Posts about: "CDG" [Posts: 14 Pages: 1]

EXWOK

Excuse me, Vzrc was exactly what I meant. I remember reading it in the Concorde CDG report and wondered if it figured into daily per calcs or was it a more technical

If you could depart with 3 reheats, I guess it wasn't a problem with the transition to supersonic flight? What I find amazing is the F-22 goes on about super cruise but here was a plane designed over 40 years that routinely super cruised.

GF

From the thousands of hours of windtunnel tests, test flying with aircraft like the Mirage IV, HP 115, BAC221, etc. etc. they already had a pretty close idea of how the aircraft was going to fly.
IIRC, Andr\xe9 Turcat remarked after the first flight of 001 it flew pretty well like the simulator, or if anything somewhat better!

There were two development simulators, one at Toulouse and one at Filton, that were used by the test pilots and by the engineers. These were "tweaked" whenever more data became availble before the first flights, and then updated with flight test data.
For airline crew training , two new simulators were built in the early seventies, again one in Toulouse (later moved to CDG) and one in Filton.
In the best Concorde style, they were designed and built by two different firms....

I don't believe anything of the development simulators has survived.
As you will know, the "cab" of the British Airways Filton simulator was salvaged and taken to Brooklands, where it's now slowly being brought back to life.
The Air France simulator at CDG, minus motion system and video display, was taken back to Toulouse, where it's slowly being restored, to go on display in the planned Museum at Toulouse.

CJ

It IS a nice one....
There's a longer one with more of the story, but this is the essence.

TESGO is the designation of one of the waypoints on the Concorde route from CDG to JFK, shortly beyond the point where Concorde goe ssupersonic on its way over the Atlantic.
At the occasion of one of the last Air France CDG-JFK flights, a small group of French enthusiasts hired a boat to get a record of the overflight and the sonic bang, and they succeeded beyond expectations.

There can't be many Concorde friends, who haven't already seen this clip....

CJ

telster
One for the pilots really, but there was generally far less co-operation than you'd have thought. I never saw any cases of a BA pilot flying Air France or visa-versa. I know a couple of our guys had ridden jump seat on an AF aircraft, but that's all that I pesonally recall.
On the technical side of things there were meetings between the two airlines, both together and jointly with the airframe and engine manufacturers, but on a day to day basis there was precious little exchange of information, and you'd have thought that we (BA) were the only operator of Concorde, as I'm sure the AF guys felt the same also. In all of my 30+ years on Concorde, I personally went to CDG only once for an exchange of technical views and to help them out with an air intake defect.
I'm so glad that you are enjoying this post, it's great to have you here telster. (It's certainly forcing me to look deep into the dark corners my poor old grey matter).

Dude

Well, the deHavilland Dash 7 has one, and I will take exception to anyone denying it airliner status. A small handpump is used to ensure downlock after freefall extension. (The Dash 8 and Fokker 50 have - much larger and draggier - backwards retracting main gear, assisted by handpump and springloading respectively for downlock after emergency freefall extension.)

Thanks to all Concorde experts for this truly wonderful thread. The ingenuity of design and the complexity of design that enabled the technological marvel that is Concorde never cease to amaze this humble airline driver. Having missed the opportunity to fly on Concorde is high on my list of aviatic regrets as well, and I'll have to make do with the memories of watching Air France Concordes taking off from CDG during our turnarounds there.

I could (and actually have) spent hours following this thread.

Is it true that Concorde was always flown by the highest seniority BA captains, copilots and flight engineers? Would Concorde usually be the last rung on the ladder before retirement for Captains/FEs or was it usual to return to slower equipment after a stint on Concorde?

And, sorry if I missed this, would Concorde thrust levers move during autothrottle operation?

Lastly, Concorde was originally to have had a large moving map system. Any insights into why and how that got scrapped along the way?

Thanks!

What a fascinating read, thanks to all guys contributing to it.

