Editing Concorde (section)

===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}}