Posts about: "Air France" [Posts: 72 Pages: 4]

This just goes on getting better. Welcome Clive!

After all the high tech stuff I have a much more prosaic question. Looking out of my Devon window this morning I could see aircraft streaming up the channel, and by checking their positions on Flightradar 24 (sad, I know) I know that I can see craft at fl350+ nearly the whole way across the channel, so it occurs to me that I should have been able to see AF Concordes on their way into CDG, but never did (although I certainly heard them). Would Concorde have been visible from the ground at cruising height, and would it have left contrails?

Sorry to be picky Mike, but didn't Brit 312 say the cracks were only found on BA aircraft? So maybe (probably) AF never fitted the straps.

CliveL

On the other hand, if we ignore Dude's instruction to go inboard and aft, then there could be spanwise straps ahead of/behind the 'F' of the registration out past the hyphen. Best leave it to those who know I think!

Trust me, i'm definitely just here for the ride (so to speak) and quickly defer to you and the others who definitely know!

The AF pic was the best I could do, but i'm glad I didn't mess up too bad to miss out the bits in question for a second time!

Merry Xmas to you and to everyone else who's kept the SLF like me informed and amused for months on this thread.

Coffin Dodger , M2dude and Brit312 ,
M2dude will have to confirm that the 'lateral stiffeners' he is thinking of are indeed the very roughly 2' long and 5" strips at the location of each spar just outboard of the engine, that are very clearly visible on Coffin Dodger's photo of 'AA.
If so, they are indeed shown in the structural repair manual and listed as 'doublers'. There are ten of those, from spar 62 to spar 71.

Reading "between the lines", the modification dates from about 1978, and was applied by successive service bulletins to both the BA and AF aircraft.

CJ

Mike, I took the liberty to grossly 'tweak' your photo.....



and as you see, they show up quite clearly on Fox Bravo as well.

Judging by the page dates in the SRM, BA started it all, and Air France followed, with all the aircraft being modified by 1981. But that's just my guess.

CJ

[xxxxquote=Mike Bracknell] Trust me, i'm definitely just here for the ride (so to speak) and quickly defer to you and the others who definitely know! Mike Bracknell[xxxx/quote]

Hell Mike, I meant I should leave it for others who definitely know, not you!

[xxxxquote]A little p.s. from me - having looked at Clive's diagram on this page showing the bathtubs, aren't the strengtheners the oval cups outboard of the main fixings on the page? with one pointed to by the words "Bottom machined skin panel"?

This looks like it's another layer of shear in order to fulfil the brief of working around the reported skin problems in that area. Just strange it had to break the surface like that? [xxxx/quote]

I don't think so Mike, there are far too many of them. It looks more like 'pocketing' of the machined skin to reduce weight; and incidentally that SA overdid it, since there were clearly cracks developing along the spanwise joints between the various wing sections.

Incidentally, doesn't that picture show ever so clearly why designing and fitting that postGonesse Kevlar liner to the lower skins was such a difficult job!

[xxxxquote=ChristiaanJ]If so, they are indeed shown in the structural repair manual and listed as 'doublers'. There are ten of those, from spar 62 to spar 71.

Reading "between the lines", the modification dates from about 1978, and was applied by successive service bulletins to both the BA and AF aircraft. [xxxx/quote]

Yes, I agree, they look like skin doublers put on as a repair job, and that makes (to me) a lot more sense than additions to increase outer wing stiffness. What has confused me from the beginning was that I equated "outer wing stiffness" with "outer wing torsional stiffness" because I could see why somebody might want to increase that but I couldn't, and can't, see why anyone would want to increase outer wing bending stiffness - if you get a little more dihedral who cares? But additional material to increase or recover fatigue life is another matter altogether.

Why external? Just look at that drawing - where could you add additional bending material easily?

[xxxxquote=Landroger]Digital control is a hell of a lot easier than Analogue - in my humble opinion.[xxxx/quote]

Depends when you were born Roger. Now if you came into this world before WW2 ......


