Mach

Mach (pronounced mak, mahk or moch)

A number indicating the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of sound in the medium through which the object is moving.  Also known as the Mach number; standard abbreviation is M.

1937: Named after Austrian physicist and philosopher Dr Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach (1838–1916) who devised the system of speed measurement based on the Mach number. He’s remembered also as the founder of logical positivism, asserting the validity of a scientific law is proved only after empirical testing.  The Mach number is important in the understanding of fluid dynamics and represents the ratio of flow velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound (Mach 1.0).  It’s most applied to aircraft which are classified:

Subsonic      Mach <1.0
Transonic     Mach =1.0
Supersonic   Mach >1.0
Hypersonic   Mach >5.0

The speed of sound varies, reducing at higher altitudes and if aircraft exceed about 250 mph (400 km/h), air near the aircraft is disturbed, locally changing the density.  This compression, increasing with speed, alters the force on the aircraft and is of great importance to aerodynamicists and structural engineers.  The Mach number is within the science of fluid dynamics because air is fluid and, at hypersonic speeds, the energy of the airframe affects the chemical bonds which hold together the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of air, the heated atmosphere becoming an ionized plasma of gas.  That’s why spacecraft re-entering earth’s atmosphere need to be insulated from high temperatures.  Mach 1 was first exceeded by an aircraft in level flight in 1947 but man-made objects travelling at that speed had long-existed, even before modern ballistics.  The crack of a whip is actually the sonic boom caused by the tip exceeding Mach 1.

The 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1

Unlike Ford’s later Boss 302 and Boss 429 Mustangs, both powered by genuine racing engines, 1969’s outwardly similar Mustang Mach 1 was a less ambitious machine for street and strip and available with a variety of engines, one of which, thanks to a little Dearborn mendacity, was very competitive in the then highly popular sport of pro-stock drag-racing.  A moniker like Mach 1 is known in contract law as mere puffery, the notion being that in advertising it's possible to assert things which (1) can be neither proven nor disproven or (2), are so absurd no reasonable person would take them seriously.  In 1969 nobody took literally the idea a Mustang could break the speed of sound which was just as well because, at ground level, Mach 1 is 767 mph (1235 km/h) while the top speed of the most powerful Mustang Mach 1 was about 130 mph (210 km/h) or Mach 0.171.  Actually, most were built for drag-racing and geared for acceleration rather than top-end speed so few were capable of more than around 115 mph (185 km/h) or Mach 0.151.

1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 with 428 (FE Series) CobraJet V8.

Hankering for a seven litre (427 cubic inch) version, Ford had added their 427 V8 (FE Series) to the Mustang’s option list for 1968 but none were built (although Shelby did one (or two depending on how such things are counted) and an uncertain number were fitted by dealers pursuant to customer request.  Probably now most remembered from service in the Ford GT40 and the AC Shelby Cobra, the 427 was a famously powerful and robust unit, a trophy winner on circuits from Daytona to Le Mans but was also cantankerous, noisy, an oil-burner and, perhaps most importantly for Ford, expensive to build because of its complex lubrication and cylinder width at the extreme limit of the block’s capacity.  It had also reached the end of its development so, until their new Boss 429 V8 (385 series) became available, Ford hotted-up the previously unremarkable 428 V8 (FE), used until then smoothly to propel big luxury cars like the Thunderbird and LTD.  Pleasingly for Ford, the 428 developed for the Mach 1 gained its increased output from bolt-on bits and pieces and was cheap to produce.

1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 with 351 (Windsor Series) V8.

Belying its dramatic appearance, the nose-heavy 428 Mach 1 was actually pretty bad at just about everything except the straight-line, quarter-mile sprints at which it excelled though Ford cheated to achieve even these 400 metre-long successes.  Upon its debut in 1968, the National Hot Rod Association (drag-racing’s sanctioning body) allocated vehicles to competition classes on the basis of manufacturers’ declared power-outputs.  Ford claimed the new 428 CobraJet generated 335 horsepower which was quite an understatement, something which allowed it to dominate that year’s national championships.  After that, the authorities cracked down and used their own assessments but by then the 428 CobraJet had done its job and such was the glow of the reflected glory that Ford sold over 70,000 Mach 1 Mustangs in 1969.  Not all were equipped with the big block 428 (a 390 cubic inch (6.5 litre) FE was also available which was about as heavy as the 428 but less powerful) and as road cars, those fitted with the small block (Windsor) 351 cubic inch (5.8 litre) V8 were probably more suited to what most people did most of the time.  Ford produced the Mustang Mach 1 between 1969 and 1978 although the 1974-1978 models are not well regarded, the name revived in 2003-2004 for a small production run and in 2021 the Mach 1 returned to the Mustang range.

Thrust SST, Nevada, 1997.

