16th Oct 2010, 21:12
permalink Post: 579
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
Filton.
27 L/R, 09 R.
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
I'm guessing 14.
I'm guessing 14.
8) How many wheel brakes?
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
Mach 1.3.
Mach 1.3.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Filton.
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
27 L/R, 09 R.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Braniff.
Braniff.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 16th Oct 2010 at 21:38 .
16th Oct 2010, 22:27
permalink Post: 580
OK, I see others have already posted answers.
I've carefully avoided looking at them, but I'll might as well plug in mine now.
My personal problem is that I was involved in the very earliest days, before the aircraft went into service, and then in the last days and afterwards...
So the questions dealing with the in-service period are totally outside my field of experience... all I can do is guess, in case I saw the answers somewhere.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
Twenty-two.
Two static-test airframes.
- One at Toulouse, for purely static tests, and tests such as vibration and flutter.
- One at Farnborough, for the long-duration thermal fatigue tests.
(A few bits and pieces of the Farnborough test specimen have survived, and can still be seen at the Brooklands museum).
Two prototypes (001 and 002)
Two pre-production aircraft (01 and 02)
Two production aircraft used for certification, that never entered service (201 - F-WTSB and 202 - G-BBDG)
Fourteen production aircraft, seven that served with British Airways, seven that served with Air France.
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
Not a clue as to the full list.
- Bahrain, obviously.
- JFK.
- IAD (not sure if that's rated as regular, or only incidental)
- Dallas (with Braniff)
- Barbados (of course, right until the end)
- Sngapore (with Singapore Airlines, and G-BOAD in Singapore Airlines colours on one side)
- Sydney (again no idea if that rated as a regular flight or only a few tries)
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
Not a clue either. Vague memory of about 10:00 am which gave you a full working day in New York.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?)..
Never flew on them, never had to deal with them.
BA174 comes to mind from the depths of my memory, in that case BA003 would have been BA176?
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump )
M2dude, I did AFCS, not the fuel system. I believe you, but without pulling out some diagrams I honestly have NO idea.
I expect each tank had at least two pumps, which gets me up to 26.
Then there were a few emergency pumps for the trim tanks, and I suppose each engine had additional pumps associated with it.
Still nowhere near the 46 I need to find.....
6) What airframe had the only TOTALLY unique shape?
That would have been my old friend, 01 (G-AXDN), first pre-production aircraft, now at Duxford.
It was the first Concorde with the new transparent visor, but it still had the short tail that characterised the prototypes.
It was 02 (F-WTSA), the first French pre-production aircraft, that was close to the final shape of the production aircraft.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
Good question.... never counted them all. But I'll try a guess.
First a nice one, the SFENA Emergency Standby Artificial Horizon (made by the firm I worked for).
Ran off the Emergency Battery Bus via a small independent inverter.
And if that failed too, it would still run reliably for several minutes on its own inertia.
Next, the rate gyros used by the autostabilisation system ; these measured the angular rate of the aircraft along the three main axes, pitch, roll and yaw.
There were six, three each for the two autostab systems.
Now the rest....
Each IMU (inertial measurement unit, part of the inertial naviagation system) had three gyros.
With three INS on board, that would make nine.
Much as I try, I can't remember other ones, so I'll look forward to the final answer.
I can imagine the weather radar using an additional gyro for stabilisation, but I never went there.
8) How many wheel brakes?
Unless this is a trick question, I would say eight, for each of the main gear wheels.
The nose gear did not have any brakes - unless there were some small ones to stop the wheels rotating after retraction of the gear, but not used during landing.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
No idea.
Mach 1.0 or thereabouts is my personal guess only.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
I know that they each monitored the status of one of the engines, because it was too complex for the pilots to fully monitor all the parameters of all four engines in the short time between start-of-roll and V1... they had too many other things to do.
But I don't remember what each light meant, would have to look it up in the manual.
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea.
Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
No idea.
