Posts about: "British Airways" [Posts: 177 Pages: 9]

Thankyou to everyone on this thread for without a doubt the best thread i've ever read on any internet forum - the passion and knowledge floors me. I have zero aviation background but Concorde has a place in my heart....I was wondering however if someone on here knows about the following story? To this date i've no idea what bits are the truth and what is just rumout.

My grandad (departed earth long before I was old enough to ask him questions about it unfortunately) worked for a company (don't believe they were a specific aerospace firm just a precision engineering firm, he also worked on flaps/droops on Tridents and said he had many a sleepless night when G-ARPI initially crashed). They won the contract to make the keys for Concorde, my grandad makes the keys according to the designs, and for extra measure thinking they will be a souvenir no doubt one day decides he will make a set for himself (and who knows, I could've ended up with them). So the story goes the dies then get destroyed.

Launch day of Concorde comes, BA lose the set of original keys made and only asked ever for one set - the launch looks in jeopardy and a somewhat panicked launch party are wondering what they are going to do. Luckily my grandad steps up and says you have been saved, as he had a spare set all along and gives them to BA who launch as planned but loses out his souvenir in the long run.

As I say to date I have no idea if its the truth or not and it could be alot of artistic licence across the years (I can't believe they made just the one set, but don't know whether they were common keys or specific to the aircraft or what), but thought if anyone would know its someone on here and give me something to tell my grandkids if its true!

Thankyou, and long may this thread continue.

Firstly a very big thank you to all who have made this the best read of the decade.

In response to both Christiaan and Brit312 posts, here is the role of honour proudly on display inside G-BOAC at Manchester.



Regards
Andy

First of all a hearty 'Happy New Year' to all our readers. As I've been 'away' for a week or so, I hope you will all indulge me as I answer a few posted points. (I totally agree with what Bellerophon said about restricting our posts to the 'techy' and nostalgic stuff, so will not respond to anything else here) .

CliveL
I accept and understand of course Clive that this was a difficult issue to predict with any certainty, it was just a shame that's all, that the Type 28 never fully lived up to its promise and potential. However, the one aspect of the SNECMA design that was very poor indeed was Secondary Nozzle system integrity. Throughout the operational life of Concorde, there were almost more operational disruptions due to short-fallings here (bucket runaways) than any other issue. It was only near the very end of Concorde's operational life that modifications were finally forthcoming from SNECMA to address this.

Poornamechoice
I am so sorry to dispel this particularly charming story, but there were absolutely no keys as such for Concorde, Sorry (But I am so glad that you are enjoying this wonderful thread).

ChristiaanJ
Oooooh speaking for myself (and I suspect a whole lot more of the BA Concorde familly) there is a void alright. Having lived with the 'lady' day in, day out for almost 30 years (up to November 2003) there was an absolutely yawning chasm left for me personally. (The world of the blunties is just not the same.. just a whole lot slower ).
What is gratifying though, is the enormous amount of interest that there still is for Concorde; both in this thread and in the world at large. I guess she lives on after all.

These pictures of 101 etc are absolutely marvellous; I really like the 'sexy' wing shape photo's. One little unique point about 102; she flew with a different intake control system to any other Concorde, being an 'improved' Ultra Electronics analog system. (Although the intake itself was aerodynamically the same as the later aircraft). Never really understood why our French friends chose this particular path with this aircraft. (Perhaps CliveL can shed some light on this??).
Very best regards to all.

Dude

OK, here is a photo that I took at Fairford in November 1976. I'd just had my very first Concorde flight on a brand new G-BOAD, and took this flight deck photo in the hangar later that afternoon (the doors are open hence the late afternoon Cotswold sky. The point of this rather poor (sorry guys, I was young for goodness sake) photo is to look at just how subtly different the 1976 flight deck WAS.