Almost fifty years to the day after US Air Force (USAF) pilot Chuck Yeager (1923-2020), flying a rocket-powered Bell X-1 aircraft, broke the sound barrier in Earth's atmosphere, RAF Pilot Andy Green (b 1962) set the absolute land speed record (LSR) driving the Thrust SST to a speed of 763.035 mph (1,227.985 km/h) over the stipulated flying mile (1.6 km).  It was the first time a land vehicle officially broke the sound barrier.  Powered by two afterburning Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan engines (the same type used by the British version of the F-4 Phantom II jet fighter) developing a net thrust of some 50,000 lb/f (223 kN) which equates to something in excess of 100,000 bhp (76 MW), the Thrust SST's record still stands.  Weighing a impressive 10 tons, at full throttle the fuel burn-rate was some 4.0 gallons (4.8 US gallons; 18 litres) per second or a tiny fraction of a mile per gallon.  Under the LSR rules mandated by the World Motor Sport Council, for a record officially to be sanctioned, there must be two runs in opposite directions within a certain elapsed time and the council confirmed the speed of sound was exceeded on both runs on 15 October 1997 at Black Rock Desert, Nevada (USA).

The only known photograph of the Anglo-French Concorde flying at Mach 2 (at 25,000 feet (7600 m) Mach 2 is 1,356 mph; 2,186 km/h; 1,185 knots), taken from a Royal Air Force (RAF) Panavia Tornado fighter while over the Irish Sea, April 1985.

Machboos

Lindsay Lohan in an interview published in the November 2022 edition of Cosmopolitan magazine revealed her favorite Middle-Eastern dish to cook was machboos, part of Arab cuisine throughout the region and prepared almost always with chicken with rice and vegetables.  A kind of blend of biryani and risotto, the rice is cooked in the spiced broth of the meat or chicken, melding the spices and ingredients.  Rice is a core component of Arabic cooking and interestingly, in Arabic it’s known as ruz but in the Khaleeji dialect it is aish (life) while in Egyptian Arabic, aish refers to bread, an indication of its centrality to the diet.  Like hummus, between nations (and even families) in the Middle East, there’s often disagreement about how machboos should be prepared, most of the arguments revolving around the bzar (the spice mix) but it’s certainly adaptable, able to be served with achaar (mango or lime pickle), daqoos (a spicy tomato sauce), or yoghurt with chopped cucumber and mint.

Ingredients (for serving 4-6) (from Table Tales: Exploring Culinary Diversity in Abu Dhabi (Rizzoli)).

6 tablespoons plain yogurt, divided
2 tablespoons Emirati bzar spice mix, divided
1½ kg chicken, cut into pieces
500 g basmati rice
80 mls vegetable oil
5 cardamom pods, crushed
1 cinnamon stick
10 black peppercorns
2 whole lumi, cracked
450 grams onions, chopped
1 tablespoon ginger, crushed
1 tablespoon garlic, crushed
4 small green chilies, halved
1 teaspoon turmeric
1 teaspoon cumin
1 teaspoon coriander powder
285 grams canned tomatoes, chopped
1 teaspoon salt
Cooking oil as required
450 grams potatoes, peeled and cubed
Handful of fresh coriander, chopped

Garnish

3 tablespoons cooking oil
2 onions, thinly sliced
85 grams raw cashews
55 grams raisins
Fresh coriander, chopped

Instructions

(1) Combine 4 tablespoons of yoghurt with 1 tablespoon of the bzar in a large bowl.  Coat the chicken and then marinade for 1 hour or longer.  Rinse the rice and soak in enough water to cover for 1 hour; drain.

(2) Heat the oil in a Dutch oven over medium heat. Add the cardamom pods, cinnamon stick, peppercorns and lumi and stir for 2 minutes.  Add the onions and sauté until golden.  Add ginger, garlic, and green chilies and stir for 2 minutes.

(3) Add the chicken and marinade and then cook for a few minutes on each side.  Sprinkle in the turmeric, the remaining bzar, cumin, and the coriander powder.

(4) Add the tomatoes, salt, and 2 cups of water; bring to a boil.  Cover, lower the heat, and simmer for 30 to 45 minutes, until the chicken is done.  Transfer the chicken to a roasting pan.

(5) Remove the cinnamon stick and lumi from the stock and discard.  Add the potatoes and fresh coriander and boil until the potatoes are just tender.  Adjust the stock to get a one-to-one ratio with the rice.  Stir in the remaining yoghurt until dissolved and then add the rice.  Seal the Dutch oven with aluminum foil, cover, and cook over low heat for 30 minutes until the rice is done.

(6) Turn on the oven broiler.  Brush the chicken with some oil and broil until golden.  Serve the rice on a platter with the chicken pieces on top.  Garnish with sautéed onions, cashews, raisins, and fresh coriander.

Garnish Instructions

(7) Place a large skillet over medium-high heat and add the oil and onions; sauté until they are dark brown, but not burnt.  Remove the onions with a slotted spoon and drain on paper towels.  Sauté the cashews in the same oil until golden brown.  Finally, add the raisins during the last few minutes to complete.

Combat

Combat (pronounced kuhm-bat or kom-bat (verb); kom-bat (noun))

(1) To fight or contend against; vigorously to oppose.

(2) In military matters, certain parts of branches of the services which engage in armed conflict with enemy forces.

