13th Sep 2010, 16:09
permalink Post: 345
landlady
,
Don't forget it was you and your colleagues that made the Concorde experience so special just as much as the three guys in the front office, or the ground staff, or the engineers, or us wavers of slide rules.
So yes, the experience from your side is as much part of the "Concorde Story" as ours !
Your description of a typical regular flight is much as I imagined it.
Did you ever do any of the BA 'round-the-Bay' charters?
My only flight was one of the last Air France 'round-the-Bay' flights.
Total duration from take-off to touchdown was only about 1h 50min, yet even so the CC managed to serve us all the classic glass of champagne, a three-course meal that we barely had time to finish, and of course the little box with two choccies... Fauchon in our case.
And all this notwithstanding the steady flow of pax down the aisle, first to have their photo taken next to the Mach meter at M 2.03, and then again for the cockpit visits.
How they managed it I will never know....
CJ
Don't forget it was you and your colleagues that made the Concorde experience so special just as much as the three guys in the front office, or the ground staff, or the engineers, or us wavers of slide rules.
So yes, the experience from your side is as much part of the "Concorde Story" as ours !
Your description of a typical regular flight is much as I imagined it.
Did you ever do any of the BA 'round-the-Bay' charters?
My only flight was one of the last Air France 'round-the-Bay' flights.
Total duration from take-off to touchdown was only about 1h 50min, yet even so the CC managed to serve us all the classic glass of champagne, a three-course meal that we barely had time to finish, and of course the little box with two choccies... Fauchon in our case.
And all this notwithstanding the steady flow of pax down the aisle, first to have their photo taken next to the Mach meter at M 2.03, and then again for the cockpit visits.
How they managed it I will never know....
CJ
13th Sep 2010, 16:29
permalink Post: 346
Landlady
Did Concorde F/As fly it exclusively at BA or did you fly it on and off? Excuse me, I am not familiar with BA contract rules.
GF
Did Concorde F/As fly it exclusively at BA or did you fly it on and off? Excuse me, I am not familiar with BA contract rules.
GF
14th Sep 2010, 14:56
permalink Post: 353
Extended leave doesn't happen so much in this very commercial world.......
To start with we stayed current in the sim. After a month or so it was obvious that this was a long term event and the company would find something for us to do in return for our salary.
A minor complication was that we knew we were going to need fewer pilots as the decision had already been made to reduce the charter programme, so we weren't all coming back. There were no other FE positions in BA so that was a further issue.
At least one Captain retired during the grounding, which was a sad way to finish. Others who had been on the fleet for less than 5 years went back to their previous fleet (old rating only needing revalidation). Others had the opportunity to bid for positions elsewhere in the normal annual conversion process; some used the tactical skills required to fly Concorde to great effect, and evaded capture for a long time....
For SFOs one was allowed to bid in the normal process or be directed to another fleet. The rules didn't allow direction to the Left Seat, so most bid off to various command positions - the most senior (who would have the seniority to return) and the most junior (who were pretty much doomed to leave the fleet as it shrank). Those in the middle (2 of us!)stuck it out and were directed to the RHS of other fleets, but at least with the knowledge that if the bird flew again we were guaranteed to get back (Quite a gamble at this stage).
I'm ashamed to say I can't remember where all the SFEs went, but they were spread in a diaspora through various departments.
Most unfortunate of all crews were those on the very last Concorde conversion course (No. 30, I think) who finished after the grounding and never got to fly the thing. All that work..................
To start with we stayed current in the sim. After a month or so it was obvious that this was a long term event and the company would find something for us to do in return for our salary.
A minor complication was that we knew we were going to need fewer pilots as the decision had already been made to reduce the charter programme, so we weren't all coming back. There were no other FE positions in BA so that was a further issue.
At least one Captain retired during the grounding, which was a sad way to finish. Others who had been on the fleet for less than 5 years went back to their previous fleet (old rating only needing revalidation). Others had the opportunity to bid for positions elsewhere in the normal annual conversion process; some used the tactical skills required to fly Concorde to great effect, and evaded capture for a long time....
For SFOs one was allowed to bid in the normal process or be directed to another fleet. The rules didn't allow direction to the Left Seat, so most bid off to various command positions - the most senior (who would have the seniority to return) and the most junior (who were pretty much doomed to leave the fleet as it shrank). Those in the middle (2 of us!)stuck it out and were directed to the RHS of other fleets, but at least with the knowledge that if the bird flew again we were guaranteed to get back (Quite a gamble at this stage).
