12th Jan 2011, 20:45
permalink Post: 1081
Wow, what a great thread! I started reading it yesterday and am up to page 19 so far! I flew on the wonderful white bird once, in 1999, a Manchester - round the bay at Mach 2 - Paris flight in G-BOAD. And the wonderful thing was I did the entire flight, push back at Manchester to parking at Paris, in the jump seat! What a fabulous experience - thank you Roger!
Here's a picture I took as the aircraft turne left towards the French coast:
One memory is climbing through 50,000 feet over South Wales before turning down the Bristol Channel. It was glorious August day and I had a great view forward past the captain and particularly out of the left window. The speed over the ground at Mach 0.95 seemed noticably faster than a subsonic jet, and that view was breathtaking! The Bristol Channel was edged in golden yellow beaches, and I could see right across south west England to the English Channel. In my headset the controller called another aircraft; "Speedbird 123 if you look up now you will see you are about to be overflown by Concorde". I leaned towards my side window and there was Speedbird 123, a tiny scurrying beetle miles below us. From this height the fair-weather cu looked as if they were on the ground - like small white splodges from some celestial artist's paint brush.
We cruised at Mach 2 and 60,000' over the Bay for a while and the pax came forward to view the flightdeck. I was amazed how patient was the supernumery captain who was answering the same questions over and over again was (the flight crew were too busy to chat).
The approach to CDG looked far steeper than other airliner approaches I had witnessed from the flight deck; more like one of my glide approaches in the Chipmunk! But it wasn't, of course, as we were following the 3 degree glideslope. I guess it was an illusion brought about by the steep pitch angle.
I remember the captain resting his hands on the throttles as they shuttled back and forth under autothrottle control, the smooth touchdown, the 'landing' of the nosewheel followed by full forward stick, and thinking "we'll never make that turn off". Then on came the powerful reverse and the brakes, I was thrust foreward in my harness, the speed disappeared, and we made the turnoff easily!
Oh, and that stange bouncy ride in the flight deck on the ground as the long nose forward of the nosewheel flexed over every joint in the taxyway. So bad at times it was difficult to take a photograph!
What an experience!
I have a question which I hope hasn't been answered in the pages (20 to this one) that I've yet to read.
From an earlier post I understand that the anti-skid used a rotational reference from the unbraked nosewheels to compare to the rotation of the mains, and that with gear down in the air a substiute nose-wheel referance is supplied which, because the mains are not yet rotating, allows the anti-skid to keep the brakes off.
But what happens when the mains touch down with the nosewheels still high in the air? What (if anything) inhibits wheel braking until the nosewhels are on the ground (and therefore rotating)?
Also, this thread started with a question about the lack of an APU. When Concorde was parked could the aircon and cabin lighting be powered by external electrical power, or did the cabin aircon without engine power require an external 'aircon unit' to be connected? Or was aircon simply not available without at least one engine running?
And one for Landlady or any other CC. If a table top was set up between the cabins during service, how did the 'front' crew service the first 2 rows of the rear cabin?
Being 'up front' for my entire flight, I missed out on the cabin service. But superb though I'm sure that was, under the circumstances it's not something I regret!
Here's a picture I took as the aircraft turne left towards the French coast:
One memory is climbing through 50,000 feet over South Wales before turning down the Bristol Channel. It was glorious August day and I had a great view forward past the captain and particularly out of the left window. The speed over the ground at Mach 0.95 seemed noticably faster than a subsonic jet, and that view was breathtaking! The Bristol Channel was edged in golden yellow beaches, and I could see right across south west England to the English Channel. In my headset the controller called another aircraft; "Speedbird 123 if you look up now you will see you are about to be overflown by Concorde". I leaned towards my side window and there was Speedbird 123, a tiny scurrying beetle miles below us. From this height the fair-weather cu looked as if they were on the ground - like small white splodges from some celestial artist's paint brush.
We cruised at Mach 2 and 60,000' over the Bay for a while and the pax came forward to view the flightdeck. I was amazed how patient was the supernumery captain who was answering the same questions over and over again was (the flight crew were too busy to chat).