(3) An action fought between two military forces.

(4) As a descriptor (in the military and of weapos and weapons systems), a means to distinguish between an item design specifically for use in combat as oppose to one intended for other purpose.

1535-1540: From the Middle English intransitive verb combat (to fight, struggle, contend), from the sixteenth century French combat, from the twelfth century Old French combattre, from the Late Latin combattere, the construct being com (with (each other) (an an archaic form of cum)) + battuere (to beat, fight) (source of the modern English verb "batter").  The transitive sense dates from the 1580s; the figurative use from the 1620s.  The noun combat (a fight (originally especially "a fight between two armed persons" and later distinguished as single combat in the 1620s)), emerged in the 1560s and soon was applied in a general sense to "any struggle or fight between opposing forces".  Combat is a noun, verb & adjective, combater & combatant are nouns, combatted & combatting are verbs and combative is an adjective; the noun plural is combats.

Combative and dressed for combat: Lindsay Lohan in boxing gloves.

The phrase hors de combat (out of action; disabled; no longer able to fight (literally "out of combat")) was constructed from hors (out, beyond), from the Latin foris (outside (literally "out of doors")) + de (of) + combat.  It dates from 1757 and was related originally to battlefield conduct (the principle of which which would later be interpolated into the the rules of war) and is now a literary and rhetorical device.  It shouldn't be confused with the French expression hors concours (out of competition) which, dating from 1884, is applied to works of art in an exhibition but not eligible to be awarded a prize.  Given the sometimes nasty battles waged in galleries, perhaps hors de combat might sometimes be as appropriate but in exhibitions it's most often used of works which have either already won a prize or have been awarded the maximum number provided for in the competition rules.  Other sporting competitions sometimes use hors concours to describe entries which don't conform with the rules of the event but are for a variety of reasons permitted to run (notably in motorsport).  The adjective combative (pugnacious, disposed to fight) is from 1819 and by the mid nineteenth century had become much associated with the long discredited pseudo-science of phrenology, the related forms being combatively and the earlier (1815) combativeness.  Combatant (contending, disposed to combat) was an adjective by the mid fifteenth century and a noun (one who engages in battle) by circa 1855, both from the Old French combatant (which survives in Modern French as combattant) (skilled at fighting, warlike) where it had also been a noun.    The adjective combative (pugnacious, aggressive; disposed to engage in conflict (though not necessarily violence)) seems not pleasing to some because the incorrect spelling combatative is not uncommon.

The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished, oil on canvas by William Etty (1787-1849), National Gallery of Scotland.

Unusually for works in this tradition, The Combat is not a depiction of a historical or mythological event but a kind of morality tale exploring “the beauty and quality of mercy”.  Structurally, the picture is of a woman clutching a warrior who, with sword raised, seems poised to inflict a fatal strike on his fallen foe whose own blade lies shattered on the ground, the woman begging he be spared.  Praised for its technical accomplishment The Combat also attracted the criticism the ahistorical piece seemed just another of the artist’s opportunistic pretexts for painting more nude figures, long his favourite motif, but the painter dismissed the carping, reminding critics such imaginative works had a tradition dating from Antiquity, the Romans calling that school of composition “the Roman Visions, works not having their origin in history or poetry”.  Mr Etty certainly made a seminal contribution to the genre and he’s regarded as the first English painter of any skill to produce a substantial number of nudes, something which, predictably, has overshadowed his catalogue of estimable still lifes.  His life was solitary and in some ways strange and in much of the popular press his output was damned as “indecent” but when in 1828 proposed for membership of the Royal Academy, he was elected, defeating no less than John Constable 1776–1837) by 18 votes to five so his fellow artists rated him highly.  

The Norton Commando 750 Combat

1968 Kawasaki 500 Mach III (H1).

British manufacturers once regarded competition from the far-east with little concern but by the late 1960s, Japanese motorcycles had become serious machines enjoying commercial success.  Kawasaki’s 500cm³ (H1, Mach III) two-stroke triple debuted in 1968 while Honda’s 750-Four was released a year later, the former fast but lethally unstable, the latter more refined.  Three years on, the release of Kawasaki’s 900 cm³ Z1 confirmed the maturity of the Japanese product and the era of British complacency was over though the realization was too late to save the industry.