The first thing I know EXWOK and BELLEROPHON will (maybe) notice is that originally OAD had a 'normal colour' electroluminescent light plate on the visor indication panel. (If I remember rightly (it was a million years ago chaps) when this one 'stopped lighting' we could not get a replacement and had to rob 202 (G-BBDG) at Filton; this one being the same black development aircraft colour that OAD has to this day.
The OTHER first thing that you may notice is the Triple Temperature Indicator on the captains dash panel. (The first officer had his in in similar position). These got moved around (twice in the end) when TCAS was installed in the mid-90's. It was amazing just how much equipment got moved around over the years, in order to 'shoe-horn in' various bits of extra equimpent.
The cabin altimeter here fitted just above the #1 INS CDU also got moved (to the centre consul) when the FAA 'Branniff' modifications were embodied later in the 70's. It's spot got occupied by a standy altimeter mandated by the FAA but this was removed after Branniff ceased flying Concorde; the cabin altimeter returning to it's former home. The REALLY observant will notice that there is neither an Autoland Ca3/Cat2 identifier on the AFCS panel (glued on by BA at LHR) or the famous and precision built 'Reheat Capabilty Indicator' flip down plate fitted to the centre dash panel a few years later by BA.
Also not shown here, as they were buyer furnished equipment also fitted at on delivery LHR, are the two ADEUs (Automatic Data Entry Units, or INS Card readers). These were located immediatel aft of the CDU's and were used for bulk waypoint loading ('bulk' being 9, the most that the poor old Delco INU memory could handle). These were removed in the mid 90's when the Navigation Database was fitted to Concorde INUs, and bulk loading then was achieved by simply tapping in a 2 digit code. (Hardly the elegence of FMS, but still very elegent in comparison with the ADEU's, and worked superbly). A little note about these ADEU things; You inserted this rather large optically read paper data card into the thing and the motor would suck the unsuspecting card in. As often as not the ADEU would chew the card up and spit the remnants out, without reading any data, or not even bother spitting out the remnants at all. Removing these things FINALLY when the INUs were modified was absolute joy!!
ps. When G-BOAG (then G-BFKW) was delivered in 1980 it had neither any of the Branniff mods or ADEUs fitted. (Also the INS was not wired for DME updating). This meant that obviously she could not fly IAD-DFW with Branniff but also she could not do LHR-BAH either, because of the lack ADEUs. (You could not manually insert waypoints quick enough over the 'Med', or so the guys told me. So for the first few years good old FKW/OAG just used to plod between LHR and JFK. And plod she did, superbly. She never did get the ADEUs (not necessary thank goodness when the INUs got modified) but we wired in DME updating and so she could navigate around with the best of them.
My gosh I do prattle on, sorry guys.
Best regards

Dude

PS Welcome back Landlady, hope you've recovered from your fall XXXX

SpeedbirdConcorde
Hi again my friend. To further expand on CliveJ's superb explanation: Mechanical control inputs were fed to each of the 8 Powerd Flying Control Units (PFCUs), but in electronic signalling (either Blue or Green) these inputs were de-clutched at the PFCU input lever. When Fly By Wire' signalling is not available, the mechanical inputs (which as CliveL quite rightly points out) are driven by the Relay Jacks, now are locked to the input lever and can now move the input jack of the PFCU (known as the spool valve) and subsequently cause the PFCU to drive the control surface. (The body of the PFCU moved, the main jacks were attached at each end to structure and so obviously did not move). Hopefully this diagram will help visualising the process a little easier:

The diagram shows Green & Blue hydraulics supplied but the electro-valves (opened by the respective FBW channel) are both closed. You can see that the mechanical input lever is 'locked' to the PFCU input lever which will drive the SPOOL VALVE directly. When FBW is enabled, either the Blue or Green (never both together) ELECTRO-VALVE are signalled open, the ensuing hydraulic pressure then pushing the input clutch upwards and disengaging the mechanical input. FBW demands are now fed to the respective SERVO VALVE which will hydraulically send the SPOOL VALVE in the desired direction.
The Relay Jacks could be considered to be a little like a PFCU (you had 2 RJs per axix) but instead of the servo valves being driven by the FBW system they were driven by the autopilot and instead of driving a control surface, they drove the control runs. In manual flight the input spool was driven via a mechanical input lever, which would drive the RJ spool a little like Mech' signalling drove the PFCU spool. In A/P mode the mechanical input rod was de-clutched \xe0 la PFCU, but (and here's the clever part) this input was locked to the body of the Relay Jack which when it moved, drove the pilot's control in sympathy. (Control column, yoke or rudder pradals). As the respective control(s) was moved by the Relay Jack, the corresponding FBW position sensor (resolver) would change position and generate the FBW demand. (As the surface moved there was a feedback resolver at PFCU level).
As far as the FBW channels themselves went; there were 2 electronic signalling modes, Blue and Green, sub-divided into 3 groups (Inner Elevons, Outer & Mid Elevons and Rudders). Each group was independently monitored, and a fault in say the Rudder channel alone, would result in the rudders ONLY changing lanes. NOW ( ), The normal control channel was BLUE, and if this failed you would drop the respective channel into GREEN and if this failed you would drop into MECH. The selector switches (1 per group) enabled you to select BLUE/GREEN/MECH in that order. If for some reason you were selected to GREEN, a failure of that signalling lane would not drop you 'up' into BLUE, but into MECH. Your switch would only be in this position if you'd had a problem with BLUE, however you would select this on pushback while you were testing the flying controls, otherwise you spent your whole life selected to BLUE. As far as BA went, I can never remember a time personally when all 3 groups dropped from BLUE to MECH, but very rarely you might get a fault that caused a single group to briefly drop to MECH. Just about one of the very few common mode failures to each of the 3 groups would be a failure of the respective FBW static inverter. This thing, which was rightly monitored up to the hilt, produced a 26 Volt 1800 Hz output. (1800 Hz was chosen as this is not a harmonic of aircraft mainline 400 Hz AC supply)
Best regards