I'm ashamed to say I can't remember where all the SFEs went, but they were spread in a diaspora through various departments.
Most unfortunate of all crews were those on the very last Concorde conversion course (No. 30, I think) who finished after the grounding and never got to fly the thing. All that work..................
16th Sep 2010, 13:48
permalink Post: 374
A few little complements to Landlady's Rovaniemi (Santa Claus) story.
I think it's a take-off, but not sure...
(I used this one as my screen background for a long time.)
BA arrival (sorry for the quality, blown up from a tiny website pic, but it's a nice illustration of the atmosphere.
Both BA and Air France had their Santa Claus charters.
And sometimes they even met at Rovaniemi !
CJ
PS None of the photos are mine, but they're all public domain.
I'm sure there must be much better ones, but these are the only ones I had 'to hand'.
I think it's a take-off, but not sure...
(I used this one as my screen background for a long time.)
BA arrival (sorry for the quality, blown up from a tiny website pic, but it's a nice illustration of the atmosphere.
Both BA and Air France had their Santa Claus charters.
And sometimes they even met at Rovaniemi !
CJ
PS None of the photos are mine, but they're all public domain.
I'm sure there must be much better ones, but these are the only ones I had 'to hand'.
16th Sep 2010, 14:14
permalink Post: 375
Keeping her warm
I used to work for BA at BHX (Engineering). BHX was one of the BA diversion airfields for when LHR got fogged out.
A few of us were therefore trained on non BHX based aircraft types in case of diversions. On my shift, I was trained on the B747 and my colleage on Concorde.
Of course we didn't see these aircraft very often, but when we did we had to get out the old course notes to refresh
.
However, whenever Concorde turned up, my overriding memory was of my colleage who was obsessed with 'keeping her warm" - at all costs. I remember an occasion where the GPU, that had been running for a few hours (connected to a Concorde), ran out of diesel and therefore the power dropped off-line. I thought my colleage was going to have a heart attack - he did not come down from orbit until power was restored and everything appeared 'normal' again.
I think that this was something drummed into him whilst on his Concorde training course
A few of us were therefore trained on non BHX based aircraft types in case of diversions. On my shift, I was trained on the B747 and my colleage on Concorde.
Of course we didn't see these aircraft very often, but when we did we had to get out the old course notes to refresh
.
However, whenever Concorde turned up, my overriding memory was of my colleage who was obsessed with 'keeping her warm" - at all costs. I remember an occasion where the GPU, that had been running for a few hours (connected to a Concorde), ran out of diesel and therefore the power dropped off-line. I thought my colleage was going to have a heart attack - he did not come down from orbit until power was restored and everything appeared 'normal' again.
I think that this was something drummed into him whilst on his Concorde training course
18th Sep 2010, 22:55
permalink Post: 389
I worked as a contractor for BA in 1999/2000 and was lucky enough to have the desk in the very south-east corner of the 10th floor of TBC. With a south runway 09 departure, the LHR-JFK Concorde service would be about level with the 10th floor as she came by TBC (building speed before increasing her rate of climb presumably). Everyone, everyday would stop what we were doing and watch her climb out.
For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!
Love this thread!
For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!
Love this thread!
19th Sep 2010, 11:40
permalink Post: 391
BlueConcorde
... Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
... Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
19th Sep 2010, 18:53
permalink Post: 401
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Bellerophon
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing . BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required. In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned. |
By the way, I highly recommend this book to everybody, a different point of view, new photos and nice info regarding this bird.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
|
Nice info regarding BA004! But if a repair was needed, would BA004 take-off anyway to Gatwick or Birmingham? Has it ever arrived a bit late?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
ChristiaanJ
My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise? And if so, when does the breakaway first start? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Jo90
Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?
|
Thank you all, awesome topic!!
19th Sep 2010, 22:57
permalink Post: 410
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
atakacs
I have always been of the possibly not substantiated opinion that all was done to make sure she would never fly again.
|
Opinions and remarks like yours really belong on forums like "SCG" or the comments columns of tabloids....
But I'll try to answer you.
The aircraft were "decommissioned".
That means that they were fully prepared as public museum exhibits, rather than being "mothballed", ready to be put back into service.
The purpose was not to make sure they would never fly again, it was to make sure they were safe for the public to visit.
That included draining all fuel, hydraulic liquid, etc.