Nothing ever quite matched the rawness of the original Kawasaki Mach III.  Riders of high performance machines had for decades distinguished between fast, well-balanced motorcycles and those which, while rapid, needed to be handled with caution if used in anything but a straight line and on a billiard table smooth surface but even in those circumstances the Mach III could be a handful, the engine's power band narrow and the entry to it sudden and explosive.  Probably the best comparison was something like the BRM grand prix car (1947-1955) which used a supercharged 1.5 litre (91 cubic inch) V16; it was only marginally responsive under 8000 rpm but at that point suddenly delivered its extraordinary power which could be as much as 500-600 horsepower.  Many Mach III owners were soon noting while rear tyre life was short, the front lasted well because it spent so little time in contact with the road.  Adding to the trickiness, lacking the rigidity needed to cope with such stresses, the frame design meant there was something of a gyroscopic tendency under hard acceleration which could be at least disquieting and the consequences were often worse.  Still, nobody denied they were quick.  Clearly, only crazy people would buy such a thing but fortunately for Kawasaki (and presumably this was part of the product planning), by 1968 the Western world was populated as never before with males aged 17-25 (peak craziness years) with sufficient credit or disposable income to indulge the madness of youth.  It helped that under the Bretton Woods system (1944) of fixed exchange rates, at ¥360 to the US$, the Mach III was quite a bargain; on cost breakdown, nothing on two wheels or four came close and even at the time it was acknowledged there really were two identifiable generations of Mach IIIs: the ones built between 1968-1972 and those from 1973 until 1975 when production ended.  Not only was the power-band made a little wider (at the expense of the top-end) but a disk front brake was added, the swing-arm was extended and the frame geometry improved; while this didn’t wholly tame the challenging characteristics created by putting what was then the world’s most powerful two-stroke engine in what was essentially the light and not especially still frame used for their 350, it did mean the later Mach IIIs were a little more forgiving and not quite as quick.

1973 Kawasaki 750 Mach IV (H2).

As a design, the Mach III obviously had its flaws but as a piece of engineering, it exhibited typical Japanese soundness and attention to detail.  They borrowed much and while little was genuinely innovative, they had started with a clean sheet of paper and buyers found, unlike the British bikes, electrics were reliable and mechanical parts were not subject to the oil-leaks which the British had for decades claimed were endemic to the breed; far-eastern engineering was now mass-producing bikes a generation or more advanced.  However, the British industry was chronically under-capitalized so, lacking resources to develop new models, resorted to "improving" existing models.  While they were doing that, the Japanese manufacturers moved on and Kawasaki were planning something which would match the Mach III for performance but deliver it in a more civilized (and safer) manner.  This project was a four-stroke, four cylinder 750, developed while the Mach III was being toned down (a little) while the good idea of a broader power band and a (slightly) stiffer frame was used on the Mach IV (750 H2), the ultimate evolution of the two-stroke triple which delivered best of the the Mach III experience while (somewhat) taming the worst of its characteristics.

1969 Honda 750-Four "Sandcast".  The crankcases of the early 750s are referred to as being sandcast but they were actually gravity cast.  The production method for the first batch was was chosen because of uncertainty about demand.

However, in 1969 Honda, the largest in the Japanese industry and the company which in 1964 had stunned Formula One community when their 1.5 litre V12 car won a Grand Prix, released the motorcycle which threatened the very existence of the new big Kawasaki and the four-stroke Honda 750-Four was for a generation to set the template for its genre, as influential for big motorcycles as the Boeing 707 had in 1957 been for commercial airliners.  Kawasaki reviewed this disturbing intrusion on their planning, concluding the Honda was a touring machine and that the Mach III had proved there was demand machines orientated more to high-performance.  The board looked at the demographic charts and decided to proceed, enlarging their project to 900cm³ which, with double overhead camshafts (DOHC) was tuned more for top-end power than the more relaxed, single cam (SOHC) Honda.  Released in 1972, almost a year after the Mach IV, the Z1 attracted praise for its quality and performance, all delivered while offering a stability the charismatic but occasionally lethal triples never approached.  Internally, Kawasaki did their bit to ensure a good reception for the Z1 by making sure it was just a bit quicker than the Mach IV over a quarter mile, the 750 never tuned to the extent possible although as some found, more horsepower quickly and cheaply was available.    

1973 Kawasaki Z1.

The big Nortons, named Commando since 1967, had long been a benchmark for high-performance motorcycles and although the Mach III had (on paper) matched its speed, its handling characteristics were such that it could really be enjoyed only in a straight line and even then, was best handled by cautious experts.  The Honda 750-Four and Kawasaki Z1 were both vastly better as road machines and clearly the future of the breed.  The long-serving big British twins, while their handling was still impeccable, were now outdated, no longer offered a performance premium and still leaked oil.  Norton’s response in 1972 was the hastily concocted Commando Combat, the engine tweaked in the usual British manner with a high compression ratio, bigger carburetors, larger ports and a high-lift, long-duration camshaft.  These modifications, while the orthodox approach for racing engines, are not suitable for the road and the “peaky” Combat’s only advantage was great top-end power though it was noted the clever isolastic engine mounting did work well to limit the extent to which the greater vibration transmitted through the frame.  Unfortunately, the gains high in the rev-range compromised the low and mid-range performance, just where a road-bike most often operates.  Indeed, at points, the torque-curve actually went the wrong way and the only obvious way to disguise this was to lower the gearing which (1) restricted the top-speed to something embarrassing low and (2) meant even cruising speeds demanded high engine revolutions.  Sadly, it wasn’t possible for all long to enjoy the pleasures of all that power because the Combat's specification exposed weaknesses in pistons, bearings and crankshafts.  In some cases, main bearing life could be as little as 4000 miles (7000 km) but a small number of engines succumbed to other failures long before.  As a consolation, even if the Combat wouldn’t keep going, it was easy to stop, the front disk brake (designed by Norton and built by Lockheed, it used a hard chrome-plated cast-iron rotor because the heat-dissipation qualities were superior to stainless steel) was among the best in the industry.

