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

Just thought I'd drop by and see what was happening on this thread........

My best personal experience of a quick t/round was a tech stop at SMA which we turned around in 45mins. Fuelling was taking place for about 30 of that. AF used to tech stop SMA on the way to GIG, I believe, so the station had some Conc experience.

As for the differences between AF and BA a/c I think most have been dealt with before. AG stood out in BA as a partly 'French' hull; the stuff noticed by pilots was generally:

NiCd main batts, with slight differences to the DC system (no SSB I recall).
No ability for flt crew to 'steal' pax O2.
Perspex flip up visual level on the glareshield instead of open metal construction. Sounds trivial, but I hated it!
No annunciation of DTG to next INS WPT on HSI unless in NAV mode (or was it TRUE?)
Undercarriage monitor not fitted.
Different audio select panels - get this: 6 a/c in the fleet you pushed for TX and pulled for intercom.....AG.......the other way round. Genius.
Probably a lot of other stuff under the skin that I've forgotten.

Allegedly this was representative of the AF fit (certainly as far as the batts/DC) but I can't say for sure. Obviously the cabin fits were very different and over the years the two airlines will have carried out different non-mandatory mods (e.g. the infamous 'cowcatcher' mod).

OAF was a standard BA machine, except that being younger it (like OAG) didn't have the 'crown area' mods done.

All from memory, usual health warnings apply......

the best thread ever on the net and so polite.

all those technicals and in deep infos.

i never flown myself the Concorde but my dad made one CDG DKR RIO and one CDG JFK and as others mention he was smiling back from those flights even the flights were for work.

i had the chance to see the Concorde at night in the AF maintenance at CDG it was called Airbus-Concorde division and despite i was more on the other side : the 747 division i loved to stay around and just watching that wonderful Bird waiting to fly the next morning.

alas when moving to Canada we lost all the pictures and souvenirs of those days but they re back with you.

thank you Lady and Gentlemen.

and Bravo, merci.

ref question from Joliste

As I was working my way from 1 to 85 I read the above which reminded of a paper I filed 35 years ago:
"Development of Pollution Controls for Rolls-Royce RB211 and Olympus 593 Engines" by A B Wassall. I have picked out stuff relevant to the question:


The engines of the day generated smoke in the primary zone and partially consumed it in the rest of the combustor.
It was easier to reduce the production than increase the consumption but leaning the primary zone had an adverse effect on relight capability which then needed its own corrective action as was done on the 211. Metal temperatures went up with the leaning (as intimated by Joliste)
The 593 did not have the leaning option as it had to maintain an over-rich primary zone at TO to ensure an adequate weak extinction margin when throttled back at completion of supersonic cruise when the combustor had to operate at A/F ratios over 180.
In addition to the smoke problem the combustor weight and pressure loss had to be reduced.
These other two requirements led to the annular combustor and vaporizers which also reduced the smoke substantially. These three benefits were expected based on Pegasus experience.

My only reminiscence is trying to persuade my parents that they could not hear Concorde go supersonic when living in Bournemouth,


Dowot.
Well the following may be of interest to you.


When working with the guys at Alderney the boom from Concorde rattled the windows. On enquiring I was told that the AF Concorde usually ignored the noise restrictions and opened the throttles early so it was a regular event and to hell with the complaints.


I was at Heathrow and a guy I worked with said he heard the boom in the Bracknel area. This was confirmed as the AF Concorde and the boom was bouncing off the clouds hence him hearing it at Bracknell.

It would be a pitty!
I don't want to slide in a political argument here, that is not my point at all. I just want to highlight that lobbying against SST, even with totally foolish pleas, had a very negative impact on the commercial outcome of both Concorde and the Boeing SST. Put on top of that what has to be called an economic war between USA and Europe and the fate of Concorde was sealed, no matter how beautifull, technologically advanced and fantastic was the plane. And I think this is the main resaon why no other airliners but BAC and AF bought Concorde.

Concorde Descent.
Further to ruddman's 1, 2 & 3 ( above)


After a small number of years of operating, there was a press report that AF had altered their descent on NY - Paris, which allowed them to carry 2 more passengers ( high revenue). Does anyone recall what this was ?

Here's a link to the six development aircraft, with pix of all of them.

CONCORDE SST : PROTOTYPE FLEET

Several had different paint schemes throughout their history, so that may not be definitive. But there are variations that can narrow down which might be in your painting: long or short tailcone, and small window or large greenhouse cockpit visor.

Three of the six are British G registrations, and three have French F-numbers. Three have "...01" production numbers. As ChristiaanJ says, none would be registered "1-GEE" - but that might have been something added for a specific test flight or for some other reason unrelated to registration. They were repainted occasionally (including one painted in BA livery on one side and AF livery on the other, for a time.)

For what it's worth I vividly remember Concorde flying circuits in Marrakech (AF training)... Was quite a sight!

@tomahawk_PA38

Here's a chart of AF Concorde routings: Concorde route

Given that BA and AF used the same "Sierra November/Sierra Oscar" EB oceanic routes, and Paris and London are about the same longitude, the decel point was likely nearly identical as well.

Handwritten note is a bit small, but I believe it amounts to "50nm east of BISKI."

Waypoints change, however, and BISKI no longer exists - the closest approximation to the actual decel point that I see on a current chart looks like it would be MOSIS. Mouth of the English Channel, just west of the Scilly-Ushant line.

Deceleration clear of land then takes you directly up the center of the channel to SSW of Southhampton (roughly, ORTAC), and then hang a subsonic left to Heathrow.

But I'd also love to hear if someone has more authoritative info.

Interesting to see references to the secondary boom here. I lived in Crowborough, East Sussex, close to MAY VOR location, in 70s and 80s, at about 600ft elevation facing southwest. Often at about 2100hr on a quiet evening we would hear a faint boom from the AF Concorde coming up the Channel and turning towards Paris. Local dogs would sometimes bark just before we heard the sound!

Thank you , sir!

I wish I hadn't "assumed" so much based on the AF chart.

Yep - Braniff crews trained to fly the full envelope. But for BA insurance reasons, there had to be a BA captain and flight engineer riding along in the jumpseats.

Another cute trick - the European airlines "sold" the airframes temporarily to Braniff, with new US N-numbers, so they could fly a "domestic" route without violating cabotage laws. Then "sold back" to BA or AF for the transatlantic legs.

CONCORDE SST : Braniff Concorde Services