That meant removing all pyrotechnics, like those in the RAT.
That implied venting and/or removing all high-pressure vessels, such as the emergency slides, fire bottles, oxygen systems, nitrogen tanks.
In the case of the BA aircraft, it also meant removing the electric ground power connections, to avoid incompetent amateurs trying to put ground power back on the aircraft, and start a fire.
Most of these things could have been rectified quite easily. But there was no intent to ever fly any of these aircraft again, so there was no effort made to "mothball" the aircraft, which would have been done quite differently, such as inerting some of the systems, dropping all of the engines, etc. and, far more importantly, keep a maintenance structure in place, not allow public access to any of the aircraft, etc.
Once Airbus relinquished the Type Certificate, that was the end.
Quote:
| ...it would have been possible to nicely package all remaining spares and technical documentation |
You clearly have no idea what that would have been involved.
Just the spares alone... most of them are "lifed", and would regularly need to be either retested and requalified, or would have to be binned and replaced.
Quote:
| .. not mentioning the reckless butchering of many airframes. |
CJ
20th Sep 2010, 01:37
permalink Post: 414
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
atakacs
Sorry I you feel in any way offended - certainly not my intent.
|
Quote:
| I still feel that this decision has been rather harsh and I'm to date not fully convinced that all alternative were fully explored. |
Due to the economic and political situation at the time (to put it simply), Air France was already flying their Concordes nearly empty, and wanted out.
BA wasn't doing marvelously either.
Airbus (being a company, not a charity) explained that in that case BA would have to carry the full cost of the maintenance.... which WAS already going up as a consequence of maintaining a 35-year old antique flying.
So BA decided to end the service as well, even if in the end at least they went out with a bang, not a whimper.
In those last months, people like Rod Eddington and others DID have a very serious look at keeping one or two aircraft flying in a "heritage role", and there was even a look at a joint venture with the "Alliance" project.
So yes, all of the alternatives WERE explored, but, AT THE TIME, none of these were found to be viable.
So, British Airways, Air France and Airbus all drew their conclusions, which made sense AT THE TIME, and closed down the Concorde operation.
And, instead of scrapping the aircraft, every single one of them went to museums.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
I think he's referring to the airframes (Fox-Bravo and Delta-Golf off the top of my head, probably others) that required an angle-grinder be taken to them in order to transport to their final destinations via road or waterway that as a result will never be structurally airworthy again.
|
For a start, neither would have flown ever again, anyway...
Alpha-Alpha was never modified to post-2000 standard and would have slowly rotted away at LHR. Taking her to East Fortune was a great initiative, IMHO.
Delta-Golf was an ancient certication airframe, and cannibalised for years and years for spares, and destined for scrapping.
Instead, she's now at Brooklands, and rebuilt as one of the most interesting Concorde exhibits.
As to the "angle grinder", you really have to know where to look to find the traces......
And yes, I've seen both of them.
CJ
20th Sep 2010, 16:18
permalink Post: 424
Interesting & nostalgic thread. Nice to see this monumental aviation achievement still generates such passion...
In case it's of interest (and suitable health warning as the memory fades)...
The heat did evaporate water vapour in the airframe - reducing corrosion. I remember when the 5 BA aircraft were returned to service, after the post-accident mods, their weight and balance certificates were prepared and found to be out by (IIRC) more than a tonne. This represented water in the airframe present after a year on the ground, and was gone again after a couple hours of supercruise on return to service. Back to the weighbridge for new W&B Certificates....
Vortex lift caused buffet which felt very similar to a conventional wing's stall/low speed buffet. At landing weights (I hate the trend of using the term "mass": weight is a force, mass is not!) you felt the buffet start as you reduced speed (CAS: Vc) to about 250kts. It was handy as a reminder that you should select visor down / nose to five below 250kts (the recommendation was as you slowed through 270kts, but latterly we were in the habit of holding at 250kts nose/visor up - I think TCAS was quoted as a backup to the more limited visibility in that config). At takeoff weights, the buffet went at more like 270kts accelerating. So I'm pretty sure there was no vortex lift at AoA > 7 degrees (250kts at LW).
Recommended subsonic cruise at MTOW was F260 / M0.95 which was equal to Vmo of 400kts (CAS). It was best cruise because Vc=400kts was also min drag at MTOW. F280 meant a slightly more draggy speed of 384kts, but some preferred it because when cleared to climb & accelerate supersonic (the official expression was "go for it") it gave you a bit of slack against Vmo when eng put the reheats in. But we tended to ignore the overspeed warning anyway: it was supposed to go really really fast...