The approach to CDG looked far steeper than other airliner approaches I had witnessed from the flight deck; more like one of my glide approaches in the Chipmunk! But it wasn't, of course, as we were following the 3 degree glideslope. I guess it was an illusion brought about by the steep pitch angle.
I remember the captain resting his hands on the throttles as they shuttled back and forth under autothrottle control, the smooth touchdown, the 'landing' of the nosewheel followed by full forward stick, and thinking "we'll never make that turn off". Then on came the powerful reverse and the brakes, I was thrust foreward in my harness, the speed disappeared, and we made the turnoff easily!
Oh, and that stange bouncy ride in the flight deck on the ground as the long nose forward of the nosewheel flexed over every joint in the taxyway. So bad at times it was difficult to take a photograph!
What an experience!
I have a question which I hope hasn't been answered in the pages (20 to this one) that I've yet to read.
From an earlier post I understand that the anti-skid used a rotational reference from the unbraked nosewheels to compare to the rotation of the mains, and that with gear down in the air a substiute nose-wheel referance is supplied which, because the mains are not yet rotating, allows the anti-skid to keep the brakes off.
But what happens when the mains touch down with the nosewheels still high in the air? What (if anything) inhibits wheel braking until the nosewhels are on the ground (and therefore rotating)?
Also, this thread started with a question about the lack of an APU. When Concorde was parked could the aircon and cabin lighting be powered by external electrical power, or did the cabin aircon without engine power require an external 'aircon unit' to be connected? Or was aircon simply not available without at least one engine running?
And one for Landlady or any other CC. If a table top was set up between the cabins during service, how did the 'front' crew service the first 2 rows of the rear cabin?
Being 'up front' for my entire flight, I missed out on the cabin service. But superb though I'm sure that was, under the circumstances it's not something I regret!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 12th Jan 2011 at 22:07 .
13th Jan 2011, 09:45
permalink Post: 1082
atakacs
Really an answer for CliveL, but I'll have a go. The short answer to your question is 'oh yeah, big time'. Total temperature varies with the SQUARE of Mach number and static temperature. Depending on the height of the tropopause itself as well as other local factors, there can be little or no significant variation of static temperature between FL600 and FL700. The 400\xb0K (127\xb0C) Tmo limit was imposed for reasons of thermal fatigue life, and equates to Mach 2.0 at ISA +5. (Most of the time the lower than ISA +5 static air temperatures kept us well away from Tmo). In a nutshell, flying higher in the stratosphere gains you very little as far as temperature goes. (Even taking into account the very small positive lapse above FL 650 in a standard atmosphere). As far as the MAX SPEED bit goes, Concorde was as we know flown to a maximum of Mach 2.23 on A/C 101, but with the production intake and 'final' AICU N1 limiter law, the maximum achievable Mach number in level flight is about Mach 2.13. (Also theoretically, somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.3, the front few intake shocks would be 'pushed' back beyond the lower lip, the resulting flow distortion causing multiple severe and surges).
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630). This to me was an absolute TESTAMENT to the designers achievement with this totally astounding aeroplane , and always made me feel quite in awe of chaps such as CliveL.
Well the maximum altitude EVER achieved in testing was I believe by aircraft 102 which achieved 68,000'. As far as the second part of your question goes, not to my knowledge (gulp!!) but perhaps CliveL can confirm.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
So glad you are enjoying the thread, and absolutely loved the description of your flight in OAD and your photo is superb. I don't think it is possible to name a single other arcraft in the world that could be happily flown hands off like this, in a turn with 20\xb0 of bank at Mach 2. (One for you ChristiaanJ; The more observant will notice that we are in MAX CLIMB/MAX CRUISE with the autothrottle cutting in in MACH HOLD. Oh, we are in HDG HOLD too
).