Vague memory of it being systematically the North runway for noise issues.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
No idea.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
I would expect the obvious answer to be 002.
Working up from first flight to Mach 2 was a slow and laborious process, and in the end it was 001 that both flew first, and also went to Mach 2 first.
I don't think any of the other aircraft took that long.
A I said, I tried to answer all questions "off the top of my head", without looking at any other sources.
CJ
I've carefully avoided looking at them, but I'll might as well plug in mine now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
If you were never personally involved withe the aircraft you can leave out the really stinky questions if you want.
|
So the questions dealing with the in-service period are totally outside my field of experience... all I can do is guess, in case I saw the answers somewhere.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
Twenty-two.
Two static-test airframes.
- One at Toulouse, for purely static tests, and tests such as vibration and flutter.
- One at Farnborough, for the long-duration thermal fatigue tests.
(A few bits and pieces of the Farnborough test specimen have survived, and can still be seen at the Brooklands museum).
Two prototypes (001 and 002)
Two pre-production aircraft (01 and 02)
Two production aircraft used for certification, that never entered service (201 - F-WTSB and 202 - G-BBDG)
Fourteen production aircraft, seven that served with British Airways, seven that served with Air France.
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
Not a clue as to the full list.
- Bahrain, obviously.
- JFK.
- IAD (not sure if that's rated as regular, or only incidental)
- Dallas (with Braniff)
- Barbados (of course, right until the end)
- Sngapore (with Singapore Airlines, and G-BOAD in Singapore Airlines colours on one side)
- Sydney (again no idea if that rated as a regular flight or only a few tries)
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
Not a clue either. Vague memory of about 10:00 am which gave you a full working day in New York.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?)..
Never flew on them, never had to deal with them.
BA174 comes to mind from the depths of my memory, in that case BA003 would have been BA176?
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump )
M2dude, I did AFCS, not the fuel system. I believe you, but without pulling out some diagrams I honestly have NO idea.
I expect each tank had at least two pumps, which gets me up to 26.
Then there were a few emergency pumps for the trim tanks, and I suppose each engine had additional pumps associated with it.
Still nowhere near the 46 I need to find.....
6) What airframe had the only TOTALLY unique shape?
That would have been my old friend, 01 (G-AXDN), first pre-production aircraft, now at Duxford.
It was the first Concorde with the new transparent visor, but it still had the short tail that characterised the prototypes.
It was 02 (F-WTSA), the first French pre-production aircraft, that was close to the final shape of the production aircraft.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
Good question.... never counted them all. But I'll try a guess.
First a nice one, the SFENA Emergency Standby Artificial Horizon (made by the firm I worked for).
Ran off the Emergency Battery Bus via a small independent inverter.
And if that failed too, it would still run reliably for several minutes on its own inertia.
Next, the rate gyros used by the autostabilisation system ; these measured the angular rate of the aircraft along the three main axes, pitch, roll and yaw.
There were six, three each for the two autostab systems.
Now the rest....
Each IMU (inertial measurement unit, part of the inertial naviagation system) had three gyros.
With three INS on board, that would make nine.
Much as I try, I can't remember other ones, so I'll look forward to the final answer.
I can imagine the weather radar using an additional gyro for stabilisation, but I never went there.
8) How many wheel brakes?
Unless this is a trick question, I would say eight, for each of the main gear wheels.
The nose gear did not have any brakes - unless there were some small ones to stop the wheels rotating after retraction of the gear, but not used during landing.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
No idea.
Mach 1.0 or thereabouts is my personal guess only.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
I know that they each monitored the status of one of the engines, because it was too complex for the pilots to fully monitor all the parameters of all four engines in the short time between start-of-roll and V1... they had too many other things to do.
But I don't remember what each light meant, would have to look it up in the manual.
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea.
Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
No idea.
Vague memory of it being systematically the North runway for noise issues.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
No idea.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
I would expect the obvious answer to be 002.