We never flew with visor down and nose up unless it was bust - that config was only used during pushback (except one captain who always thought it looked better visor up....). Visor down max Vc was 325kts/M0.8 so it would limit subsonic cruise, and besides it made a racket like that.
It was a beaut in x-winds - a total lack of yaw-roll couple meant you just straightened the 'plane up with rudder and carried on into the flare as normal. No roll to counteract, and the sideways "lift" created by the rudder deflection on the fin pretty much equalled the x-wind drift. Nice.
Wind limits were Crosswind 30kts (15kts contaminated or autoland), Headwind for autoland 25kts (or manual "reduced noise" approach: that's a technical way we used to reduce the noise footprint down to 800' by flying at 190kts then reducing to a target speed of Vref+7kts at that point). Tailwind 10kts. All these limits were, of course, subject to "on the day" performance limits calculated at the time. I seem to remember there was an over-arching limit of 6000' on r/w length, subject again to "on the day" performance limits. OK, I cheated on this paragraph and dug out FM Vol 2a.
There were loads of other limitations which were, by and large, more "esoteric" than a conventional airliner and which had to be learned for the conversion course. It really made the head hurt, and would have been impossible without a big loverrly picture of the beast on the wall chucking out yellow smoke and making noise. Even a static picture of her seemed to make noise...
No one who flew it could really believe their luck, but one thing for sure is "they don't build them like that any more"...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
In case it's of interest (and suitable health warning as the memory fades)...
The heat did evaporate water vapour in the airframe - reducing corrosion. I remember when the 5 BA aircraft were returned to service, after the post-accident mods, their weight and balance certificates were prepared and found to be out by (IIRC) more than a tonne. This represented water in the airframe present after a year on the ground, and was gone again after a couple hours of supercruise on return to service. Back to the weighbridge for new W&B Certificates....
Vortex lift caused buffet which felt very similar to a conventional wing's stall/low speed buffet. At landing weights (I hate the trend of using the term "mass": weight is a force, mass is not!) you felt the buffet start as you reduced speed (CAS: Vc) to about 250kts. It was handy as a reminder that you should select visor down / nose to five below 250kts (the recommendation was as you slowed through 270kts, but latterly we were in the habit of holding at 250kts nose/visor up - I think TCAS was quoted as a backup to the more limited visibility in that config). At takeoff weights, the buffet went at more like 270kts accelerating. So I'm pretty sure there was no vortex lift at AoA > 7 degrees (250kts at LW).
Recommended subsonic cruise at MTOW was F260 / M0.95 which was equal to Vmo of 400kts (CAS). It was best cruise because Vc=400kts was also min drag at MTOW. F280 meant a slightly more draggy speed of 384kts, but some preferred it because when cleared to climb & accelerate supersonic (the official expression was "go for it") it gave you a bit of slack against Vmo when eng put the reheats in. But we tended to ignore the overspeed warning anyway: it was supposed to go really really fast...
We never flew with visor down and nose up unless it was bust - that config was only used during pushback (except one captain who always thought it looked better visor up....). Visor down max Vc was 325kts/M0.8 so it would limit subsonic cruise, and besides it made a racket like that.
It was a beaut in x-winds - a total lack of yaw-roll couple meant you just straightened the 'plane up with rudder and carried on into the flare as normal. No roll to counteract, and the sideways "lift" created by the rudder deflection on the fin pretty much equalled the x-wind drift. Nice.
Wind limits were Crosswind 30kts (15kts contaminated or autoland), Headwind for autoland 25kts (or manual "reduced noise" approach: that's a technical way we used to reduce the noise footprint down to 800' by flying at 190kts then reducing to a target speed of Vref+7kts at that point). Tailwind 10kts. All these limits were, of course, subject to "on the day" performance limits calculated at the time. I seem to remember there was an over-arching limit of 6000' on r/w length, subject again to "on the day" performance limits. OK, I cheated on this paragraph and dug out FM Vol 2a.
There were loads of other limitations which were, by and large, more "esoteric" than a conventional airliner and which had to be learned for the conversion course. It really made the head hurt, and would have been impossible without a big loverrly picture of the beast on the wall chucking out yellow smoke and making noise. Even a static picture of her seemed to make noise...