Dude

During the early years there was some doubt from the CAA that the aircraft could be handled in Mech signalling in the transonic region. Lots of meetings were held, and finally on a test flight the gentleman was invited again and one of the original training Captains flew the aircraft perfectly through the transonic area whilst descending in Mech Signalling. With that said it was a delicate area and control inputs had to be gentle and small so I understand



Yes there was an Ignitor selector labelled LH--Both--RH, however the engines would be started using only one ignitor. This caused a few small but annoying delays as if the selected ignitor failed the start would have to be stopped the starter given a cooling period and then a further engine start using the other ignitor would be attempted, however it did give a running check that both ignitors were working.

This was not very popular with the crews and the ground engineers were persuaded to test the ignitors before presenting the aircraft for service. However due to the engine starting Fuel Pump switching, this resulted with a small fire in the hanger, and so the crews were back to starting on Lh or RH ignitors.

If I remember correctly the RR Conways on the VC-10 also had 2 ignitors per engine with a LH--Both-RH selector.

At one time there was a suggestion that BA adopt the Air France technique where the F/E did this check on the ground pumps prior to engine start, which did not go down very well with the F/E. It was fortunate that some one came up with the suggestion that this would wear the ground pumps out , and so this check stayed as apilot check after the engined were running [Thank God]

If you remember, if something went wrong with the Flying control check the F/E was always busy. This gave him a chance to think up a suitable answer or even better the pilots did the check again and it now worked.

No dude we never came to see you boys for the "Pilots Tech Refresher" as we always had to keep those lectures very simple as otherwise the pilots would go to sleep.

Now I have to admit coming across the hanger to consult with you boys when preparing for a new sequence of F/E "Tech Knowledge Checks". Not that we did not understand it, you understand, but mainly to make sure that we were correct before some clever line F/E informed you of your error. Very embarrising that, and I should know

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

Best regards
Dude

Please please please let me be a SLFConcordeBore - 1 post, then I\x92ll shut up.

2 items that I had on my \x93Do before I die\x94 list were \x93Sail into New York on QE2\x94 (sadly, didn\x92t happen, now obviously won\x92t), and \x93Fly on Concorde\x94.

Part of the enthusiasm for Concorde came from a friend in the Middle East, who worked for Airwork, who did contract maintenance for your air force. He was based in Saudi Arabia IIRC, working on Lightnings. As an expat in Saudi (good pay + no tax = high disposable), when he had some leave available at one point he took Concorde from Bahrein - London - Bahrein. Loved every moment.

He told the lovely story of his first day back after his hols, when a Lightning pilot came in in his G-suit, saying \x93I\x92ve just done Mach 2\x94 (you know where this is going...) to which Slim was able to reply \x93I did that yesterday - and I was drinking champagne at the time\x94. What an astonishing aeroplane Concorde was.

I got to fly Concorde courtesy of BA - they called one day and asked if I\x92d like to fly Concorde LHR - JFK - LHR, out one day, back the next, put up overnight at the Waldorf Astoria - all courtesy of BA. After the \x93is this a practical joke?\x94, and \x93what\x92s the catch?\x94, it transpired that they did invite people from time to time for this type of trip, and somehow my name came out of the hat.