So the most of the things that were changed made things worse.  Other things stayed the same including the oil leaks (the joke being seals existed to keep the dirt out, not the fluids in) and the absence of electric starting, the right legs of Norton owners reputedly more muscular than the left.  For the engine's problems the solution lay in engineering and metallurgy, a combination of a self-aligning spherical roller bearing called a superblend and un-slotted pistons.  But, by the time things were fixed, the fiasco had had triggered irreparable damage to market perceptions and Norton quietly dropped the Combat, applying the improvements to their mainstream engines without trying to match its top-end power.  Despite the reputation, there are owners (many of whom with great success used their Combats in competition) who reported sterling reliability from their machines and the consensus is it was only a relatively small number of Combat engines which failed but in mass-production, a well-publicized consumer-level failure rate well under 5% is enough to create  reputational damage.  Norton went bankrupt within a few years but the name has been revived several times over the past decades.

For those who can remember how things used to be done: 1972 Norton Commando 750 Combat Roadster (left) and 1972 Norton Commando 750 Combat Interstate (with custom drilled disk brake, right).

Introduced in 1972, the Interstate model was a response (as the name suggests) to US demand and was distinguished by the larger fuel tank, some of the additional capacity gained by removing the scalloped knee indentations seen on the Roadsters (which used a 2.2 imperial gallon (10 litre, 2.6 US gallon) tank.  The early Interstates were fitted with a 5.25 imperial gallon (23.9 litre, 6.30 US gallon) unit but in mid-year this was enlarged to a 5.5 imperial gallon (25 litre, 6.6 US gallon) device, the latter size carried-over as an option when in 1973 the Commando 850 was introduced and this remained available until production ended in 1977, by which time only a handful of Roadsters were leaving the line.

1954 Norton Dominator 500 (left), 1967 Norton Atlas 750 (centre) and 1972 Norton Commando 750 Combat (right).

When introduced in 1949, the 497 cm³ (30.3 cubic inch) parallel twin was as good an engine as any then available on two wheels and a great success but that popularity was ultimately what doomed Norton in the 1970s.  Over the years enlarged and tuned for more power, it proved adaptable to new frame designs and was an engine which kept Norton in the front rank of high-performance motorcycles but in not even half a decade between 1968-1972, the manufacturers in the Far East advanced further than the British industry had achieved in twenty years.  In 1967, well aware of the antiquity of the machinery from which they were coaxing another generation, Norton's management had been surprised at both the positive critical reception to the Commando and the volume of orders being received and for a while the immediate feature looked bright.  It perhaps could have been because the clever Isolastic engine mounting system had made it possible to absorb much of the big twin's chronically insoluble vibrations before they reached the rider and the Commando was a rewarding ride but what it should have been was a stop-gap while something better was developed.  Instead, it proved but a stay of execution.

Isolastic-era advertising: The agencies never depicted women riding Norton Commandos but they were a fixture as adornments, usually with lots of blonde hair and a certain expression.  One reason they may not have been suitable to use as riders was the phenomenon known as “helmet hair” (in idiomatic use, the effects of helmet wearing on those with “big hair”), which, upon removing helmet, manifested either as an unintended JBF or a bifurcated look in which the hair above the shoulders was flattened against the scalp while that beneath sat as the wind had determined.  There was also the challenge of kick-starting the big twins, the long-overdue electric-start not installed until 1975.

Concord & Concorde

Concord or Concorde (pronounced kon-kawrd)

(1) Agreement between persons, groups, nations, etc.; concurrence in attitudes, feelings, etc; unanimity; accord; agreement between things; mutual fitness; harmony.

(2) In formal grammar, a technical rule about the agreement of words with one another (case, gender, number or person).

(3) A treaty; compact; covenant.

(4) In music, a stable, harmonious combination of tones; a chord requiring no resolution.

(5) As concordat, under Roman-Catholic canon law, a convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state that defines the relationship between the Church and the state in matters that concern both.

(6) In law, an agreement between the parties regarding land title in reference to the manner in which it should pass, being an acknowledgment that the land in question belonged to the complainant (obsolete).

(7) A popular name for locality, commercial operations and products such as ships, cars etc.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of sweet American grape, named circa 1853 after Concord, Massachusetts, where the variety was developed.

1250-1300: From the Middle English and twelfth century Old French concorde (harmony, agreement, treaty) & concorder, from the Latin concordare & concordia, (harmonious), from concors (of the same mine; being in agreement with) (genitive concordis (of the same mind, literally “hearts together”)).  The construct was an assimilated form of com (con-) (with; together) + cor (genitive cordis (heart) from the primitive Indo-European root kerd (heart)).  The "a compact or agreement" in the sense of something formal (usually in writing) dates from the late fifteenth century, an extension of use from the late fourteenth century transitive verb which carried the sense "reconcile, bring into harmony".  From circa 1400 it had been understood to mean "agree, cooperate, thus a transfer of sense from the Old French & Latin forms.  Concorde was the French spelling which eventually was adopted also by the British for the supersonic airliner after some years of linguistic squabble.  Concord is a noun & verb, concordance & concordat are nouns, concorded & concording are verbs and concordial & concordant are adjectives; the noun plural is concords.

