Posts about: "Airbus" [Posts: 64 Pages: 4]

I have to admit that some of the subsonic fuel burn figures for Concorde were truly eye watering, and without massive engine and airframe modifications there was precious little in service that could be done to improve things. Paradoxically improvements to the supersonic efficiency of the powerplant were easier to implement, and several modifications were implemented, tried or proposed to improve fuel burn:
Way back in the late 1970's we did a major modification to the intakes that increased capture area by 2.5% and gave us typically a 1.6% improvement in trans-Atlantic fuel burn, and although this was our biggest performance improvement modification, there were more:
The famous elevon and rudder trailing edge extension modifications (that due to poor design, produced in later life the water ingress induced honeycomb failures) together with the re-profiled fin leading edge modification, I never saw the performance gains quantified (anyone have any ideas?).
Can anyone here remember the riblet trial? In the mid 1990's Airbus supplied 'stick on' plastic riblets, applied to various areas on the under-side of the wing on G-BOAG. These riblets had very fine undulations moulded into the surface; the idea being that as the air flowed through and around the riblet patches, boundary layer turbulence, and hence induced drag would be reduced. Now, the performance gains (if any) were never quantified, mainly because the riblet patches either peeled off or the surface deteriorated with the continuous thermal cycle. (I was over in JFK when the aircraft first arrived after having the riblets fitted, and as the crew were trying to proudly show me these amazing aerodynamic devices, they were sadly embarassed, as several had dissapeared in the course of a single flight).
There was one modification, proposed by Rolls Royce in the late 1990's that did have quite a lot of potential; this was to increase the engine N1 by around 1.5%. This would have had the effect of increasing engine mass flow and therefore reducing the drag inducing spill of supersonic air over the lower lip of the intake. Depending on the temperature, the performance gains were in the order of a 1.5% improvement in fuel burn at ISA Plus upper atmosphere temperatures ('normal' LHR-JFK) to none at all at significant ISA Minus temperatures (LHR -BGI). The modifacation had been trialed on G-BBDG before her retirement in the early eighties, and was proven in terms of performance enhancement and engine stability. In order to keep TET at the pre-modification level, there was a small increase in N2 commanded also. (The higher N1 required an increase in primary nozzle area, reducing TET). The main reason for the modification not being implemented was one of cost; The Ultra Electronics Engine Control Units were analog units, and the modification was a simple replacement of two resistors per unit. However because ultimate mass flow limitation was also controll by the digital AICU (built by British Aerospace Guided Weapons Division) the cost of getting a software update for this exremely 'mature' unit was found to be prohibitive.
A certain 'brainy' SEO and myself were working on a modification to improve fuel burn on ISA minus sectors. The idea was to force the autopilot, in Max Cruise at low temperatures only , to fly the aircraft close to Mmo, rather than at Max Cruise speed of Mach 2 - 2.02; this would have given us gains of up to 1%, depending on the temperature. The basic electronics involved for the modification were relatively straightforward, but it was never pursued due to the complexity of dealing with temperature shears and the cost of certification.

Dude

Have a quick look here:
Concorde FAQ
(Scroll down to "How much does a Concorde cost?" and "Did Concorde make a profit for the airlines?".)
IIRC, break-even was slightly over 100 airframes.

You are making the usual mistake of confusing development costs and operating costs.

The development costs were covered by the governments, so it that respect, yes, Concorde was a commercial disaster. Even so, the Concorde project paid for much of the groundwork of what was later to become the European Airbus consortium, so it certainly wasn't all wasted money.

BA and AF bought their first aircraft, much like all those other airlines that chickened out would have done.
Maybe they got a bit of a discount as launch customers, but they certainly paid for them!
BA and AF were never expected to pay for the development costs... you could say that was not their problem!

BA's operations were in the beginning subsidised, until they "bought out" the government, and revised their cost and pricing structure.
After that, overall, the BA Concorde operation was profitable until the end. Maybe the bottom line of the operation wasn't huge, but it was certainly positive and no myth.

AF's operations, for various reasons, were less of a success story....

CJ

With all due respect Cristiaan Im not mistaking operating costs and development costs.
If I as a company develop and sell a product then its not profitable until all the development costs have been recovered. Operating costs are a matter for the buyer, not the manufacturer.
I know the costs were covered by the governments and that was what I was really asking, what was the break even quantity for the manufacturers.
Obviously the benefits to the existance and technological advance of Airbus is a seperate and unquantifyable matter
rod

Sorry.
The way your question was formulated didn't make that clear to me.