Working up from first flight to Mach 2 was a slow and laborious process, and in the end it was 001 that both flew first, and also went to Mach 2 first.
I don't think any of the other aircraft took that long.
A I said, I tried to answer all questions "off the top of my head", without looking at any other sources.
CJ
16th Oct 2010, 23:46
permalink Post: 581
Quote:
| 8) How many wheel brakes? |
17th Oct 2010, 08:18
permalink Post: 582
Keep the answers coming guys, and yes Mike; their WAS a single nose wheel brake based on an automotive design. This brake was not electronically controlled like the main wheel brakes, but hydraulics for the UP selection was automatically ported to the single brake unit during retraction. (hmmm.. kinda given away the answer for that one
).
Dude
).
Dude
22nd Oct 2010, 09:26
permalink Post: 597
Ze Concorde Quiz Mk 2 (Or is it Mach 2?).... Ze Answers
OK guys, here are the answers. If you disagree about any of them then fire away, the old memory certainly 'aint perfect.
As many of you have guessed, there were 22: The 14 production airframes, the 2 production series development aircraft (201 & 202), the 2 pre-production airframes (101 & 102) and the 2 prototypes 001 & 002. PLUS, the major fatigue test specimen at the RAE Farnborough and the static test specimen at CEAT in Toulouse. The CEAT tests actually tested the wing to destruction; I seem to remember it was something like a 200% overload before the wing failed at the root. And great but rather sad pictures
VOLUME
, never seen these before.
OK, from MY memory
, we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
11:15
The BA193 and BA 195.
OK, there were 12 engine feed pumps (3 per engine) 8 main transfer tank pumps (2 each for the transfer tanks 5, 6, 7 & 8), 4 'A' tank pumps (2 each for 5A & 7A), 8 trim-transfer tank pumps (2 electric pumps each for tanks 9, 10 & 11 PLUS 2 hydraulically driven pumps for tank 9), 4 electric engine start pumps (there was a single electric start pump per engine that delivered fuel to it's own dedicated start atomiser in the combustion chamber. The pump automatically ran when the engine HP valve was set to OPEN and would continue running for 30 seconds after the DEBOW switch was returned to the 'normal' position), 4 engine first stage pumps (a single mechanically driven pump per engine), 4 second stage pumps (a single pneumatically driven pump, sometimes termed 'the turbopump, per engine. This would cut out at around 20,000'), our scavenge tank pump (triggered automatically when there was 7 US gallons in the tank; pumping it back into tank 2. This pump was identical to an 'A' tank transfer pump), and FINALLY, a single de-air pump for tank 10. The pump would drive the fuel through a mesh, removing air bubbles from the fuel. Tank 11 used the L/H trim pump for de-air (similar principle)and would be switched on during take-off. This is why the tank 5 trim inlet valve being set to over-ride OPEN would result in the tank being highly pressurised in the case of the Gonesse disaster; the pump would obviously pressurise the L/H trim gallery and any tank on that side with an open inlet valve!!!
G-AXDN, aircraft 101. (A production wing, fuselage, droop nose and intakes, but with the short tail section and secondary nozzles of the prototypes.
Ready ChristiaanJ? There were 18....Yes, the single SFENA standby horizon, 9 INS gyros (one per X,Y and Z platform in each of the 3 INUs), 8 autostab' rate gyros (one per axis for each of the 2 autostab' computers PLUS a monitor gyro for the pitch axis). The radar by the way used attitude signals from the INS.
9. One per main wheel plus the single 'in flight braking' nose wheel brake.
Mach 0.7!!! Between this and Mach 1.26 the intake surfaces were positioned as a function of engine N1 if the engine was shut down for any reason. (Otherwise of course the intake surfaces were fully up). You needed a sub idle N1 of 57% and below for all this to happen, and it was to assist relight performance and reduce buffet. Between Mach 1.26 and 1.32 the ramps were driven down slightly to about 5%, full supersonic scheduling itself commencing at Mach 1.32.