A truly memorable trip - the acceleration, the hot windows, the fantastic service (and excellent food & wine), trip to cockpit, and the \x93Concorde grin\x94. Memorable guests on the way out were Paul & Linda McCartney, with children and minder. I seem to recall that the takeoff from JFK was even more spectacular than the one from LHR. It just seemed to jump out of the blocks and keep going.

Also notable were how much of a private club it was - the crew were welcoming passengers to New York, and saying to various passengers things like \x93I didn\x92t see you last week\x94, with the passenger replying \x91Oh no, I couldn\x92t make it last week, but I\x92ll see you again next week\x94 etc.

Thanks to everyone, ChristiaanJ, M2dude, Bellerophon, EXWOK, Brit123, landlady and stilton and all the others for a wonderful thread about a wonderful plane.

All 4 engines (and indeed everything else that BA left untouched on de-commission) are still in the airframe. She is pretty much as she was when she flew in on 31st October 2003.

Here is the only OAC engine bay pic I have. Must remember to take my camera next time I do a tour!

G-BOAC engine no. 1.

CliveL
It was found that the relatively miniscule differences in plate alignment produced errors in true Ps measurement and so individual corrections had to be applied to each aircraft. No big deal with a digital ADC of course but not so clever when you are dealing with steam driven analog as we were. (Bearing in mind that any analog ADC is an electro-mechanical device). To give identical Mach 2 cruise readings between ADC 1 & 2 a plug in resistor/diode module was hooked into the respective ADC circuit, and this module stayed with the aircraft always. If we'd ever had to replace a static plate in service (and at BA we never did) we'd have had to have done an in-flight pressure survey in order to calculate the required resistors and altered the module accordingly.
The air intake system, although it used Ps from THREE sources (the side static ports and the static ports built into the nose probe; this being a pressure head and not just a pitot as were the side probes) did not apply any individual aircraft corrections, it just made different corrections between side and nose pressure sources (Ps and Pt). Having a digital processor at it's heart, these corrections were signalled by using 'program pins' at the rear of the AICU rack.
As steam driven as the Concorde ADC was, when it came to RVSM implementation in the late 1990s we found that the air data system was in fact superbly accurate, and no modifications to the computers themselves were required. Such a testament to the original superb design.

Best regards
Dude

Landroger
Actually it was a great and moving experience Roger. All the people at the function were BA 'Concorde family', so the noise we made that evening was certainly sufficient. It sounds weird I know, but it was almost as if OAC was entering the spirit of the occasion. (And the aircraft was open for us to take photos, reminisce and quite honestly to help remind us all that something really wonderful was now missing from our lives). The aircraft is in such good general condition that she never really seems 'dead' at all
howiehowie93
Nothing missing here Howie. On the RIGHT HAND engines, ie. 2 & 4, Concorde had 2 hydraulic pumps, but on 1 & 3 engines there was only a single pump. What you can see is the spare gearbox provision for the extra YELLOW pump, right next to the IDG. (You can see the pipes coming from the GREEN hydraulic pump in the forward face of the gearbox, immediately forward of the 'blank').

Best regards
Dude

Thanks to all who have contributed to this wondrous thread. As one of the guides who work on Alpha Charlie at Manchester (with that Shaggy Sheep pperson), I have set myself a little task. We regularly get people who have travelled on Concorde on our tours who just want to refresh their memories but don't know which aircraft it was.
My "little" task is to document which a/c did which flight ? There were somewhere about 50,000 flights for the BA Concordes. I'm currently up to 14,353 thanks to Stephen at Home .
Does anyone have a source of other none Heathrow data ?
I've used an assumption that BA003 followed BA002 to bulk some of the data up.
The BA museum can't help.
PS If anyone wants a copy of the data so far it's in a spreadsheet format at the moment and I'll happily pass it on. Just ping me a message rather than post here.

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

CJ

I really liked the 2nd generation cabin displays that are still fitted to the BA Concorde today. But the \x93Project Rocket\x94 displays really looked unprofessional and you would of needed binoculars to see them from row 4!
The problem was that as you used the binoculars to view the Mach meter change to famous M200, you would have been blinded by this silly double blue lighting wave rushing through the aircraft, magnified by the binoculars.