Now for your question
A very good question. The anti-skid system used a fixed simulated nose wheel rolling speed Vo signal as soon as the undercarriage was down and locked, this was confirmed by the illumination of the 8 'R' lights on the anti-skid panel. The illumination of these lights confirmed that there was full ant-skid release from the relevant wheel, due to there being of course zero output initially from the main gear tachos but this simulated Vo output from the nose gear tacho. The Vo signal therefore ensured that the aircraft could not be landed 'brakes on' (all the main wheels think they are on full skid) and that there was anti-skid control pending lowering of the nose-wheel. As the main wheels spin up on landing, their tacho outputs now start to back off the Vo signal, and braking can commence. As the nose leg compresses, the Vo signal is removed and the Nose-wheel tachos(their were 2 wired in parallel) spin up, their output will now replace the Vo signal, and full precise anti skid operates.
As far as your air conditioning question goes, you needed an external air conditioning truck to supply cabin air on the ground. Not needed in the hangars of course, but come departure time if these trucks were not working, then the cabin could become very warm/hot place indeed (depending on the time of year). Oh for an APU
Best regards
Dude
Quote:
| Just wondering was that the maximum speed "in" the design ? I understand that "the higher & the colder = the faster" was the key to the performance and that the Mach +/- 2.0 cruise was implied by limiting altitude to FL 600 in order to mitigate cabin depressurization consequences. I guess there where also thermal issues but was, say, Mach 2.2 @ FL700 "warmer" than Mach 2.0 @ FL600 ? |
Really an answer for CliveL, but I'll have a go. The short answer to your question is 'oh yeah, big time'. Total temperature varies with the SQUARE of Mach number and static temperature. Depending on the height of the tropopause itself as well as other local factors, there can be little or no significant variation of static temperature between FL600 and FL700. The 400\xb0K (127\xb0C) Tmo limit was imposed for reasons of thermal fatigue life, and equates to Mach 2.0 at ISA +5. (Most of the time the lower than ISA +5 static air temperatures kept us well away from Tmo). In a nutshell, flying higher in the stratosphere gains you very little as far as temperature goes. (Even taking into account the very small positive lapse above FL 650 in a standard atmosphere). As far as the MAX SPEED bit goes, Concorde was as we know flown to a maximum of Mach 2.23 on A/C 101, but with the production intake and 'final' AICU N1 limiter law, the maximum achievable Mach number in level flight is about Mach 2.13. (Also theoretically, somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.3, the front few intake shocks would be 'pushed' back beyond the lower lip, the resulting flow distortion causing multiple severe and surges).
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630). This to me was an absolute TESTAMENT to the designers achievement with this totally astounding aeroplane , and always made me feel quite in awe of chaps such as CliveL.
Quote:
| Also wondering what was the max altitude ? Was high altitude stall (for the lack of a better word) ever experimented during tests or training ? |
Shaggy Sheep Driver
So glad you are enjoying the thread, and absolutely loved the description of your flight in OAD and your photo is superb. I don't think it is possible to name a single other arcraft in the world that could be happily flown hands off like this, in a turn with 20\xb0 of bank at Mach 2. (One for you ChristiaanJ; The more observant will notice that we are in MAX CLIMB/MAX CRUISE with the autothrottle cutting in in MACH HOLD. Oh, we are in HDG HOLD too
).
Now for your question
Quote:
| I understand that the anti-skid used a rotational reference from the unbraked nosewheels to compare to the rotation of the mains, and that with gear down in the air a substiute nose-wheel referance is supplied which, because the mains are not yet rotating, allows the anti-skid to keep the brakes off. But what happens when the mains touch down with the nose wheels still high in the air? What (if anything) inhibits wheel braking until the nosewhels are on the ground (and therefore rotating)? |
As far as your air conditioning question goes, you needed an external air conditioning truck to supply cabin air on the ground. Not needed in the hangars of course, but come departure time if these trucks were not working, then the cabin could become very warm/hot place indeed (depending on the time of year). Oh for an APU
Best regards
Dude
12th Mar 2011, 21:49
permalink Post: 1239
The engine starting sequence was also in airline operation 3-4-2-1. At the gate the altered sequence was 3-2 prior the pushback and 4-1 after due to safety reasons for ground crew and for noise restrictions at some airport stands.
