Posts about: "Brooklands" [Posts: 32 Pages: 2]

Join the club....
In my case it's a pic of G-BSST, signed by colleages and friends at Fairford.
Has been hanging over my desks in France for over 35 years, and hasn't really bleached yet.... good quality colour print....
I still have a few Xeroxes of Xeroxes of blueprints too.... probably off ancient microfilms. AJ would know all about that...
And yes, most are annotated in both French and English, both the descriptive legends and the measurements (i.e., metric and 'imperial').

CJ

She was a a test airframe only, although in circa 1985/86 we did look at modifications that would bring her up to production aircraft standard. The modifications required to the powerplant alone (mainly engine and intake control logic and management) were truly massive, as well as other things like engine instrumentation and other systems' control management. The total cripler however was the cost of a TOTAL RESKIN of the forward fuselage section (Component 30, made at Brooklands). The production series aircraft had a thicker skin here, and we were told that the CAA insisted on this being done as part of any conversion to airliner standard. Costs of around \xa330 were being banded about for bringing the entire airframe up to production aircraft standard. Also of course she had an MEPU when flying rather than a HYRAT for emergency power and of course a large flight test observers position.
I worked on 202 personally quite a bit during the mid to late 70's, but she never remotely 'felt' like a real production aircraft. Even aircraft 204 (G-BOAC) in her pre-route proving days was a radically different beast. (The OAC post route-proving modifications although at system level were quite extensive, these were miniscule in comparison to the differences between 202 and what we like to call 'the REAL Concorde'. Don't get me wrong, 202 did some absolutely stirring work in terms of route-proving and certification trials, and the restoration done at Brooklands is most impressive indeed, but she is and always was, nothing other than a test aircraft. She was no more a production airframe in reality than the pre-production aircraft 102, and I'm afraid that anyone thinking that she is anying other than this is truly deluding themselves my friend.
I'm sorry if this reality is dissapointing steve-de-s, but if you want to see a Concorde that is truly representative of what the aircraft was really all about I suggest that you pop up to either Manchester or East Fortune. (The only airliner museums in the UK now open to public viewing). The Manchester exhibit in particular is truly superb and beautifully kept by some great people, and shows you exactly what Concorde, THE AIRLINER was actually like, rather than just seeing a test specimin. (A superb specimin 202 indeed she was, but this is ALL she ever was, a test specimin).

Best regards
Dude

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

I've always been fascinated by Concorde, and I've been following this incredible thread for some time now.

For my birthday last month my wife bought me an experience on the Concorde Simulator at Brooklands, which has been mentioned on this thread a couple of times. I had an outstanding time, not only with the simulator itself, but meeting people who were involved with Concorde and keen to share their enthusiasm. I heartily recommend the experience to anyone with an interest in Concorde. And the money goes to improving the simulator, so it's for a good cause!

Joel.

You're halfway right....
There were 22 airframes built, even if only 20 of them flew.
There was one in Toulouse, used for static (structural) tests, and vibration tests, and suchlike, and the one at Farnborough, used for heat and stress cycling.
Neither of them survived. It seems a few sections of '0001' still exist somewhere at Toulouse, and a few sections of '0002' are still on display at the Brooklands (UK) museum.
I have no idea whether either actually had space models of the engines in place, or simply representative ballast weights.

CJ

(I made up the '0001' and '0002' designations.... maybe somebody here can still remember what those 'static' airframes were referred to formally at the time?).

Wow, what an amazing thread which I have only recently found.

Congratulations to all for a fascinating read

Although I never got the opportunity to fly on Concorde, I will never forget seeing her fly some charters from Filton in the late 1990's. On one occasion I was stood at the wire fence at the end of runway 27 and watched Concorde taxi directly towards me, do a 360 degree turn and line up for takeoff. Concorde was only around 100ft-150ft away from me when the throttles were opened. Luckily I was holding tightly onto the fence and got a face full of dust as the reheats kicked in! The noise, power and heat I felt from those Olympus engines was phenomenal. She looked stunning as she rotated amongst the heat haze and the slender delta climbed steeply away towards the Bristol Channel. What an aircraft!

My grandfather worked on the Olympus 593 engines at Rolls Royce in Filton, so I will always hold Concorde close to my heart. I have been onboard Foxy at Filton when she was open to the public and I have visited 002 at Yeovilton and 101 at Duxford. I live quite close to Delta Golf at Brooklands and have been onboard her about 4 times now (including a sit in the cockpit) and recently flew the fantastic Concorde simulator with Captain John Eames and First Officer Ian Smith which is a day I will treasure. Opening up the throttles for take-off on 31L at JFK and tackling the checkerboard landing at Kai Tak were experiences I will never forget.

Keep up the great postings everyone!