[xxxxquote=Mr Vortex]I'm was wondering that, according to the manual and some document said that the vortex lift start to form on wing tip first. Why's that happened? Why not the root of the wing first?
Is it cause by the local wing tip vortex push the air causing more upwash
and hence more effective AoA causing it to reach the stall AoA first is that right?

Also, does the wing vortex on the Concorde has an influence or the effect on
the rudder? [xxxx/quote]

Ah! this gets a little complicated. Every lifting wing generates a pair of vortices at the tip, but these are not the vortices most people associate with Concorde. The massive vortices you see when the air is moist and the water vapour condenses out because of the drop in air pressure inside the vortex start, as you suggest at the wing root from that highly swept leading edge. The wingtip vortices are still there, even when the main vortices are doing their stuff, so Concorde actually has two sets of vortices acting on the upper surface, although this is not obvious to the casual observer.

Simply, the wing vortex has no effect on the rudder.

But whilst I am writing about vortices, can I digress to talk about the 'moustaches' aka GT6. Somebody, I forget who, asked about their use for controlling longitudinal stability and somebody else replied, quite correctly, that they were a contribution to lateral stability. What was happening without them was that high AoA (by which I mean in excess of about 10~12 degrees) the 'crossflow' on the front fuselage generated a pair of small vortices which, in sideslip, wandered across the base of the fin. This gave some sidewash that cancelled the 'incidence' coming from the sideslip itself so that the bottom of the fin was effectively operating at zero slip and therefore zero lift. Result - the weathercock stability dropped to virtually zero for small sideslip angles. The small vortex generators (Generator Turbillon or GT) had the effect of fixing the location of the origin of the forebody vortices so that they didn't wander - in fact they tended to become entrained into the main wing vortices - problem solved.

Now if I can sort it out I will try to upload some pretty pictures showing those two sets of wing vortices.

CliveL

I've pulled this quotation out at random from what I have found a rather disappointing sequence of postings. I could write reams about this (and like everyone in this thread I would write as a Concordophile), but I won't - or at least I will try not to. In general I'm with Christian on this, and for the record I think a few 'counterfactuals' should be recorded. I am not trying to reopen a sterile debate - as CJ has said irrevocable decisions have been made and the subject is done and dusted. However, let us remember that:

G-BOAF was, and is the property of BA; BAe and now AI are merely caretakers.
AI's statement cross-posted from the Heritage website strikes me as a very reasonable statement; we found that your roof is leaking, if you don't get it fixed it is going to get worse rather rapidly; if you (BA) agree and will pay us to do it we will take it indoors and fix it. I don't see any sinister intent here, and given the weather we have had in the UK over the past weeks it must be regarded as a happy, if fortuitous decision!
Those who know Filton will also know that there is nowhere that Alpha Fox could be stored under cover except in the hangar where she was first assembled. They will also know that this hangar is buried in the centre of the factory and nobody, in a post 9/11 world, is going to give more or less unrestricted public access to somewhere containing a lot of valuable real estate! So when BA took the decision to locate AF at Filton it must have been in the knowledge that she would live in British weather until some form of shelter could be organised.
That it has taken so long to (fail to) organise such shelter is regrettable, but the blame can hardly be uniquely allocated to AI. BA own the aircraft, BAe/AI had a 40% share in building the airframe, RR a 60% share in building the powerplant. IMHO they should all have chipped in to construct some sort of shelter - it was never on the cards that local enthusiasts could have raised enough in a short time.
Although 'Dude' says that all the UK airframes were left out in the weather, this is not exactly true is it? 002 at Yeovilton (certainly) and 101 at Duxford (I think) are under cover and receive lots of TLC. It is at least arguable that these early airframes have more historical significance than Alpha Fox.