Brit312 explained in post #140:
I must admit that I am no expert (not yet
), but it seems both sequences follow the logic to feed the blue hydraulic by engine#3 first, then one of the two yellow systems (2 or 4) and the green hydraulic (engines 1&2) which supplies power to some more services than the blue (droop nose and visor, landing gear, main wheel brakes with anti-skid and nosewheel steering).
Well, I hope, this was not a stupid answer before I took a chance for a nonstupid question
- but I am so exited about this thread and just want a little bit to give back!
Thanks for the probably best thing ever I have found in the internet. Thank you M2dude, Brit312, ChristiaanJ, Exwok, Bellerophon, Landlady et al.!
Brit312 explained in post #140:
Quote:
|
Yes we always started just the two inboard engines prior to push back and the outers when the push back was complete. This was for a number of reasons, but I do seem to remember it was not unheard of to break the tow bar shear pin on the initial push, so the less power the better
Remember that Concorde had no APU and no across the ship ducting for stating engines, therefore prior to push an air start unit was plugged into each pair of engines and the inboard engines would be started. This allowed, after push back, air from each inboard engine to be used to start it's outboard engine. The other good reason for starting the inboards prior to push was that with no APU the cabin temp would rise quite quickly [specially in places like Bahrain in summer] and never mind the passengers comfort, but some of M2dude and ChristiaanJ fancy electronic equipment was very temp sensitive , especially those intake control units down the rear galley. With Two engines running we could use their bleed air to at least try and hold the cabin air temp during the push back |
), but it seems both sequences follow the logic to feed the blue hydraulic by engine#3 first, then one of the two yellow systems (2 or 4) and the green hydraulic (engines 1&2) which supplies power to some more services than the blue (droop nose and visor, landing gear, main wheel brakes with anti-skid and nosewheel steering).
Well, I hope, this was not a stupid answer before I took a chance for a nonstupid question
- but I am so exited about this thread and just want a little bit to give back!
Thanks for the probably best thing ever I have found in the internet. Thank you M2dude, Brit312, ChristiaanJ, Exwok, Bellerophon, Landlady et al.!
13th Mar 2011, 08:25
permalink Post: 1241
Quax .95
The trick was to get as many hydraulic systems online ASAP during engine start/pushback, and that's where the sequence was defined. Now my tired/worn out/time-expired brain recollects that number TWO engine was started first, this gave us GREEN and YELLOW systems, followed by number THREE engine, which now gave us BLUE system. Once these engines were successfully started the 2 air start trucks (oh for that darned APU) could be disconnected and preliminary system checks, including full and free flying controls, could be carried out. After push-back the outboard engines were started by using adjacent engine cross-bleed (as BRIT312 quite correctly stated years ago, there was no 'cross the ship' cross-bleed duct), the remaining system checks would be carried out. After this the tow-bar would be disconnected, the nose lowered to 5 \xb0 and our Concorde would taxi away ready to leap up into the heavens; the place that she truly belonged.
Best Regards
Dude
The trick was to get as many hydraulic systems online ASAP during engine start/pushback, and that's where the sequence was defined. Now my tired/worn out/time-expired brain recollects that number TWO engine was started first, this gave us GREEN and YELLOW systems, followed by number THREE engine, which now gave us BLUE system. Once these engines were successfully started the 2 air start trucks (oh for that darned APU) could be disconnected and preliminary system checks, including full and free flying controls, could be carried out. After push-back the outboard engines were started by using adjacent engine cross-bleed (as BRIT312 quite correctly stated years ago, there was no 'cross the ship' cross-bleed duct), the remaining system checks would be carried out. After this the tow-bar would be disconnected, the nose lowered to 5 \xb0 and our Concorde would taxi away ready to leap up into the heavens; the place that she truly belonged.
Best Regards
Dude
18th Aug 2011, 16:54
permalink Post: 1442
I partly read the book, "By the Rivers of Babylon". Threw it away when I reached the bit about the Concord with an APU (I am not a Concord pilot).
18th Aug 2011, 18:21
permalink Post: 1443
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
DunePrune
I partly read the book, "By the Rivers of Babylon". Threw it away when I reached the bit about the Concord with an APU (I am not a Concord pilot).
|
And, as you may have seen earlier in this thread, the notion of a Concorde with an APU wasn't all that far-fetched, especially for an El-Al Concorde.