There is a page regarding "Project Rocket" at the link below, including video and pictures


BA Concorde “Project Rocket” Heritage Concorde

(long time lurker and addict of this thread - about time I wrote something...!)

I totally agree Shaggy. Excellent evening covering some facinating material, presented in a way that even this BA aircraft loader could understand!

Oh how I wish I'd joined the company a bit earlier when Concorde was still in the fleet!

M2 dude
Firstly thanks for a very interesting thread. Regarding post 88 (I know it was last year) and the hydraulic systems, the use of M2V would also be required as the pipes were Titanium and Skydrol (ester) based fluids will cause hydrogen embrittlement in Titanium and cracking. For me I had a couple of years working on the aircraft at BA in the late 70's and was always reminded that the design was in the best British military design tradition and training as a gynacologist would have been handy when replacing any component! Good times.

agreed Dude...

202 was built as 2nd Production, with a defined role as a test aircraft. Several studies were carried out over the years to see if she could be reused. Initially with the manufacturers, where if Concorde has been a success she could have been refurbished and sold to another airline at a "good" price. Of course here flying outside the certified flight envelope led to a lot of further concerns that really was curtains for any modification.

BA had robbed a lot of parts from her in the 80s, especially to bring G-BOAG back into service, so it was a no brainier in the end to put her in a hangar and rob whatever was required to kept the fleet of 7 in the air.

One little point, in the very late 70s here MEPU was decommissioned and she was fitted with the HYRAT...although the guts of the de-contaminated MEPU is still up in her tail cone.

If you want to see an Concorde as it was in Airline Service go visit MAN or EF, fantastic displays showing an Airline Concorde in the 90s or 00s

If you want to visit a Concorde and want to see the 4 stories in one (Concorde story, the unique story of a development aircraft, the airliner passenger experience and they story of how Concorde pilots were trained).... then visit Brooklands.

We've never been able to prove from a documented drawing perspective at Brooklands that the roof of the forward fuselage was any thiner than that of 204.

Well in that case you are obviously right I suppose and BA, BAe (as it was) and the CAA were all wrong as far as component 30 goes. And everything that I was told at Fairford was wrong too. I guess it goes to show I suppose that all these bodies can be wrong.
There were several semi-structural and 'heavy' system components that were robbed by BA (I removed some stuff myself in the mid 80's and early 90's), but the fact remains that there were massive system differences that could never be reconciled by simple 'mods'. The fact also remains that she was a 5100 variant aircraft and not a 5101/5102 variant (or a 100 series aircraft either) and was significantly D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T to the 'real' aircraft, the airliners. I was THERE and I SAW the differences myself enough times for goodness sake, and the fact remains she was NEVER an airliner and never had any real prospect of being one. (But as I said before, she was a wonderful TEST specimin and did some stirling work). Brooklands really has a lot to offer the visitor as an exhibit I suppose but if you want to see Concorde THE AIRLINER then you really need to go elsewhere. Manchester in the only place where you can now see an intact production series Concorde in the UK and as I said before is NOW lovingly cared for by some brilliant people.

Regards
Dude

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

CJ

CliveL (And ChristiaanJ)
Sure can Clive. These are the BA 5102 numbers, Air France 5101 numbers were corespondingly identical chronologically.: G-BOAC - 5102-01. G-BOAA - 5102-02. G-BOAB - 5102-03. G-BOAD - 5102-04. G-BOAE - 5102-05. Although G-BOAG (G-BFKW) and G-BOAF (G-BFKX) were originally Variant 192 (British Unsold) aircraft, these correspondingly became 5102-06 and 5102-07. I wonder if anyone here remembers G-BOAF doing her pre-delivery flying at Filton registered as G-N91AF? I remember when I was at Filton doing one of my Concorde type courses in 1980, and there was good old Foxy Lady with her 'Branniff' registration. She was re -re-registered to G-BOAF prior to delivery to BA.

The Component 30 skin thickness issue was not relevant for RELIFE 2 ; you and I know that the major 'skin' issue here was the centre fuselage crown area. The issue of Component 30 was a 201/202 issue only. (Assuming that the French had the need/desire/capability of adding another airframe to their fleet.
And sorry everyone about the \xa330 cost of converting 202 into an airliner, I meant (dumb ass that I am) \xa330 MILLION.

Best regards
Dude