So far as AI's decision to hand back the C of A is concerned, they would have already recognised from the post-Gonesse activity that most people with sufficient expertise on the Concorde design were retired (or worse!) They have enough people to keep a subsonic aircraft going, but Concorde would, I think, require additional experience. AI management would certainly have consulted AI Engineering about this, and I have to say that the then Head of Engineering was someone I know well. He, like me, worked on Concorde in the early days and he is definitely not antiConcorde. I for one would respect his decision.

So far as the decision to stop services goes, we all knew they would be cut off sometime.the only question was when. When we were designing the aircraft the general feeling was that she would stay in service for about 30 years, but we also feared that it would only need one fatal accident to bring the whole lot crashing down. [Incidentally, it was that latter philosophy that made us (we hoped) ultracareful with airworthiness issues] In the event it was 28 years and one accident.
Even before Gonesse AF were losing money on their Concorde services. One might have thought that they would stop right away, but I suspect that a combination of Gallc pride and politics ensured that they would carry on.
But eventually there came a point where, on an airline losing money and in a recession, an unsentimantal and yes, generally unsympathetic, management would have to say enough is enough.
What else would you have them do? Continue to fly loss making services so that their rival BA could go on with their profitable? operations? One would have to say 'Get real!'
Once AF had decided to stop, what do you expect of AI? They are a company with a duty to make profit for their shareholders. OK, they had a duty, also to support in service aircraft, but that duty does not extend to doing that at a loss. With AF out of it therefore AI had no alternative but to ask BA to shoulder the full bill. I have no doubt that when BA declined to do this AI breathed a huge sigh of relief, but at the end of the day the decision to stop all Concorde services was above all an AIRLINE decision.

Sorry to go rabbiting on, but it is a subject that arouses strong emotions!

CliveL

Don't want to be 'picky', but my photograph was of AS's 201 at Toulouse on the occasion of the party to celebrate the 20th anniversary of 001's first flight. If I understand correctly, the 'Pepsi' aircraft was 213 and belonged to AF. I don't think 201 flew with that Tricolour paint scheme. Can anyone throw more light on this?

CliveL

Clive, you're right.
F-WTSB (201) was painted in that horrific scheme by students at Toulouse.
Since that was in 1989, and 'SB made his last flight in 1985, and was not maintained airworthy, he never flew with that colour scheme....
The 'Pepsi' aircraft was indeed F-BTSD (213), and leased from AF for the occasion.

CJ

Would you all believe 35 years today Concorde entered airline service (BA LHR -BAH and AF CDG-GIG). I remember as if it were yesterday.....Gosh I'm getting old

Best regards
Dude

Same here.... it was the BlueWave concept that sounded naff... and the Marilakes to me always looked good (the original ones, not the 'Project Rocket' proposal....). So much better than the old-fashioned Mach cabin displays, either BA or AF.

CJ

M2dude, any chance of clarifying the "variants" (if only with a little table)?
I always thought "100" was the "bare" production aircraft definition, "101" and "102" were the AF and BA specs (equipment, cockpit, cabin), "103" being PanAm, etc. and I've never seen a mention of a "5100/5101/5102" definition.
Would be nice to get this sorted in my ancient brain...... thanks in advance!

CJ

Landroger ,
What triggered my remark was merely that I don't think there's any record of a BA and AF Concorde flying in formation near to the LearJet....
But yes, we would all want to have taken photos like that.

And all of us still hope that there is a video somewhere, somehow, of one of Jean Franchi's barrel rolls.....

CJ

71 pages later my personal edification is complete!! All contributors, particularly the 3 venerable concateers (you know who you are!), many thanks for the most captivating of insights.

3..2..1..Now indeed! Bravo I salute you !!

sAx

PS Having watched the Concorde Story, some consideration of sorts would need to be taken of events in the immediate aftermath of the Gonesse crash. AF from their perspective took the responsible position to ground aircraft, where BA continued flights later that evening following a business as usual approach. This proved quite upsetting on the French side of the Channel, as reasons behind AF4590's crash where unknown at that stage. The Gonesse Mayor being very critical about what appeared to his eyes to be a quite callous BA attitude, placing commercial consideration before public safety.

