p=11}}<ref>{{cite news |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C1EFC3454127B93C0A9178BD95F4D8685F9 |title=Concorde Tops Speed of Sound for 9 Minutes on a Test Flight |work=The New York Times |date=2 October 1969 |access-date=22 March 2010 |archive-date=7 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107234836/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C1EFC3454127B93C0A9178BD95F4D8685F9 |url-status=live}}</ref> The first UK-built Concorde flew from Filton to [[RAF Fairford]] on 9 April 1969, piloted by [[Brian Trubshaw]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/2/newsid_2514000/2514535.stm |title=1969: Concorde flies for the first time |work=BBC News |access-date=8 July 2007 |date=2 March 1969 |archive-date=3 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110903062944/http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/2/newsid_2514000/2514535.stm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/584606362.html?dids=584606362:584606362&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Apr+10%2C+1969&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Concorde+002+Makes+1st+Flight&pqatl=google |title=Concorde 002 Makes 1st Flight |work=Chicago Tribune |first=Edward |last=Rohrbach |access-date=30 June 2011 |date=10 April 1969 |archive-date=25 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120725063900/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/584606362.html?dids=584606362:584606362&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Apr+10%2C+1969&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Concorde+002+Makes+1st+Flight&pqatl=google |url-status=dead}}</ref> Both prototypes were presented to the public on 7–8 June 1969 at the [[Paris Air Show]]. As the flight programme progressed, 001 embarked on a sales and demonstration tour on 4 September 1971, which was also the first transatlantic crossing of Concorde.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/597531692.html?dids=597531692:597531692&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&type=historic&date=Sep+05%2C+1971&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Concorde+001+Makes+Its+First+Atlantic+Crossing&pqatl=google |title=Concorde 001 Makes Its First Atlantic Crossing |work=Chicago Tribune |access-date=30 June 2011 |date=5 September 1971 |archive-date=6 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106122156/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/597531692.html?dids=597531692:597531692&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&type=historic&date=Sep+05%2C+1971&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Concorde+001+Makes+Its+First+Atlantic+Crossing&pqatl=google |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Anglo-French Concorde Lands in Brazil to begin Week of Demonstration Flights |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VCY0AAAAIBAJ&pg=2521,1962837 |work=Bangor Daily News |date=7 September 1971 |access-date=28 November 2020 |url-status=live |archive-date=14 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414131208/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VCY0AAAAIBAJ&pg=2521,1962837}}</ref> Concorde 002 followed on 2 June 1972 with a tour of the Middle and Far East.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D10F73B591A7493C1A9178DD85F468785F9 |title=Concorde Prototype Begins 10-Nation Tour; Britain Shows Optimism For Supersonic Aircraft |work=The New York Times |first=Michael |last=Stern |date=3 June 1972 |access-date=30 June 2011 |url-status=live |archive-date=7 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107234925/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D10F73B591A7493C1A9178DD85F468785F9}}</ref> Concorde 002 made the first visit to the United States in 1973, landing at [[Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport|Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport]] to mark the airport's opening.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E16FB3A54137A93C3AB1782D85F478785F9 |first=Richard |last=Witkin |date=21 September 1973 |title=A Supersonic Concorde Lands in Texas |work=The New York Times |access-date=30 June 2011 |archive-date=3 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103103438/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E16FB3A54137A93C3AB1782D85F478785F9 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:Concorde first visit Heathrow Fitzgerald.jpg|thumb|Concorde on early visit to Heathrow Airport on 1 July 1972]]
Concorde had initially held a great deal of customer interest, but the project was hit by order cancellations. The [[1973 Paris Air Show crash|Paris Le Bourget air show crash]] of the competing Soviet [[Tupolev Tu-144]] had shocked potential buyers, and public concern over the environmental issues of supersonic aircraft{{snd}}the [[sonic boom]], take-off noise and pollution{{snd}}had produced a change in the public opinion of SSTs. By 1976 the remaining buyers were from four countries: Britain, France, China, and Iran.<ref name="Concordes limited to 16" /> Only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders, with the two governments taking a cut of any profits.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html#6 |title=Payments for Concorde |publisher=British Airways |access-date=2 December 2009 |archive-date=19 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091219154117/http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html#6 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The US government cut federal funding for the [[Boeing 2707]], its supersonic transport programme, in 1971; Boeing did not complete its two 2707 prototypes. The US, India, and Malaysia all ruled out Concorde supersonic flights over the noise concern, although some of these restrictions were later relaxed.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70813F83F5511728DDDAE0994DA415B888BF1D3 |title=Malaysia lifting ban on the use of its Airspace by the Concorde |work=The New York Times |access-date=30 June 2011 |date=17 December 1978 |archive-date=7 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107234822/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70813F83F5511728DDDAE0994DA415B888BF1D3 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xTMsAAAAIBAJ&pg=6855,2298265 |title=News from around the world |work=Herald-Journal |date=13 January 1978 |access-date=30 June 2011 |archive-date=14 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414125644/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xTMsAAAAIBAJ&pg=6855,2298265 |url-status=live}}</ref> Professor Douglas Ross characterised restrictions placed upon Concorde operations by President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s administration as having been an act of [[protectionism]] of American aircraft manufacturers.{{sfn|Ross|1978|p=46}}

===Programme cost===
The original programme cost estimate was £70&nbsp;million in 1962,<ref>{{Citation |title=Concorde |work=BBC Timewatch documentary |date=2003 |quote=By 1962, the cost estimates had already soared from 70 to 150 million pounds."<br/>"[By 1964], costs had doubled yet again to nearly 300 million pounds. <!--The documentary goes on to explain how the international treaty had been written in such a way that if either party wished to back out, the cost penalty for doing so would be exorbitant. (Whereas neither the US nor USSR had such barriers to cancelling their SST programmes, which both countries eventually did.)-->}}</ref> (£{{Format price|{{Inflation|UK-GDP|70000000|1962|r=3}}}} in {{Inflation/year|UK-GDP}}).{{Inflation-fn|UK-GDP}} After [[cost overrun]]s and delays the programme eventually cost between £1.5 and £2.1 billion in 1976,<ref>{{cite book | first=A. R. |last=Seebass |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F2D_CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 |chapter=The Prospects for Commercial Supersonic Transport |title=New Design Concepts for High Speed Air Transport |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200604114554/https://books.google.com/books?id=F2D_CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 |archive-date=4 June 2020 |editor-first=H. |editor-last= Sobieczky |orig-year=1997 |publisher=Springer |url-status=live |isbn=9783709126585 |year=2014 |version=ebook|quote=The programme's cost, through March 1976, was put at between 1.5 and 2.1 billion in 1976 pounds sterling, or between 3.6 and 5.1 billion in 1977 U.S. dollars (yearly weighted exchange rates)}}</ref> (£{{Format price|{{Inflation|UK-GDP|1500000000|1976|r=2}}}} – {{Format price|{{Inflation|UK-GDP|2100000000|1976|r=2}}}} in {{Inflation/year|UK-GDP}}).{{Inflation-fn|UK-GDP}} This cost was the main reason the production run was much smaller than expected.<ref>In ''Concorde'' (BBC Timewatch, 2003) Chris Benjamin, Concorde Administrator (UK) 1971–74 said: "It's really a matter of great regret that an enormous amount of creativity, effort and resources were used to produce this aeroplane which has actually no sustainable benefit at all."</ref>