19th Aug 2011, 05:24
permalink Post: 1444
I seem to remember that there was no runway in the story, so the pilot just landed his APU equiped Concord in the desert. I am a desert pilot. The author was off his patch and poaching on mine.
21st Aug 2011, 16:14
permalink Post: 1447
THAT ******ing BOOK
Hey DunePrune don't go...... you voiced a perfectly valid point about that book, voiced from the point of view of a pilot too.
I think I speak for the majority of posters when I say that you are most welcome here, please carry on posting.
As far as the book goes, well I suppose just like most books it's a rather subjective thing but PERSONALLY I think that book was total crap!!
Apart from the old 'Concorde APU' side of things (and I still chuckle at the thought of a sizable pneumatic pipe, carrying HOT passing air through a large fuel tank trying to get certification) there were also several other goofs that gave one the idea that the author was, ahem... not very 'plane minded'. Placing the bomb inside Tank 11 'before it was welded shut' shows total ignorance as far as the way that aircraft are built. The other one was the description of locating a wire by it's colour and the colour of a tracer within that wire. Concorde, just like most aircraft used plain white Poly-X or yellow Kapton Liquid-H cable with circuit identification printed on the cable at regular lengths.
All you did was to voice your very valid opinion here, so don't stop posting DunePrune and stay around.
I think I speak for the majority of posters when I say that you are most welcome here, please carry on posting.
As far as the book goes, well I suppose just like most books it's a rather subjective thing but PERSONALLY I think that book was total crap!!
Apart from the old 'Concorde APU' side of things (and I still chuckle at the thought of a sizable pneumatic pipe, carrying HOT passing air through a large fuel tank trying to get certification) there were also several other goofs that gave one the idea that the author was, ahem... not very 'plane minded'. Placing the bomb inside Tank 11 'before it was welded shut' shows total ignorance as far as the way that aircraft are built. The other one was the description of locating a wire by it's colour and the colour of a tracer within that wire. Concorde, just like most aircraft used plain white Poly-X or yellow Kapton Liquid-H cable with circuit identification printed on the cable at regular lengths.
All you did was to voice your very valid opinion here, so don't stop posting DunePrune and stay around.
Last edited by M2dude; 24th Aug 2011 at 17:37 .
1st Apr 2012, 23:06
permalink Post: 1582
Differences between ordered Airframes
I had a guy on a tour at MAN last week who asked a question - what were the differences between the BA Concordes and the French ones ?
Broadening it out a bit this was touched on earlier in the thread with the APU for Iran discussion and a bit about AF & AG being slightly different.
Is there a definitive list anywhere of what each of the airlines wanted ?
Broadening it out a bit this was touched on earlier in the thread with the APU for Iran discussion and a bit about AF & AG being slightly different.
Is there a definitive list anywhere of what each of the airlines wanted ?
26th Apr 2012, 20:22
permalink Post: 1600
Many thanks for this thread. Thank heavens Concorde didn't have an APU otherwise I wouldnt have had the pleasure of reading it.
I was at school in Basingstoke when Concorde first attended the Farnborough air show. Maths lessons were constantly interrupted by the third floor windows filling up with a very noisy aeroplane flying over at high alpha and wheels down. After the third circuit, the teacher (an Australian,) shouted at us that we'd seen your BXXXdy aeroplane now get back to work. Phillistine!
I never saw one flying without looking up in reverent awe and I cannot recall a time when anybody else wasn't doing so.
Came the day that I woke up to hear the sad news on the morning radio of the retirement. I emailed my comment and it was read out on the Today programme. Looking on the 'net at work at the other comments there was a small window telling me that BA were offering celebration flights. 1,000 tickets at \xa32,000 a go.
I'd just bought a house and my meagre savings were needed for a bathroom, hot water and some further essentials. I held out until tea break and dialled There were three tickets left. Make that two, please. I booked the first flight I could get in case something went wrong and the project was canned early.