Already brilliantly answered by Brit312 (as well as the FSLabs diagram). Yep, Geen GO, T/O monitor armed, fuel flow and P7 at or above datum, A/C on ground, reverse not selected and CON light not on. Amber CON (Reheat selected and not detected, N1 OK or reverse selected and primary nozzle (Aj) not at minimum. Blue REV; steady buckets at reverse, flashing buckets in transit.
Fairford, followed by Brize Norton, and then a host of airfields from Prestwick and Shannon to Chateauroux.
OK, probably no surprises now:
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
It was FedEx, they planned to operate two stripped out aircraft, leased from BA, between Shannon and JFK as high value parcel carriers. The idea was that parcels would be flown in from all over Europe by small FedEx feeder aircraft and the parcels transferred to Concorde which would then speed on to JFK in around 2 1/2 hours. It never happened because of a combination of economics appraisal by FedEx and BA deciding that it could would not release the aircraft anyway.
A/C 101, G-AXDN first flew on 17th December 1971 with FIXED INTAKES!! (101 was going to be the launch vehicle for the new digital intake control system, but the 'boxes' were still being designed). This placed an operating limit of Mach 1.5 on the aircraft, limiting her ability with such a restricted flight envelope. She returned to Filton in late 1972 for installation of the system, as well as the new Olympus 593-602 engine. (The engine, very similar to the production Mk 610 version, used a quite revolutionary annular combustion chamber, and eliminated at a stroke the thick smoke exhaust that had up to then been Concorde's unwanted visual signiture). The aircraft flew more or less smokeless on 15 March 1973, achieving Mach 2 soon afterwards. As ChristiaanJ pointed out, the British prototype 002 had a similar gap, actually significantly higher, of 19 months. (The French aircraft 001 had an even longer gap of some 20 months).
I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all
Dude
Quote:
| 1) How many Concorde airframes were built? |
Quote:
| 2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc. |
, we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
Quote:
| 3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either). |
Quote:
| 4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?). |
Quote:
|
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump
).
|
Quote:
| 6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape? |
Quote:
| 7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft? |
Quote:
| 8) How many wheel brakes? |
Quote:
| 9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled? |
Quote:
| 10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify? |
Quote:
| 11) At what airfield were the first BA crew base training details held? |
Quote:
| 12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem). |
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
Quote:
| 13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's? |
Quote:
| 14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight? |
I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 22nd Oct 2010 at 11:21 . Reason: oops, misssed out question 2
30th Oct 2010, 04:40
permalink Post: 639
Fuel-saving landings
I can't give you much of the background but can remember the bare bones - here they are, without the benefit of manuals so subject to the usual caveats:
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......
30th Oct 2010, 12:46
permalink Post: 642
Fuel Saving Landing
Requirements :
Not permitted with :
Notes
3-engine landings were permitted. For all landings the landing gear would be lowered earlier than normal to ensure the brakes were stone cold to start with, maximum reverse thrust would be used on landing, and braking modulated so as to use (nearly) all of the full length of the runway. Landing performance figures at 130,000 kgs were in the performance manual for most runways. Any runway for which this procedure had not been pre-authorised required some rather tedious calculations, using the generalised basic data and graphs found in the performance manual.
If manual performance calculations were necessary, the F/E and I usually seemed to find that another problem that required our urgent and undivided attention had come up, and we would reluctantly be compelled to hand over all the manuals, charts and graphs for the F/O to perform the calculations!
If the aircraft had an AFT ZFW CG (perhaps loaded with a lot of heavy bags in the rear hold), and given the specific fuel distribution requirements for a fuel saving landing, it was possible that the landing weight might have to be reduced below 130,000 kgs, in order to achieve a landing CG of 53.5%.
After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!