The Concorde and other SSTs

Promotional rendering of Concorde in British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) livery.  BOAC was the UK's national carrier between 1940-1974 when merged with British European Airways (BEA) to form British Airways (BA).

Concorde was an Anglo-French supersonic airliner that first flew in 1969 and operated commercially between 1976-2003.  It had a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound (Mach 2.04; 1,354 mph (2,180 km/h)) and seated 92-128 passengers.  Man breaking the sound barrier actually wasn’t modern; the cracking of a whip, known for thousands of years, is the tip passing through the sound barrier and engineers were well aware of the problems caused by propellers travelling that fast but it wasn’t until 1947 that a manned aircraft exceeded Mach 1 in controlled flight (although it had been achieved in deep dives though not without structural damage).  The military were of course immediately interested but so were those who built commercial airliners, intrigued at the notion of transporting passengers at supersonic speed, effectively shrinking the planet.  By the late 1950s, still recovering from the damage and costs of two world wars, France and the UK were never going to be in a position to be major players in the space-race which would play-out between the US and USSR but civil aviation did offer possibilities for both nations to return to the forefront of the industry.  France, in the early days of flight had been the preeminent power (a legacy of that being words like fuselage and aileron) and UK almost gained an early lead in passenger jets but the debacle of the de Havilland Comet (1949) had seen the Boeing 707 (1957) assume dominance.  The supersonic race was thought to be the next horizon and the UK’s Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) was in 1956 commissioned with the development of a Supersonic Transport (SST) for commercial use.

Concordes exist in a number of flight simulator programs; this is Colimata's Concorde v1.10 in BA livery.

The committee’s early research soon established it was going to be an expensive undertaking so the UK sought partners; the US declined but in 1962 the UK and France signed the Anglo-French Concorde agreement, a framework for cooperation in the building of the one SST.  The choice of name actually came some months after the engineering concord was signed, the manufacturers submitting to the UK cabinet the names Concord and Concorde, it being thought desirable to have something which sounded and meant the same in both languages (the French had already agreed it shouldn’t be called the Super-Caravelle the project name for a smaller SST on which some work had been done in 1960).  The other suggestions put to cabinet were Alliance or Europa.  In the cabinet discussions in London, Alliance was thought to be "too military" and Europa offended those Tories who still hankered for the "splendid isolation" which had been the British view on European matters in the previous century.  Even in the nineteenth century age of Pax Britannica splendid isolation had been somewhat illusory but in the Tory Party the words still exerted a powerful pull.  

The French-built Concorde 001's roll-out, Toulouse Blagnac airport, 11 December 1967.

There is some dispute about whether the cabinet ever formally agreed to use the French spelling but, like much in English-French relations over the centuries, the entente proved not always cordial and the name was officially changed to Concord by UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (later First Earl Stockton, 1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) in response to him feeling slighted by Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970; President of France 1958-1969) when Le President vetoed the UK’s application to join the European Economic Community (the EEC which evolved into the present Day EU of which the UK was a member between 1973-2020).  However, the Labour party won office in the 1964 general election and by the time of the roll-out in Toulouse in 1967, the UK’s Minister for Technology, Tony Benn (Anthony Wedgwood Benn, 1925–2014, formerly the second Viscount Stansgate) announced he was changing the spelling back to Concorde.  There were not many eurosceptics in the (old) Labour Party back then.

Concorde taking off, 1973 Paris Air Show, the doomed Tupolev Tu-144 in the foreground.

The engineering challenges were overcome and in 1969, some months before the moon landing, Concorde made its maiden flight and, in 1973, a successful demonstration flight was performed at the same Paris air show at which its Soviet competitor Tupolev Tu-144 crashed.  Impressed, more than a dozen airlines placed orders but within months of the Paris show, the first oil shock hit and the world entered a severe recession; the long post-war boom was over.  A quadrupling in the oil price was quite a blow for a machine which burned 20% more fuel per mile than a Boeing 747 yet typically carried only a hundred passengers whereas the Jumbo could be configured for between four and five hundred.  That might still have been viable had have oil prices remained low and a mass-market existed of people willing to pay a premium but with jet fuel suddenly expensive and the world in recession, doubts existed and most orders were immediately cancelled.

Concorde 002 on public display at BAC's (British Aircraft Corporation) airfield, Filton, Bristol, site of its construction.