Paying was another matter. All my money was in France and the BA desk at Southampton wouldn't take my cheque so I transferred money to my British account and tried it again. "There must be some mistake" said the nice lady at the desk. "This booking ref is coming up very expensive. I'm going to see if I can get it cheaper."
"Please don't." I replied.
"But you don't understand, This flight is VERY expensive. "I know." The people behind me were becoming disgruntled.
"I just don't get it. What class are you travelling?"
"Concorde."
The people behind me suddenly backed off.
I had a good trip out, my first trip on a 747. Ask for a Whiskey and get a nice little bottle of Johnny Walker.
I had a better trip back. Ask for a Whiskey and get enough eighteen year old Glenfiddich to drown a small child.
The experience changed my life. The only thrill that could get anywhere near it would be to pilot an aircraft myself. I now have about eight hours solo. It doesn't compare. Being SLF on Alpha Golf was the thrill of a lifetime and I have never regretted a penny of it.
To those contributors who worked on the programme in any capacity, Thank you for the enormous priviledge of being able to experience such a fine and beautiful thing.
Having rambled on for far too long already, I'll just recall a line from Radio 4's Week Ending: "Following a question in the House, the minister admitted that Concorde made more noise than the Bay City Rollers but pointed out that it was of far better quality."
I was at school in Basingstoke when Concorde first attended the Farnborough air show. Maths lessons were constantly interrupted by the third floor windows filling up with a very noisy aeroplane flying over at high alpha and wheels down. After the third circuit, the teacher (an Australian,) shouted at us that we'd seen your BXXXdy aeroplane now get back to work. Phillistine!
I never saw one flying without looking up in reverent awe and I cannot recall a time when anybody else wasn't doing so.
Came the day that I woke up to hear the sad news on the morning radio of the retirement. I emailed my comment and it was read out on the Today programme. Looking on the 'net at work at the other comments there was a small window telling me that BA were offering celebration flights. 1,000 tickets at \xa32,000 a go.
I'd just bought a house and my meagre savings were needed for a bathroom, hot water and some further essentials. I held out until tea break and dialled There were three tickets left. Make that two, please. I booked the first flight I could get in case something went wrong and the project was canned early.
Paying was another matter. All my money was in France and the BA desk at Southampton wouldn't take my cheque so I transferred money to my British account and tried it again. "There must be some mistake" said the nice lady at the desk. "This booking ref is coming up very expensive. I'm going to see if I can get it cheaper."
"Please don't." I replied.
"But you don't understand, This flight is VERY expensive. "I know." The people behind me were becoming disgruntled.
"I just don't get it. What class are you travelling?"
"Concorde."
The people behind me suddenly backed off.
I had a good trip out, my first trip on a 747. Ask for a Whiskey and get a nice little bottle of Johnny Walker.
I had a better trip back. Ask for a Whiskey and get enough eighteen year old Glenfiddich to drown a small child.
The experience changed my life. The only thrill that could get anywhere near it would be to pilot an aircraft myself. I now have about eight hours solo. It doesn't compare. Being SLF on Alpha Golf was the thrill of a lifetime and I have never regretted a penny of it.
To those contributors who worked on the programme in any capacity, Thank you for the enormous priviledge of being able to experience such a fine and beautiful thing.
Having rambled on for far too long already, I'll just recall a line from Radio 4's Week Ending: "Following a question in the House, the minister admitted that Concorde made more noise than the Bay City Rollers but pointed out that it was of far better quality."
Last edited by m.Berger; 26th Apr 2012 at 20:25 . Reason: Spelling
21st Feb 2013, 00:43
permalink Post: 1699
Beautiful
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would just like to thank the contributors to this thread - it is by far and away the best piece I've ever visited on the internet. Bar none. It has taken me months (and many arguments with a jealous girlfriend!) to get this far - I didn't want to ask any questions which had already been answered.
My experience; never flew on her but when I heard she was being decommissioned, I decided to make every effort to watch a Concorde take off and hang about for the final three consecutive landings at LHR. I have never seen so many grown men cry. I would have counted more but I think I got something in my eye..