No one who flew it could really believe their luck, but one thing for sure is "they don't build them like that any more"...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
22nd Sep 2010, 04:03
permalink Post: 446
Had a chance to go on the BA Concorde, due to the fact that BA certainly realized the allure the Lady had on all pilots, but sadly, my friend who was suppose to join me got sick, so we rescheduled for another flight at a later date. Well, the tragic events of Air France never gave us the chance.
Having spent the last 11 years based JFK, it never got old to see this magnificient bird arrive and I think to a man, or woman, every one always took a moment to look.
Anyway, found this video on youtube, one amongst very many, however, she was most photogenic, so not much to argue about there. Imagine a few of the posters here had a hand in this:
YouTube - Concorde formation
Having spent the last 11 years based JFK, it never got old to see this magnificient bird arrive and I think to a man, or woman, every one always took a moment to look.
Anyway, found this video on youtube, one amongst very many, however, she was most photogenic, so not much to argue about there. Imagine a few of the posters here had a hand in this:
YouTube - Concorde formation
24th Sep 2010, 07:24
permalink Post: 461
My Own Personal Love Afair
My long (eternal?) love affair with Concorde probably started, like with so many other people (at least those ancient enough to remember) on March 2nd 1969. I was at home at my mum's house on leave from the RAF, (I really was a funny hairy little 'erk') when the live TV coverage, in glorious black and white, showed the first prototype 001 taking to the air in Toulouse. Raymond Baxter's classic commentary understatement of 'she flies, Concorde flies', combined with the sight of this sleek white aircraft, trailing a cloud of thick black exhaust smoke, taking to the air for the first time. (The prototype aircraft in my view looked a little ungainly compared to the pre-production and production babies, and the -22R engines fitted to the original aircraft was a real coal burner). And as far as TV went, it was quite a year; While on night shift at RAF Lyneham I got to watch the live feed of the first Apollo moon landing too.
The next stage in my love affair was in 1970, when this same hairy little 'erk' heard this roar in the sky over Swindon while shopping
and saw the British prototype 002 with its accompanying Canberra chase plane flying very low, straight over the top of Debenhams; my jaw dropped as I stared at this amazing (but rather loud) spectacle unfolding right in front of my eyes.
The die was cast I guess for me in 1972. I was on the ramp at RAF Lyneham, chatting to a visiting USAF C-141 crew. "do ya ever get 'the Concorde' flyin' anywhere near hear ?" asked one of the pilots. I was about to tell him that sometimes on occasion we get a brief glimpse, when the pre-production aircraft 101 flew straight over the top of us. Now these USAF guys just stood there in awe, their eyes popping out like organ stops, and I just figured that this amazingly on cue spectacle just had to be a sign. When I left the RAF two years later I joined BAC at Filton and Fairford engaged on the production and flight testing side of Concorde, leaving there for BA at the end of July 1977. (The story goes that I was delivered to BA a week after G-BOAE as part of a surplus, auxiliary spares package
).
So that's my personal Concorde love affair, it started in 1969 and continues to this day, forty one years later. GOD I AM OLD!!
Dude
The next stage in my love affair was in 1970, when this same hairy little 'erk' heard this roar in the sky over Swindon while shopping
and saw the British prototype 002 with its accompanying Canberra chase plane flying very low, straight over the top of Debenhams; my jaw dropped as I stared at this amazing (but rather loud) spectacle unfolding right in front of my eyes.
The die was cast I guess for me in 1972. I was on the ramp at RAF Lyneham, chatting to a visiting USAF C-141 crew. "do ya ever get 'the Concorde' flyin' anywhere near hear ?" asked one of the pilots. I was about to tell him that sometimes on occasion we get a brief glimpse, when the pre-production aircraft 101 flew straight over the top of us. Now these USAF guys just stood there in awe, their eyes popping out like organ stops, and I just figured that this amazingly on cue spectacle just had to be a sign. When I left the RAF two years later I joined BAC at Filton and Fairford engaged on the production and flight testing side of Concorde, leaving there for BA at the end of July 1977. (The story goes that I was delivered to BA a week after G-BOAE as part of a surplus, auxiliary spares package
).
So that's my personal Concorde love affair, it started in 1969 and continues to this day, forty one years later. GOD I AM OLD!!
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 24th Sep 2010 at 08:07 .