Reasons
The clue is in the name! A possible saving of roughly 5,200 gallons of fuel, nearly 19,000 kgs, which need not be jettisoned, thus reducing the time spent in the air before re-landing, fuel costs and pollution.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Requirements :
- Manual landing, at V REF , only
- Minimum of one autothrottle operative at start of approach
- Contingency power available
- Specific fuel distribution achieved
- Record in Maintenance Log
Not permitted with :
- Slippery runway
- Precipitation covered runway
- 3-engine ferry
- 2-engine approach and landing
- Reduced noise approach
- Fuelled with wide-cut fuel
- Secondary nozzle locked out
- Brake unit isolated
- Total loss of Electric Trim
- Total loss of Pitch Stab
- Total loss of Electrical Signalling
- Suspected tyre failure
Notes
3-engine landings were permitted. For all landings the landing gear would be lowered earlier than normal to ensure the brakes were stone cold to start with, maximum reverse thrust would be used on landing, and braking modulated so as to use (nearly) all of the full length of the runway. Landing performance figures at 130,000 kgs were in the performance manual for most runways. Any runway for which this procedure had not been pre-authorised required some rather tedious calculations, using the generalised basic data and graphs found in the performance manual.
If manual performance calculations were necessary, the F/E and I usually seemed to find that another problem that required our urgent and undivided attention had come up, and we would reluctantly be compelled to hand over all the manuals, charts and graphs for the F/O to perform the calculations!
If the aircraft had an AFT ZFW CG (perhaps loaded with a lot of heavy bags in the rear hold), and given the specific fuel distribution requirements for a fuel saving landing, it was possible that the landing weight might have to be reduced below 130,000 kgs, in order to achieve a landing CG of 53.5%.
After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!
Reasons
The clue is in the name! A possible saving of roughly 5,200 gallons of fuel, nearly 19,000 kgs, which need not be jettisoned, thus reducing the time spent in the air before re-landing, fuel costs and pollution.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
21st Dec 2010, 18:39
permalink Post: 931
Ref the landing manoeuvre: CliveL is quite correct - there was a distinct nosedown pitch generated by descent into gnd effect.
The machine was very light in pitch on approach (spring feel only and not much positive stability, especially with the A/T active owing to its destabilising effect) so minimal pitch input was the order of the day. Then you descended into gnd effect and a steadily increasing pull was reqd to hold the desired attitude (any nose down change at this stage was a prelude to disaster!).
The overall effect was not unnatural, since it was similar to a flare and hold off in a conventional aircraft (although more Stearman than 747).
AFTER touchdown, selection of reverse caused a distinct pitch up, and if this was allowed to get hold it was a real problem to get the nose back down. As explained pages earlier this deprived you of braking ability.....for this reason both pilots pushed the control column firmly forward after nosewheel touchdown, and I'm guessing that's what ChristiaanJ meant .
The machine was very light in pitch on approach (spring feel only and not much positive stability, especially with the A/T active owing to its destabilising effect) so minimal pitch input was the order of the day. Then you descended into gnd effect and a steadily increasing pull was reqd to hold the desired attitude (any nose down change at this stage was a prelude to disaster!).
The overall effect was not unnatural, since it was similar to a flare and hold off in a conventional aircraft (although more Stearman than 747).
AFTER touchdown, selection of reverse caused a distinct pitch up, and if this was allowed to get hold it was a real problem to get the nose back down. As explained pages earlier this deprived you of braking ability.....for this reason both pilots pushed the control column firmly forward after nosewheel touchdown, and I'm guessing that's what ChristiaanJ meant .
28th Dec 2010, 05:53
permalink Post: 1029
Number of Wheel Brakes
Question 8: Nine (includes one for the nose axle, used only during gear retraction.)
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
13th Jan 2011, 20:23
permalink Post: 1087
If you look at it from straight ahead it's not really a 'kink'.
