Re: What baffles me about Concorde
"I've watched the programmes about how Concorde was a financial loss, but a lot of that seems to be due to political shenanigans and terrible project management as opposed to the actual technology."
People seem to forget just how extremely complex Concorde was for it's time. The amount of bespoke electronics required to keep it flying (from flight controls to engine intake geometry computers) is astounding. One of the reasons Concorde was getting so expensive was the massive amount of ageing electronics aboard. In a more commercially viable craft with a larger fleet they'd have done a full avionics and electronics overhaul, replacing all those modules with more modern integrated circuits and computers (Probably saving a few hundred kilogram in the process) but by the time the crash happened most people with the required expertise and knowledge had moved on to other jobs, retired or became permanently unavailable. At that point replacement of many components would basically have entailed a full "from scratch" design with matching certification requirements. That just wasn't going to happen.
Politics certainly also played a role, but there was a lot involved in keeping Conc flying, even before the crash that sealed her fate. After that it was basically a done deal.
If you have a spare few months I'd highly recommend digging through the thread on Concorde over at PPRuNe. Possibly the most complete repository of knowledge on everyday operation around Concorde, some the details in her designs and what choices where behind them, the functions of her computers and electronics modules, etc. Requires a bit of digging to find the gold, but there is so much gold there.