24th Sep 2010, 15:51
permalink Post: 464
i have managed to borrow the dvd`s for the BA concorde by ITVV (300 minutes worth) - and can totally recommend them if you want to see how the workforce `up front` do ther job within concorde - Captain Dave Rowlands , First Officer Les Brodey and FLight EngineerRoger Bricknell.
guided tour of concorde , and i did like the segments on just how much temperature effected performance - and the section (i think 20 minutes worth) explaining just how important the fuel system played in the flight `56.5 going aft` i do understand now
guided tour of concorde , and i did like the segments on just how much temperature effected performance - and the section (i think 20 minutes worth) explaining just how important the fuel system played in the flight `56.5 going aft` i do understand now
24th Sep 2010, 20:20
permalink Post: 466
Quote:
| That's why those two small planks on Concorde work so well. |
(Sorry, couldn't resist a feed like that)
24th Sep 2010, 21:00
permalink Post: 467
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
That's not a very nice way to talk about BA and AF's finest!
(Sorry, couldn't resist a feed like that)
|
True though... they're little more than two small flat surfaces... clearly marked " NO STEP ", so they're not even any use for standing on to clean the windows.
They look pretty insignificant, compared to the 'canards' of the Tu-144 or the big foreplanes on some other deltas, or the long forward wing extensions on aircraft like the F-16 and F-18, none of which have the same function.
And to be perfectly honest, I myself didn't know about their real function until after 2003, when I started delving into a lot of other technical aspects of 'our Lady'.
CJ
28th Sep 2010, 17:48
permalink Post: 476
Concorde Trivia
I thought it might be nice to throw in a few trivia questions here to lighten things up. Most readers of this thread should be able to answer fairly easily; if necessary by checking back on some of the previous posts in the thread. (All questions relate to the BA fleet). Or there is always Uncle Google :
1) How many fuel tanks werer there on Concorde?
2) How many seats were there?
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
6) How many wheels on the aircraft
7) How many flying control modes were there?
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Answers tomorrow
Dude
1) How many fuel tanks werer there on Concorde?
2) How many seats were there?
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
6) How many wheels on the aircraft
7) How many flying control modes were there?
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Answers tomorrow
Dude
30th Sep 2010, 13:51
permalink Post: 498
1) How many fuel tanks werer there on Concorde?
- Lots
2) How many seats were there? - 12, the rest were freight bays
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved? - Very high and very fast but NOT very very fast
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it? - The one that was made at Filton
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service? - Feet, metres or FL?
6) How many wheels on the aircraft - Just enough
7) How many flying control modes were there? - Fast, very fast and very very fast
8) How many positions of nose droop were there? - With the STOP or without?
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft? - Pacman (wild guess)
10) How many main electrical sources were there? - Tomato and BBQ
So what do I win?
2) How many seats were there? - 12, the rest were freight bays
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved? - Very high and very fast but NOT very very fast
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it? - The one that was made at Filton
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service? - Feet, metres or FL?
6) How many wheels on the aircraft - Just enough
7) How many flying control modes were there? - Fast, very fast and very very fast
8) How many positions of nose droop were there? - With the STOP or without?
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft? - Pacman (wild guess)
10) How many main electrical sources were there? - Tomato and BBQ
So what do I win?
30th Sep 2010, 13:58
permalink Post: 499
Concorde Trivia Quiz.. The Answers
As promised here are the answers to our trivia quiz.
Actually there were 14 (but if you are not necessarily a Concorde person, 13 is acceptable). There were '13 fuel tanks, numbered 1 - 11' as we used to tell all the visitors to the aircraft, (The wingtip tanks 5A & 7A making up the extra 2) PLUS a single small
scavenge tank
at the rear of the aircraft that was used to remove fuel from the vent lines and return this fuel via a transfer pump back to tank 3. (A fuel level sensor would trigger the pump with only 1 US Gallon of fuel in the tank). If the trim gallery became over-pressurised (ie tank 3 already full to the brim) an overflow relief valve (ORV) underneath the rear of the aircraft would open and dump the contents of the tank overboard. There was a flight deck indication if the scavenge pump was running in flight to give the crew an indication that a tank somewhere was probably over-filling and to take the appropriate action. There was one added goody about the ORV; If you were on the ground with the refuel door open and due to a refuelling overfill anywhere, fuel entered the scavenge tank, at 7 gallons the ORV would open and rapidly dump the fuel on the floor. For this reason a vent pipe and fuel drum was often placed underneath the ORV during high load refuels. If this was not fitted and you just happened to walk underneath the aircraft at the wrong moment during fuelling........