From the angle the 'kinky' photo was taken the outer sweep of the ogee wing is towards the camera before sweeping aft to the drooped and washed-out tips and it looks like a kink in the LE sweep. The actual shape is seen better in the picture above. I've spent hours studying our G-BOAC at Manchester and to me the wing is a complex and lovely blend of curves and slopes, with no sudden changes such as a kink would require. Standing under the wing and observing it closely, no kink is apparent.
The wash-out on the tips shows particularly well in the above photo (washout is a forward twist of the wing at the tips to reduce the angle of attack of the tips compared to the rest of the wing, to prevent tip-stalling).
A question I have, relating to the photo above, is about the LE. The LE definately 'droops' in the area ahead of the intakes (it doesn't do so nearer the roots or tips). Is this to provoke a clean flow-breakaway in this area at high angles of attack to encourage the votices to form at this point as the wing transitions to vortex lift?
M2Dude Thanks for the kind words and careful explanations. I take it from your description of the anti-skid that once the mains start to rotate the brakes can be used, as the anti-skid comes 'off' (mains no longer think they are skidding).
I thought there was protection to prevent brake use until the nose wheels have landed, else brake application with the nose high would cause a rapid nose-down pitch, slamming the nosewheels on! Is there any such protection?
From the angle the 'kinky' photo was taken the outer sweep of the ogee wing is towards the camera before sweeping aft to the drooped and washed-out tips and it looks like a kink in the LE sweep. The actual shape is seen better in the picture above. I've spent hours studying our G-BOAC at Manchester and to me the wing is a complex and lovely blend of curves and slopes, with no sudden changes such as a kink would require. Standing under the wing and observing it closely, no kink is apparent.
The wash-out on the tips shows particularly well in the above photo (washout is a forward twist of the wing at the tips to reduce the angle of attack of the tips compared to the rest of the wing, to prevent tip-stalling).
A question I have, relating to the photo above, is about the LE. The LE definately 'droops' in the area ahead of the intakes (it doesn't do so nearer the roots or tips). Is this to provoke a clean flow-breakaway in this area at high angles of attack to encourage the votices to form at this point as the wing transitions to vortex lift?
M2Dude Thanks for the kind words and careful explanations. I take it from your description of the anti-skid that once the mains start to rotate the brakes can be used, as the anti-skid comes 'off' (mains no longer think they are skidding).
I thought there was protection to prevent brake use until the nose wheels have landed, else brake application with the nose high would cause a rapid nose-down pitch, slamming the nosewheels on! Is there any such protection?
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 13th Jan 2011 at 21:41 .
14th Jan 2011, 00:06
permalink Post: 1088
A really wonderful photo.
As you say, as the main gear tachos spin up the brakes no longer they think that they are in full skid and can be applied. The only electronic 'protection' as such is the anti-skid itself via that Vo signal in the anti-skid unit (known as the S.P.A.D. box). This would still help control and limit main wheel braking. However the professionalism of my friends such as EXWOK, NW1 and Bellerophon was the REAL protection here. I will let one of them explain the normal braking procedure on landing.
Best regards
Dude
As you say, as the main gear tachos spin up the brakes no longer they think that they are in full skid and can be applied. The only electronic 'protection' as such is the anti-skid itself via that Vo signal in the anti-skid unit (known as the S.P.A.D. box). This would still help control and limit main wheel braking. However the professionalism of my friends such as EXWOK, NW1 and Bellerophon was the REAL protection here. I will let one of them explain the normal braking procedure on landing.
Best regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 14th Jan 2011 at 00:31 .
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.!
8th Apr 2011, 15:25
permalink Post: 1283
Take off reheat selection
I seem to recall from my two take offs in 1978 or 9 that all four reheats were selected in pairs for take off and lit while holding on the brakes, with a preamble/warning over the PA that this was what was going to occur. Is this another indication of my failing "little grey cells" or did the procedure change?
Same PA announcement and lighting in pairs also occurred when going supersonic.
Same PA announcement and lighting in pairs also occurred when going supersonic.