Eventually, only twenty were built, operated only by BOAC (BEA/BA) and Air France, early hopes of mass-production never materialized; while orders were taken for over a hundred with dozens more optioned, the contracts were soon cancelled.  By 1976 only four nations remained as prospective buyers: Britain, France, China, and Iran; the latter two never took up their orders and by the time Concorde entered service, the US had cancelled their supersonic project and the Soviet programme was soon to follow.  Even without the oil shocks of the 1970s and the more compelling economics of wide-bodied airliners like the Boeing 747, there were problems, the noise of the sonic boom as the speed of sound was exceeded meaning it was impossible to secure agreement for it to operate over land at supersonic speed.  Accordingly, most of its time was spent overflying the Atlantic and Pacific and BA and Air France sometimes made profit from Concorde only because the British and French governments wrote off the development costs.  Concorde was an extraordinary technical achievement but existed only because the post-war years in the UK and France were characterised by national projects undertaken by nationalised industries.  Under orthodox modern (post Reagan cum Thatcher) economics, such a thing could never happen. 

Concorde F-BTSC (Air France Flight 4590), Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris, France, 25 July 2000.

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, bound for New York, crashed on take-off out of Paris, killing all 109 on board and a further four on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde, the cause determined to be debris on the runway which entered an engine, causing catastrophic damage.  In April 2003, both Air France and British Airways announced that they would retire Concorde later that year citing low passenger numbers following the crash, the slump in air travel following the 9/11 attacks and rising maintenance costs.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap (1998)

Fictional works are usually constructed cognizant of physical reality and technological innovations have always influenced what's possible in plot-lines.  The cell phone for example offered many possibilities but also rendered some situations either impossible or improbable (although Hollywood has sometimes found either of those no obstacle in a screenplay).  The retirement of Concorde also had to be noted.  Not only had it long been used as a symbol of wealth but there was also the speed so plot-lines which included the relativities of the duration of commercial supersonic versus subsonic trans-Atlantic travel were suddenly no loner possible.  Lindsay Lohan's line in The Parent Trap (1998) since 2003 (and for the foreseeable future) is a "stranded relic" of the Concorde era.     

Tupolev Tu-144 (NATO reporting name: Charger).

The Tu-144 was the USSR’s SST and it was the first to fly, its maiden flight in 1968 some months before Concorde and sixteen were built.  It was also usually ahead of the Anglo-French development, attaining supersonic speed twelve weeks earlier and entering commercial service in 1975 but safety and reliability concerns doomed the project and its reputation never recovered from the 1973 crash.  The Soviet carrier Aeroflot introduced a regular Moscow-Almaty service but only a few dozen flights were ever completed, the Tu-144 withdrawn after a second crash in 1978 after which it was used only for cargo until 1983 when the remaining fleet was grounded.  It was later used to train Soviet cosmonauts and had a curious post-cold war career when chartered by NASA for high-altitude research.  The final flight was in 1999.

Boeing 2707.

While perfecting supersonic military aircraft during the early 1950s, Americans had explored the idea of SSTs as passenger aircraft and had concluded that while it was technically possible, in economic terms such a thing could never be made to work and that four-engined jets like the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC8 were the future of commercial aviation.  However, the announcement of the development of Concorde and the Soviet SST stirred the Kennedy White House into funding what was essentially a vanity project proving the technical superiority of US science and engineering.  Boeing won the competition to design an SST and, despite also working on the 747 and the space programme, it gained a high priority and the 2707 was projected to be the biggest, fastest and most advanced of all the SSTs, seating up to three-hundred, cruising at Mach 3 and configured with a swing-wing.  Cost, complexity and weight doomed that last feature and the design was revised to use a conventional delta shape.  But, however advanced US engineering and science might have been, US accountancy was better still and what was clearly an financially unviable programme was in 1971 cancelled even before the two prototypes had been completed.

Lockheed L-2000.

Lockheed also entered the government-funded competition to design a US SST.  Similar to the Boeing concept in size, speed and duration, it eschewed the swing-wing because, despite the aerodynamic advantages, the engineers concluded what Boeing would eventually admit: that the weight, cost and complexity acceptable in military airframes, couldn’t be justified in a civilian aircraft.  As the military-industrial complex well knew, the Pentagon was always more sanguine about spending other people's money (OPM) than those people were about parting with their own.  Lockheed instead used a slightly different compromise: the compound delta.  After the competition, Boeing and Lockheed were both selected to continue to the prototype stage but in 1966 Boeing’s swing-wing design was preferred because its performance was in most aspects superior and it was quieter; that it was going to be more expensive to produce wasn’t enough to sway the government, things being different in the 1960s.  Reality finally bit in 1971.

Depiction of a Boom Overture in United Airlines livery.

In mid-2021 US carrier United Airlines (UA) announced plans to acquire a fleet of fifteen new supersonic airliners which they expected to be in service by 2029.  It wasn’t clear from the press release what was the most ambitious aspect of the programme: (1) that Colorado-based Boom (which at the time had not achieved supersonic flight), would be able by 2029 to produce even one machine certified by regulatory authorities for use in commercial aviation, (2) that the aircraft would be delivered at close to the budgeted US$200 million unit cost, (3) that what United describe as “improvements in aircraft design since Concorde” will eliminate, reduce or mitigate (all three have at various times been suggested) the effects of the sonic boom, (4) that it won’t be “any louder than other modern passenger jets while taking off, flying over land and landing”, (5) that sufficient passengers will be prepared to pay a premium to fly at Mach 1.7 in a new and unproven airframe built by a company with no record in the industry or that (6) Greta Thunberg (b 2003) will believe Boom which says Overture will operate as a "net-zero carbon aircraft".