As a Chartered Engineer working on a multi-disciplinary rail project, I am amazed that a project as complex as this was managed across the Channel in the 1960's; how was the Systems Engineering managed - who drove the requirements for the Jet, potential carriers, engineers or politicians?
CliveL - your input to this has been amazing - a quick question if I may; you say wind modelling played a big part in the development of the aerodynamics, how big did the models go? Did you have the luxury of testing a full-scale model? or maybe full-scale parts or sub assemblies?
Dude - its my understanding that you worked on the Maintenance Engineering of the jet, many thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Please keep those grey cells going! Was any maintenance every brought forward when it became clear a member of the Royal Family was to fly? How much input did the carriers have in generating the maintenance periodicities for the works? Did these change mid-life? If so, what and why?
ChristiaanJ - I am blown away by just how much cutting-edge (for the time!) kit was provided to get her up. In the railway, we try and steer clear from 'New and Novel' because of the increased assurance risk required. Did the onboard systems required extended testing to assure the authorities? Please forgive my memory, but I seem to recall seeing the test craft have many 'computers' in the passenger areas while testing - what did these record? How did the data support development?
Bellerophon - your post on 18th Dec 2010, 15:20 #875 had me in tears for about 20 minutes - wife to be thought I'd found out someone had died. hhmmmm..
As someone who's hoping to secure their PPL in March / April I found your piece extraordinary - can you confirm rough altitude above aerodrome (AKA QFE for us GA boys?) before instigating the 25\xb0 left bank to commence the turn out over Jamaica bay?
A thoroughly enjoyable and often moving read. Thank you all. Like a good book / film I think I'll come to read it from page one before long - who'd have thought missing out the APU would cause such a stir?!
I would just like to thank the contributors to this thread - it is by far and away the best piece I've ever visited on the internet. Bar none. It has taken me months (and many arguments with a jealous girlfriend!) to get this far - I didn't want to ask any questions which had already been answered.
My experience; never flew on her but when I heard she was being decommissioned, I decided to make every effort to watch a Concorde take off and hang about for the final three consecutive landings at LHR. I have never seen so many grown men cry. I would have counted more but I think I got something in my eye..
As a Chartered Engineer working on a multi-disciplinary rail project, I am amazed that a project as complex as this was managed across the Channel in the 1960's; how was the Systems Engineering managed - who drove the requirements for the Jet, potential carriers, engineers or politicians?
CliveL - your input to this has been amazing - a quick question if I may; you say wind modelling played a big part in the development of the aerodynamics, how big did the models go? Did you have the luxury of testing a full-scale model? or maybe full-scale parts or sub assemblies?
Dude - its my understanding that you worked on the Maintenance Engineering of the jet, many thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Please keep those grey cells going! Was any maintenance every brought forward when it became clear a member of the Royal Family was to fly? How much input did the carriers have in generating the maintenance periodicities for the works? Did these change mid-life? If so, what and why?
ChristiaanJ - I am blown away by just how much cutting-edge (for the time!) kit was provided to get her up. In the railway, we try and steer clear from 'New and Novel' because of the increased assurance risk required. Did the onboard systems required extended testing to assure the authorities? Please forgive my memory, but I seem to recall seeing the test craft have many 'computers' in the passenger areas while testing - what did these record? How did the data support development?
Bellerophon - your post on 18th Dec 2010, 15:20 #875 had me in tears for about 20 minutes - wife to be thought I'd found out someone had died. hhmmmm..
As someone who's hoping to secure their PPL in March / April I found your piece extraordinary - can you confirm rough altitude above aerodrome (AKA QFE for us GA boys?) before instigating the 25\xb0 left bank to commence the turn out over Jamaica bay?
A thoroughly enjoyable and often moving read. Thank you all. Like a good book / film I think I'll come to read it from page one before long - who'd have thought missing out the APU would cause such a stir?!
4th Mar 2013, 14:12
permalink Post: 1708
@ FALTAHAN
Quote:
| Like a good book / film I think I'll come to read it from page one before long - who'd have thought missing out the APU would cause such a stir?! |