Exactly.
For the governments and the manufacturers, there was never even a mention of "profits", was there?
The only serious mention of "profits" has always been the BA operation, and they were just one of the 'buyers'.
Even if in the end they acquired two more aircraft (three if you count DG) for relatively nothing, when you start looking at the operating costs over the 27 years, those totally dwarf the initial acquisition costs.

I would really have to do a 'back-of-the-envelope' calculation to extract a break-even quantity from the limited data in the link I posted earlier.
Also, Concorde #17 would already have been a prototype "B" Concorde"... how much of that is included in the development cost figure?
With only 16 production aircraft, we were only just on the start of the "learning curve"... how exactly that would have evolved compared to other aircraft is anybody's guess.
Although, there was a trend already, since the last Concordes off the production line were already a ton lighter than the first ones.

But the original figures, at various stages, for the break-even point were in the order of 100 to 150 airframes, IIRC.

Unquantifiable in money terms, yes.
In terms of years lost, maybe not entirely.
I'll have to look up all the dates. But if Concorde had been "nipped in the bud", I would guess we would have lost ten years of experience in cooperation in development and manufacture.

In a roundabout way, look at the cancellation of the Boeing 2707 SST in 1971.
The figures at the time showed that the US had spent almost exactly the same amount on SST development as had been spent for Concorde at the same time.
For that, Boeing had a hangar-full of design drawings, a couple of nice-looking wooden mock-ups, and a few test articles for the swing-wing.
At the same date, we already had two prototypes and a pre-prod aircraft flying, and the production line getting under way.

What did we gain? Only a few Concordes, but also a European aircraft industry capable of meeting Boeing on its own terms.

What did Boeing gain? Some swing-wing design experience for the B1.. and even that wasn't much use... look at the B1-B.

CJ

Whilst Concorde only resulted in a small production run and from that perspective it was not successful. I think that CJ's last post shows that the (unforseen at the time) spin offs and the subsequent success of Airbus means that in my view Concorde was not "a terrible terrible waste".

Maybe this is not the right place to ask this but I have been wondering for a while what leasons have been learnt from Concorde that could be applied to the design of a future SST? I hope it's not that one should never again be attempted!
Regards
Nick

Nick Thomas
Hi again Nick, I totally agree that anyone suggesting tha Concorde was a 'terrible waste' is either totally mis-informed or naive; either way they are totally wrong anyway. The Airbus spinoffs as well as the know how gained on both sides of the English Puddle were immense. What she brought to BA as a brand of course is a totally different matter; for BA she was just the best thing since sliced bread.
As far as another SST, well you never know. I maintain that in aviation you can never say 'never', but far more likely than an SST as such is a hypersonic sub-orbital machine such as the Reaction Engines Lapcat. In any case such a venture will require immense financial investment as well as HUGE political balls to have any sort of chance of becoming anything more than a paper aeroplane. More conventional SST designs are around both in Europe and Japan, perhaps a trans-continental venture is the answer here?

ChristiaanJ
I'm with you on the business jet angle, it's such a quick and convenient way of getting from city centre to city centre. And as for the SSBJ, it did sound promising didn't it, that would have been the ultimate business travel tool. (Shall you and I design a 'mini-conc') ?
Regards to all

Dude

While working at a certain establishment near the banks of the Garonne, it occurred to me one day that, while the US and USSR were busy fielding Mach 2 bombers, two European nations working together developed and for many years successfully operated an equally fast aircraft for peaceful purposes.
After living and working in Germany beforehand during a period where the possibility of being nuked (or just irradiated by fall-out) if the Cold War got hot (and it seemed about to do so from time to time) was very much on many people's minds, Concorde's peaceful purpose was a real and welcome contrast.
A beautiful creation, whether airborne or standing as a gate guardian, not built to destroy or deter.
The only thing it threatened, perhaps, was a perception in the US that it threatened their supremacy in the commercial world - which they also felt about the concurrent Airbus project in the subsonic market. And we all know where that led !

islander539 ,
We ARE concerned, actually, and for the moment I don't think there is another thread on PPRuNe dealing with it.

I quote from your link:

"Mark Stewart, from Airbus, said: ....
"But the aircraft will return to its outdoor exhibition space sometime in the spring, and remain there until it moves to a new home.""

While the maintenance was indeed due, this seems to be an outright lie, so far.
After the maintenance, which will mainly consists of removing insulation that acts as a sponge for humidity, causing mould and corrosion, the aircraft is to be 'cocooned' (read: taped-off and sealed),and will be parked outside until the 'Concorde Trust' comes up with the money for a permanent museum.