Looking sceptical: Greta Thunberg.

The suggestion was the Overture will run on "posh biodiesel", made from anything from waste cooking fat to specially grown high-energy crops although whether this industry can by 2029 be scaled-up to produce what will be required to service enough of the aviation industry to make either project viable isn’t known.  Still, if not, Boom claimed "power-to-liquid" processes by which renewable energy such as solar or wind power is used to produce liquid fuel will make up any shortfall.  Boom does seem a heroic operation: they expect the Overture to be profitable for airlines even if tickets are sold for the same price as a standard business-class ticket.  One way or another, the flight-path (figuratively and literally) of the Boom Overture follows is going to become a standard case-study in university departments although whether that's in marketing, engineering or accountancy might depend matters beyond Boom's control.

Boom XB-1 in subsonic flight.

Boom’s progress can’t however be denied because on 10 February, 2025, its XB-1 “proof of concept” test platform accomplished what orthodox physics once deemed impossible.  On that day if flew over California’s Mojave Desert at speeds beyond the sound barrier without generating a sonic boom, the announcement surprising some sceptics but doing little to quell the doubts among analysts unable to build models which show a sustained profitable life for the project.  What Boom did with the XB-1 was use an implementation of “Mach cut-off” technology which exploits atmospheric conditions by manipulation, redirecting shock waves upward rather than toward the ground.  This is achieved by operating the airframe in a certain four-dimensional envelope (a window created by specific atmospheric conditions within a certain height range up to a certain speed).  Flying within these parameters, the airframe minimizes the unwanted effects of pressure waves, dispersing them without forming the concentrated pressure front that creates the dreaded sonic booms.  Whatever the sceptical economic modelers may conclude, it was an impressive display of Boom’s technology and engineering with the ground-level impact eliminated, at least in the ideal, controlled conditions of a test flight.

Scripps Climate Physics explains Mach Cut-Off.

What the economists noted was the XB-1 was able to achieve the much vaunted “silent-supersonic” at around 1,200 km/h (750 mph) and the math indicates the means to implement Mach cut-off when travelling faster (certainly the 2,100 km/h (1300 mph; Mach 1.7) which apparently remains Boom’s target) doesn’t yet exist, even at the level of theory.  On land, sea or air, for centuries what has determined commercial viability is the speed-cost trade-off and notional profitability was for at least some of Concorde’s years of operation achieved because it offered a quicker trans-Atlantic flight-time (typically the Concorde at Mach 2.04 (1,350 mph, 2,180 km/h) would take 3 hours 30 minutes while at Mach 0.85 (565 mph, 910 km/h), a Boeing 747 would need 7-8 hours).  In truth that profitability was a fudge subsidized by taxpayers (a remarkably common phenomenon in modern capitalism) because the French & British governments “wrote off” the development costs (some Stg £1.3 billion by the late 1970s at a time when a billion pounds was still a lot of money and even that may have been a deliberate under-estimate to conceal the true cost which has been estimated (in 2023 Sterling value terms) as high as Stg£21 billion).

Boom XB-1 taking off.

Rich customers or those with tickets paid for by OPM (other people’s money) were prepared to pay the significant premium charged for a seat on Concorde just to avoid sitting an additional 4-5 hours on a wide-bodied subsonic aircraft and that’s the market Boom is interested in for a trans-continental (New York City (NYC) to Los Angeles (LA)) US service.  Subsonic flight times on the NYC-LA route are typically 5-6 hours while Boom will be able to achieve that in under two hours if their silent subsonic plans can be realized; that would mean the road transport components of a trip elements to and from the NYC & LA airports could be longer than the time in the air.  If able to offer a 3-4 hour reduction in NYC-LA travel time, genuinely that’s a marketing advantage but one which can be leveraged only if there are enough customers willing (with the required frequency) to spend somebody’s money to fill the seats of UA’s 15 silentsonics.  If, as Boom once indicated to venture capitalists (VC) and others (JAL (Japan Airlines has reportedly invested US$10 million), the tickets on the NYC-LA route would retail at around the subsonic business-class level, then few doubt their model will work but it remains to be seen whether what’s necessary can be achieved (1) by 2029 or (2) ever.  Hopefully, Boom does succeed so delta-winged supersonics can make a (quieter) return to the skies though it’ll be a shame if the marketing department insisted on changing the corporate name to something like “Boomless”, “No Boom”, “Boom-Free” or whatever.  “Boom” is a really good name for an aviation outfit has some history in the field, “Boom” the nickname of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Hugh Trenchard (First Viscount Trenchard, 1873–1956) who was instrumental in the formation of Britain’s RAF (Royal Air Force) although he gained the moniker because of the tone of his voice rather than anything to do with fluid dynamics.