Learn how Concorde landed without flaps, why it approached nose-high at about 160 knots, and how its droop nose, delta wing and brakes worked.
Concorde landed on a conventional runway, but approached at roughly 155–170 knots with no flaps and its long fuselage pitched about 10–12 degrees nose-up. Its ogival delta wing made lift at high angle of attack, while the nose drooped 12.5 degrees so the pilots could see the runway.
In real-world aviation, that dramatic attitude can be misleading. Concorde still descended on a normal glide path, usually close to three degrees; the aircraft was pitched nose-up relative to that descending flight path, not climbing towards the runway.
How did a Concorde landing work?
A Concorde landing followed the familiar pattern of deceleration, stabilised approach, flare and rollout, but its flapless wing and high incidence changed how each stage was flown.
- Decelerate early: The crew reduced speed well before final approach and established the landing centre of gravity through fuel management. Concorde could not be treated like a conventional jet that simply selected progressively larger flap settings. The broader principles are covered in our guide to planning a jet descent without arriving too fast or too high.
- Lower the nose and visor: The movable nose was selected fully down to 12.5 degrees and the visor lowered out of the forward view. This improved runway visibility even though the fuselage remained nose-high.
- Stabilise the final approach: With the landing gear down, the pilots followed visual or ILS guidance at the calculated speed for the aircraft's weight and conditions. Engine thrust balanced the considerable drag produced by the delta wing at high incidence.
- Flare and touch down: The flare involved a modest pitch change rather than a large rotation. The main landing-gear bogies touched first; excessive pitch risked contacting the protective tail bumper.
- Lower the nosewheel and stop: As speed decayed, the pilot lowered the nosewheel under control, then used reverse thrust, anti-skid braking and Concorde's carbon brakes to complete the rollout.
Exact speeds, callouts and limits differed with landing weight, weather and operator procedures. About 160 knots is a useful representative figure, not a universal target speed.
What made Concorde's approach different?
The main differences were the absence of flaps, the much higher nose attitude and the need for a movable nose to restore the pilots' view.
| Feature | Concorde | Typical subsonic airliner |
|---|---|---|
| Low-speed lift | Delta-wing vortex lift at high angle of attack | Usually trailing-edge flaps, often with leading-edge slats |
| Final-approach attitude | Roughly 10–12 degrees nose-up | Normally a much lower nose-up attitude |
| Approach speed | Often around 155–170 knots, depending on weight and conditions | Usually lower, although the ranges overlap for large or heavy aircraft |
| Forward visibility | Droop nose and retractable visor required | Fixed cockpit and nose structure |
| Primary trailing-edge controls | Elevons controlling pitch and roll | Separate ailerons and elevators, plus flaps |
| Glide path | Normally close to the standard three-degree path | Normally close to three degrees |
Why did Concorde land without flaps?
Concorde's thin ogival delta wing generated its low-speed lift by creating strong vortices over the upper surface when flown at high incidence. Its elevons occupied the trailing edge and provided both pitch and roll control, so the aircraft had no conventional landing flaps or leading-edge slats.
Increasing incidence produced the required lift, but also substantial drag. That made precise speed and thrust control essential: allowing the speed to decay could produce a rapidly increasing sink rate, while carrying excess speed encouraged a long float and consumed runway.
How could the pilots see the runway?
The pilots regained forward visibility by lowering Concorde's nose 12.5 degrees and moving the aerodynamic visor down before landing. At supersonic speed, both formed a streamlined profile; during the approach, lowering them let the crew see past the otherwise obstructive nose-high attitude.
The outside view was only part of the picture. Crews also monitored the incidence display, airspeed, ILS indications and radio altimeter; our explanation of Concorde's approach instruments, fuel transfer and droop-nose controls shows how those systems worked together.
Was Concorde difficult to land?
Concorde was demanding but predictable when flown at the correct speed, incidence and centre of gravity. Its trained crews used tightly defined procedures, and the aircraft also had ILS-coupled automatic-landing capability when the required equipment and operating approvals were available.
The characteristic failure modes were different from those of a conventional airliner:
- Too much speed: The aircraft floated, touched down farther along the runway and left less distance for braking.
- Too little thrust: High induced drag allowed the sink rate to build quickly. Pitching up to arrest it could add still more drag.
- Trying to flatten the attitude: A low nose attitude removed the angle of attack on which the delta wing depended.
- Over-flaring: Excessive rotation increased the risk of a tail-bumper strike.
- Dropping the nosewheel: Relaxing back-pressure too abruptly after main-gear touchdown imposed unnecessary loads on the forward gear.
How should Concorde's landing be flown in a simulator?
A flight-simulator Concorde should be flown using the model's calculated landing speed and incidence indications rather than a fixed 160-knot rule. Add-ons vary in their treatment of fuel transfer, centre of gravity, ground effect and engine response, so generic airliner habits can produce misleading results.
A mistake we see constantly is adding excessive speed for safety, then making a large conventional flare. Our practical Concorde simulation handling guide covers the flapless configuration, droop-nose setting, final-approach attitude and touchdown technique in more detail.