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
This is the stinker.... there were 114 (although at entry into service there were 115!!). 100 passenger seats + 6 cabin crew seats + 5 flight deck seats (including the fold up seat in the aisle at the rear) PLUS 3 LOO SEATS (Originally 4 loos, the fourth loo being removed in the early 1980's).
50,189' and 530 KEAS, but we'll settle for anything around FL500 being correct.
Aircraft 216, G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built. When 216 first flew in 1979 she was a variant 192 'British Unsold Aircraft' and was registered as G-BFKX. In late 1979, BA purchased the aircraft and it was subsequently converted to a Type 102 British Airways variant, and after modifications were complete, test flights were carried out from Filton under the registration of G-N94AF. This registration was to enable the aircraft to participate in the Braniff interchange between IAD and DFW, but when the Braniff Concorde adventure unfortunately ended in 1980, she was again re-registered to G-BOAF, this is how she was delivered to BA later that year.
Easy one this I hope; 60.000'. (As we've said before this limitation was imposed because of the dual window failure / emergency descent time consideration, not as a performance issue. On test flights 63,000' was routinely attained, and altitudes of up to 68,000' were achieved during development flying. (On her maiden flight, G-BOAB achieved 65,000' and Mach 2.04; the first British constructed Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight, and the ONLY one of the original five BA aircraft to achieve this).
Hopefully an easy one... there were TWELVE: 2 nose wheels, 8 main wheels and 2 tail wheels. (No, even I'm not nasty enough to include the wheels on the bar trolleys
). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Three modes; Blue electronic signalling, green electronic signalling and mechanical signalling. I suppose we COULD be pedantic here and include the Emergency Flight Control mode where even with a jammed control column/control wheel, strain gauges (and Safety Flight Control Computers of course) would still enable you to control the elevons.
OK, three basically. Up (Duh!), 5 degrees for taxi/take off and low speed flight and 12.5 degrees for landing. As ChristiaanJ quite rightly pointed out in an earlier post, the prototype (and pre-production) aircraft landing position was 17.5 degrees of droop. (In my view the nose of the aircraft looked a little like an armadillo in this extreme configuration).
In 1977 the new digital Plessey PVS 1580 Aircraft Integrated Data System was progressively fitted to the BA fleet, this being the first microprocessor application on Concorde, this application being followed in several other systems during the life of the aircraft. The 'final' applications being TCAS and the superb retrofitted Bendix RDR-4A weather radar system.
No we are not including torch batteries and emergency lights etc.
There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).
I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.
Dude
Quote:
| 1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde? |
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
Quote:
| 2) How many seats were there? |
Quote:
| 3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved? |
Quote:
| 4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it? |
Quote:
| 5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service? |
Quote:
| 6) How many wheels on the aircraft |
). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Quote:
| 7) How many flying control modes were there? |
Quote:
| 8) How many positions of nose droop were there? |
Quote:
| 9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft? |
Quote:
| 10) How many main electrical sources were there? |
There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).
I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.
Dude
30th Sep 2010, 15:03
permalink Post: 500
I copied this off M2dude's post a couple of days ago, and tried to answer it all offline without cheating by looking up the answers elsewhere.
1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde?
LOL... 13.
I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13.
Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank.
And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft.
2) How many seats were there?
Good question.
As Nick asked, which seats?
Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified.
Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit.
Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven?
Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos!
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts.
But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time.....
It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope.
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg.
IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up.
Brain not completely addled, then.
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
FL600, as certified.
6) How many wheels on the aircraft?
Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back
7) How many flying control modes were there?
Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS?
Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used.
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft).
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system?
It was after "my time"...
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources.
There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine.
Then there were two DC batteries.
And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post.
Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical.
Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!
CJ
1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde?
LOL... 13.
I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13.
Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank.
And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft.
2) How many seats were there?
Good question.
As Nick asked, which seats?
Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified.
Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit.
Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven?
Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos!
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts.
But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time.....
It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope.
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg.
IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up.
Brain not completely addled, then.
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
FL600, as certified.
6) How many wheels on the aircraft?
Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back
7) How many flying control modes were there?
Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS?
Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used.
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft).
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system?
It was after "my time"...
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources.
There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine.
Then there were two DC batteries.
And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post.
Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical.
Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!
CJ