Tough for the people who lost their job, deeply disheartening for the many volunteers who put their time in to show the aircraft to the public.

And a loss to us all... Alpha Fox at Filton was one of the excellent exhibits in the UK (been there, know the people concerned...).

CJ

speedbirdconcorde
Yes we did, just a couple if I remember correctly and relatively minor failures at that. (Regular ultrasonic NDT inspections had been instigated to pre-empt these failures from actually occuring). New elevon purchases were rightly seen to be the answer to the problem; the poorly designed trailing edge extension modifications of the late 1970's were as was said before, the source of these failures, due to moisture ingress in the honeycombe structure).

Mr Vortex
As has been posted previously, there was a small NACA duct on the right hand side of the fin, that provided the air source for fuel tank pressurisation. This pressure was controlled to 1.5 PSIG.
This switch operated two valves that would drain out any residual fuel for maintenance (for example, replacing a vent valve); it was not used very often however.

Islander539 and ChristiaanJ
The actions of Airbus at Filton are nothing short of disgusting. By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels). They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde', what total crap !!
The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. The reasons that scarebus are giving for all this are vague and misleading, but here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, nomatter how unlikely, from being progressed. So we have G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition (she's suffered from being outside for 7 years, but nothing terminal) and actually in the hands of the dreaded scarebus (who would rather forget that Concorde ever existed, and was almost certainly the reason why they even noe exist). Doesn't take much working out now, does it?

Dude

Just some notes on the side.

With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin.

This is nothing new.
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available.
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.

I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures.

My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.

To be exact, 18,257 hours and 5,639 supersonic cycles
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.

In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.

Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.

CJ

ChristiaanJ
With respect my friend that is utter codswallop. You can doubt things all you want, they've already said that they would remove it all; that by definition means all the cabin side-walls, galleys and roof panels, as well as the underfloor areas. When G-BBDG (202) was cocooned at Filton they did just that, and the only intact part of the interior left was the flight deck!!

Quote:

At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available. Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.

Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people

Quote:

I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures. My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.

Total crap I'm afraid Christian. You can doubt it all you want; you're entitled to your opinions as we all are here. But the fact remains that there is a certain producer of airframes in Europe that has come out with nothing but lies and deceit with regard to Concorde, since early 2003, and it continues to do so to this day. (Guesses anyone?) You conveniently seem to forget that it was scarebus themselves who unilaterally closed the Concorde Filton exhibit...'for maintenace' .. YET ANOTHER TOTAL PACK OF LIES!!
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying about Concorde pressures, they JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!! And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.

Quote:

In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC). At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.

Big deal, she needed a C Check. Unlike in France, a Concorde major (D check) here did not take over a year to complete, and an inter could be in and out of the shed in a couple of months. Oh, and the check was completed correctly and thoroughly.

Quote:

And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.

I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).

Dude

You and I both would love to see more of this video material, as you say it is totally priceless. I have no clue where most of it resides (if any is held by Airbus at Filton, then we are all screwed. It is possible I suppose that Rolls Royce might have some though; I'll have to check). But generally, I am afraid if I need any video material for lectures etc. my sources are invariably YouTube or my Great Uncle Google.

Regards
Dude

I don't want to divert this fascinating thread into acrimony, so answer at your discretion.

Really? Why would that be? Aerospatiale (forerunner of Airbus) were responsible for just as many parts on the British production run as they were the French.

The dispersal and disposition of the British aircraft was BA's decision though, not that of Airbus.

This discord really saddens me. Maybe Concorde's premature end-of-life was politically motivated and maybe it was financially motivated - but at the end of the day it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Can't we just celebrate what was rather than end up fighting over infinitessimal might-have-beens?

Dozy Wannabe
I am afraid it is a case of 'go figure'. Recent history (as well as what is going on right now) shows that there is little interest in even caring for the aeroplane at Filton, let alone preserving her. Who built what is not the point here anyway.. When design and construction of the aircraft was carried out there were TWO airframe companies, A\xe9rospatiale and BAC. Now we just have Airbus, with virtually zero British input now. (Don't get me wrong, this is the fault of the British and not the French, we are the ones that threw everything away). I can not explain the attitude of Airbus to the aeroplane, it just remains a cold hard fact.... THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED

We are all well aware that the disposal of the aircraft was the decision of the airlines thank you, I did know that. Now like it or not, there really is a lot of anger behind the fact that no INTACT British aircraft has been stored under cover from the beginning, and only one of those aircraft in the UK itself is stored away from the elements. G-BOAC the oldest production Concorde in the world, is beautifully preserved and cared for in Manchester, which makes a hell of a contrast to G-BOAF, the YOUNGEST Concorde in the world at Filton. I am really sorry if all this discord saddens you, it pleases none of us I'm sure, but truth is often like that I'm afraid, we have to deal with it; a national disgrace.
There is also no point avoiding this truth as far as the ceasation of services goes, just because when you unravel the duplicity and deceit behind the happenings of 2003, you discover a sense of disgust and outrage on the part of the British Concorde community. Far from 'not making a blind bit of difference' it makes a huge amount of difference to where we are. I do agree that we should concentrate on celebrating this truly wonderful national icon (I do so every day), but we must not be afraid of looking at the history that has got us (the aeroplane) in the sorry state we are now.

Regards
Dude

This statement has been sent to Heritage Concorde by Airbus in the UK!

It's been place on my site, but I have also placed it on here so as many as possible will get a chance to read it.

Steve



\x93I am sure you will receive a lot of feedback regarding the aircraft and the maintenance work that needs to be performed. In the end, however, it comes down to one key point: the owner of the aircraft, British Airways, inspected its property, and determined that while the plane was in relatively good shape, these repairs are required. As such, the maintenance and preservation work will occur. I am sure you can agree, if the maintenance and repair did not occur, the plane would only degrade further.
Reference your source\x92s comments below:

• Airbus at Filton, and its predecessor companies, have maintained aircraft for many years and have a highly trained and skilled workforce who understand aircraft and maintenance programs
• We have performed a visual inspection of the airframe each week since the aircraft arrived and latterly had become concerned over indications of corrosion (please do not refer to this as rust) such as blistering and cracking.
• The \x93holes in the fuselage\x94 were certainly not created for TV. Our job is to maintain the aircraft, not damage it. These holes are in fact the result of corrosion in some of the lower belly panels which have been further exposed as maintenance/preparation begins. The hole in the leading edge is old damage that has been temporarily and repeatedly patched continuously over the years. We are now performing a more permanent fix.
• There are 7 windows leaking in total, including one on the flight deck which must be resealed to prevent cracking. The failure to repair leaks will present a huge risk, especially during the winter period, as window glazings can crack due to the expansion of water as it freezes, and there are very few replacements available. \x93

Clive,
Re the autotrim, tell us some more?
I wasn't directly involved with the control laws themselves, more with trying to assure those control laws were respected to well below 1%.

I thought it was the first civil aircraft, and that the Vulcan had already been there and done that...

I know what you're saying.....
Still, I think you'll agree that lessons were learnt, rather than totally ignored.
I would say Airbus can trace its history back to the lessons learned from Concorde.

CJ

Once you know how the rating selections work, enabling the throttles to be left fully forward throughout normal flight, you can draw a line to the Airbus FBW thrust lever arrangement - the detents equating to different ratings.

Mercifully no-one had thought of that when Concorde was being designed; I still think it's a diabolical system.

BTW I was told in the conversion course that during the design phase the idea was mooted to only have one thrust lever for all four engines. This would probably have worked - even non-normal engine shutdown drills didn't require the engine's throttle to be closed, the first thing you did was pull the shutdown handle.

ChristiaanJ
Not quite right I'm afraid here my friend. The superb Vulcan used self-contained electro-hydraulic PFCUs, similar in concept to the VC10. The pilot signalling from the fighter type joystick to the PFCUs however was still mechanical, no FBW here.

EXWOK
Oh Amen to that. Although quite complex in its concept, at least 'our' system was logical and intuitive, with full pilot control throughout.

Best Regards
Dude

And how do we know they weren't designed by the very same people?

PBL

PBL
As far as the Autothrottle side of things (you know, the throttles actually MOVING in response to autothrottle action, how novel ), that was designed by the Elliot part of the Anglo-French AFCS consortium. (This then became Marconi-Elliot, and then GEC-Marconi, and finally part of BAe Systems). I doubt very much if this is in anyway connected with Airbus at all. (I know,...Duh!!).
As far as the Concorde engine power control philosophy, well this was Rolls-Royce, through and through, with some BAe input, so again I think you can rule that out too.
Basically PBL, I would say that in answer to your question, we can say that they were definately not, thank goodness ... (Naughty boy, Dude ). Bearing in mind of course that the current Airbus philosophy can be traced back to the early A320s.... not a Roller in sight there.

Best Regards
Dude