8th Apr 2011, 16:29
permalink Post: 1284
For take-off reheat was selected (armed) on all 4 engines together, and certainly not in pairs. (As was stated previously, once 81% N1 was reached the reheat light-up sequence was automatically initiated). You would not wind up on the brakes either, the carbon brakes were extremely sensitive to overtorquing. For transonic acceleration however you are quite right about the 'burners in pairs' bit.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 10th Apr 2011 at 09:23 .
9th Apr 2011, 17:17
permalink Post: 1292
If I may be permitted to tread drift a bit re engine rotation effects: prop-driven aircraft suffer a range of unpleasant effects that jets don't. Not least is the prop slipstream effect; the propwash spirals around the aeroplane and pushes on the fin inducing a turn. This is at its worst at take off, with no slipstream and high power; even our Chipmunk needs a bootful of left rudder to keep straight when full power is applied at the start of the take-off roll. A really powerful aeroplane like a Spitfire cannot use full power until there is sufficient airspeed to make the rudder effective enough to keep straight; one reason why later Spits had contra-rotating props.
Then, for a taildragger like the Chippy, there's the 'assymetric blade effect' or 'p' factor, where with the tail down the down-going prop blade produces more thrust than the up-going one. And the engine torque effect particularly noticable on soft runways with powerful aeroplane where one mainwheel tyre is pushed into the ground with more force than the other, and finally the gyroscopic swing induced in a taildragger as the tail comes up and the prop disc is tilted to the vertical.
All of these effects are cumulative, and it's one reason why tail-wheel prop pilots learn to use their feet! All are obviated by contra-rotating props or, for twins, 'handed' engines which rotate in opoosite directions to each other.
When I had a share in a Yak52 I used to use the 'engine torque effect' to steer the aeroplane on Barton's muddy winter surface; using the conventional method (braking the appropriate mainwheel; the nosewheel was free-castoring) didn't work as the (quite thin) wheel would just lock and slide along, not inducing a change of direction at all. But whack on a fistful of Vendeneyef and 360hp would dig the right main into the ground and she'd turn right. Pull the power off suddenly and the left main would dig in, turning her left. Worked a treat!
Then, for a taildragger like the Chippy, there's the 'assymetric blade effect' or 'p' factor, where with the tail down the down-going prop blade produces more thrust than the up-going one. And the engine torque effect particularly noticable on soft runways with powerful aeroplane where one mainwheel tyre is pushed into the ground with more force than the other, and finally the gyroscopic swing induced in a taildragger as the tail comes up and the prop disc is tilted to the vertical.
All of these effects are cumulative, and it's one reason why tail-wheel prop pilots learn to use their feet! All are obviated by contra-rotating props or, for twins, 'handed' engines which rotate in opoosite directions to each other.
When I had a share in a Yak52 I used to use the 'engine torque effect' to steer the aeroplane on Barton's muddy winter surface; using the conventional method (braking the appropriate mainwheel; the nosewheel was free-castoring) didn't work as the (quite thin) wheel would just lock and slide along, not inducing a change of direction at all. But whack on a fistful of Vendeneyef and 360hp would dig the right main into the ground and she'd turn right. Pull the power off suddenly and the left main would dig in, turning her left. Worked a treat!
12th May 2011, 10:18
permalink Post: 1362
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
You would not wind up on the brakes either, the carbon brakes were extremely sensitive to overtorquing.
|
13th May 2011, 16:13
permalink Post: 1364
Quax .95
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks?
What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels.
Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks.
tristar 500
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks?
What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels.
Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks.
tristar 500
13th May 2011, 17:44
permalink Post: 1366
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
tristar 500
Quax .95
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks? What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels. Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks. tristar 500 |
The question is less odd than it seems....
With full take-off power plus reheat, Concorde could not be held on brakes alone (hence the various procedures at take-off).
Maybe somebody has the full story.... in the light of chocks being less than perfect....
CJ