To rule any two individuals, the age old philosophy is to divide them. By the time recriminations started to fly from the BA side concerning AF maintenance standards, then the joint collaboration had achieved this for themselves. This left little room for manoeuvre for the CAA, who had to be seen to be placing the public interest before any cash as usual continuity. Their stance would need to be unequivocal, showing the public that the 'gamekeeper' would not be making any attempt to be seen in collusion with the 'poacher' and hence removal of the air worthiness certificate. This is not a riposte of any previous post, but just my $0.02c of what may have played a contributory part in the final decision to retire Concorde. Regardless of any attempt to present a united front, the end result may well have been the same. but it would have gone someway to underline public confidence in the responsible attitudes of both AF and BA.

or at least undercarriage doors. We had a bunch of guys up here at Manchester from AF at Filton last week. They needed a "Concorde fix". While underneath on of them said "Oh Yes your doors are different colours like ours."
I'd never noticed that the metal on the inside of the main undercarriage doors that are open when she's on the ground are different colours. One is a drab green and the other is khaki.
Is there any reason for this or is it just a new one has been fitted at some time and happens to be different ?

Glad the Filton AF guys enjoyed their Concorde fix. (There is no other Concorde in the UK, bar none, that able to achieve this fix better than G-BOAC can ). As far as the gear door colours go, well the 'normal' colour is the light brown one that you describe, the green primer colour door is a replacement one. (As to when we did that replacement I really can't remember I'm afraid - Extreme Brain Fatigue ).
I'll have a closer look at that door when I'm next up in Manchester in 10 days.

Best Regards
Dude

We cannot let this thread be consined to the annuls of forgotten history

There must still be a million questions that you always wanted to ask about this wonderfull plane

So here is mine

On Wikipedia they tell us there were 20 Concordes built, 14 production and 6 pre production

Also Wiki tell us there were 67 olympus 593 engines built

Forgive me but this does not seem possible, not enough engines were built to satisfy 'new' engines for 'new' planes on the production line


Does this mean that the 6 pre production a/c donateded some engines to production aircraft so some BA and AF planes flew, even from new, with 'used' engines??

Many thanks

All questions still welcome!

Not quite....

There were two prototypes , 001 and 002 (the ones with the odd porthole visors).
There were two preproduction aircraft: 01, the British one, with a full 'look-through' visor' and 02, the French one, the first one that looked like the production model, with both a 'full' visor, and the 'pointy' tail.
Then there were two 'near-production' aircraft, that were used for certification, route-proving, and suchlike, but that never entered airline service (201 and 202, now best known as 'F-WTSB' and "Delta-Golf").

And yes, then there were 14 production aircraft, that in the end all made it into service with BA and AF.

This is still a slight puzzle.....
The '67' figure probably refers only to the version of the 593 engnes for the production aircraft (4x14=56, plus spares), and not to the earlier versions used for development/testing, for the prototypes, the preprods and the cerification aircraft.

AFAIK , all the production aircraft flew with 'new' engines.

Funnily enough, there's a current discussion on a French Concorde forum on the same subject, trying to figure out not only exactly how many engines were built, but also the "where are they now?".

It would be a nice item to add to the "Concorde Story". We may have to appeal to the RR Historical Trust to open their archives, and tell us exactly how many Olympus 593's were built, and what they can tell us about their history.

CJ

LOL.... OK.
Anyway, for modelers (not your case, I take it) a Munsell chip ref wouldn't be much use..... they'd need a Humbrol paint number !

"Matching colors" is a Concorde problem to this day....
A small group of enthusiasts is trying to re-paint F-WTSA (the French preprod Concorde, now at a small museum south of the Paris Orly airport) in the same paint scheme as in the olden days... ancient BA livery on one side, ancient AF livery on the other side.
Getting hold of all the paint color references is not obvious!

CJ

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 ?