Not as far as I know - the first UK "production" Concorde intended for testing rather than line flying (G-BBDG) did end up as a donor for spares, but it wasn't a case of an aircraft without a home - it was just the way things turned out - they never intended to sell it to an airline. In fact that very airframe is the one now living at Brooklands. Several things kiboshed Concorde as a going concern in the '70s - not least of which was the protest movement in the US making US airlines shy away. Above all it was not an issue with the project itself, but the early '70s oil crisis which had the most drastic effect. In fact, while the UK government effectively wrote off the cost in the '70s, the profits BA ended up making could have made a sizeable dent in the development costs.

There was a B model on the drawing board which could very well have been capable in that arena.

CONCORDE SST : CONCORDE B

In fact, BA significantly underestimated what customers would be willing to pay for Concorde service at first - it was this realisation that enabled them to turn a profit!

Well, that was kind of the crux of the issue. Boeing had already effectively bet the company on the 747 project, and the 2707 still had technical issues on paper that the Concorde project had already solved. As far as my reading suggests, the runaway success of the 747 in fact owed a lot to the issues that ended up swamping the DC-10 and L-1011 - essentially gifting Boeing a market leading position and rescuing the company from the abyss - the 2707 was cancelled long before that became a reality though. In effect, before the success of the 747 was a done deal, Boeing couldn't stretch to doing both.

Nice to see this thread still active!

I wonder is there is a Concorde expert who could help me with a question please. I have booked some time in the Concorde simulator at brooklands in September and was wondering how I should best use the time I have (30 mins). What do you think would be the most interesting and enjoyable use of my time? I have read most of this thread, and gather that the JFK departures were spectacular. Is that what you think I should try?

I have spent a bit of time in other simulators (purely for fun), so what I am hoping to try in the Concorde simulator is something unique to Concorde.

I think you should try an outside loop, I'm sure Kennedy One departure, CRI climb will pale in comparison.

Many thanks for all the help. During my research the livery seemed closer to G-BBDG, The Brooklands Concorde. I really do appreciate your help guys....it seems the artist may have been having a fun day taking liberties! Thanks again

As so many have already said: what a wonderful thread. Please please keep it going.

Given the high quality of expertise and experience here, please accept my apologies for any ill informed inaccuracies. I never flew in Concorde, but I did 'fly' her thanks to the late John Cook.

In the late 1970s I was in the RAF section of the school CCF with his son Richard (tragically later killed in the Mull of Kintyre accident) and John (one of the first BA Concorde pilots) arranged for a minibus load of us to go to Filton on what I wish I'd realised at the time was an exceptionally privileged visit. Passage of time blurs the memory, but it still sticks in my mind as an extraordinary day.

The first 'Concorde' we saw was the full scale marketing mock up, essentially the left side of an external Concorde attached to a hanger wall, with a full interior cabin. I still remember being surprised how small it was - the windows especially - and the mix of different seats and trims inside, presumably to show options to potential buyers.

Next stop was the simulator and - in the analogue days of the 70's - the enormous, detailed 3D model of Heathrow and what looked like the surrounding 10 miles, mounted vertically on a wall. A huge gantry on rails ran back and forth, up and down, so a camera with tiny periscope lens could take off, fly around and land as per the simulated flight, with the resulting pictures projected for the pilots in the sim. The size of the thing - and the attention to detail of the model - was incredible. Off to one side was a large rectangular shallow dish painted light blue. It's sides were raised - like a saucer - and edged with fluffed cotton wool. We were told that once the flight in the sim reached a certain height, it would 'go into cloud' (fade to white) while the camera trundled across to the blue dish. The flight would then 'emerge' from the 'cloud' and the camera went round and round in circles, giving a very plausible impression of high altitude flight until it was time to reverse the procedure and descend, back to 'Heathrow'.

Incredibly, they let us fly the sim, two at a time up front, for a few minutes each. It was simply too much to take in and was over far, far, far too soon. But I can claim a (very poor) approach to Heathrow before the instructors called us off - apparently a crash landing didn't do the camera any favours as the lens would plough into the model. I can see why they were nervous.

(Is this the sim cockpit - without the model I presume - that is now at Brooklands, by the way?)

Final stop was a gantry overlooking one of the hangers where a solitary Concorde nestled amongst (what fuzzy memory recalls as) three VC10s being converted to tankers for the RAF. The Concorde seemed tiny by comparison, but also startling in that it was still largely in green primer, access panels were open and inspection hatches missing and vulnerable areas were covered in what looked like flattened cardboard boxes for protection. Presumably this was one of the 'unsold' numbers before BA took it on (?). Nose down, it looked very sad.

We weren't. I suspect we were insufferable for weeks afterwards.

What I'd give for a time machine to revisit that afternoon...