The fact that the Conc still fascinates so many people after so many years is the best prove of its uniqueness. Never flown on one, but having brought clients to it I remember a time where we parked right under the nose of an AF example at CDG with our tiny Cheyenne. The Pax was lead from our airplane up the stairs and off they went. (1989ish, I was a wet as a fish F/O then) Queing in Heathrow a few years later I couldn't hear my KingAirs engines for quite a while when the guys opened up and fired the cans. Fond memories and still the most graceful airplane I saw in my life.
I still use the opportunity to see the 2 examples at the museum at Le Bourget when there. Having seen a documentary on the first flights in Toulouse and Filton I had a trip to Filton a few days later and sitting in the air field ops Landrover was sort of a time travel.

We had the pleasure to have ex FE\xb4s and an ex Capt. as trainers at FlightSafety in Farnborough. Very nice blokes and I should add, very capable and knowledgable guys. One can see why they were on the sharp end.

Sorry that I cant ask a good question right now, just had to get my thanks off my chest!

landlady ,

I've only been on a Concorde flight once, and since that was the last-but-one Air France "round-the-bay", it's fairly obvious the very special party atmosphere on that flight was not quite the same a on a regular flight.

But from what I've read from other "trip reports", even a regular Concorde flight was never quite like a flight on any other aircraft.

So, welcome, and if you have any CC stories to relate... yes, please !

CJ

PS -- Can you imagine anybody doing a "trip report" about the usual eight boring hours on a 777 flight from CDG to JFK ??
And I'm sure you've often have seen the "Concorde grin" during your flights ....

nomorecatering asked: M2dude answered:
The BA simulator, now at Brooklands, is a long story.
For various reasons, only the simulator 'cab' could be salvaged. It was taken to Brooklands to be used as a static exhibit of what the Concorde cockpit looked like.
It was only well after its arrival at Brooklands that people started to think about bringing it back to life.... a huge piece of work, since about all that was left was the 'cab' itself, with the instruments and controls... the computers and interface circuits, needed to make them work, were all gone.
A team of volunteers, a simulator firm and university students have now brought it back to a state where it can be 'flown'. Even if not everything works yet, ex-Concorde pilots who've 'flown' it were already full of praise.
As to the visuals, the original visual system was taken back by BA, since it was recent and the same as used on other BA simulators.
It's been replaced by a specialised video projector and a wide screen, which appears quite satisfactory, although I 've heard rumours about plans to replace it with a three-projector system.

The story of the Air France simulator, that was located at CDG, is very different.
After the end-of-service it was moved almost in its entirety to Toulouse (Airbus), minus only the visual display system and the motion platform.
A small team of volunteers (mostly Airbus engineers) are slowly bringing that one 'back to life' as well, but (contrary to Brooklands) using most of the original electronics.
The intention is to have it ready for display (and use) at the Toulouse 'A\xe9roscopia' museum, which hopefully will open within a few years.
Unfortunately, until then the sim is not accessible to the public, since it's inside one of the Airbus site buildings.
And no, of course that one isn't certified either....

One small bit of trivia... the BA and AF simulators were NOT built by the same firm. The BA one was built by, IIRC, Singer-Redifon, and the French one by LMT.
Today that's a pity, really, because the Brooklands and Toulouse teams have very little technical information they can exchange.

Oh and, yes, I've visited and sat in both of them, but so far I haven't flown either of them yet.

CJ

jodelistie
First of all Rod, welcome to our Concorde thread, and thank you very much for your kind words.
Now as far as the rumour goes, I'm afraid that it is nonsense, however the truth is an even more complex story of collusion, betrayal and intrigue. You may read that 'Concorde was retired by BA and Air France purely due to economic reasons', however that is not quite the case (and as far as THIS side of the English Puddle goes, is total poppycock!!). Now BA lost a huge amount of her regular traffic as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and also as a result of the 2003 Iraq war, but things were improving nicely. In her 27 years of operation, Concorde had survived countless dips in her traffic, only to return stronger as market conditions improved.
It is early 2003, and French Concorde traffic to the USA has almost vanished, down to single digit loads. This is due mainly to total French opposition the impending US/UK invasion of Iraq, and US businessmen using BA Concorde almost exclusively. (French business seems to be boycotting the US altogether, so their contribution to passenger loads virtually ceased). Due to the apalling loads, AF are losing absolutely MILLIONS of Euros, at a time when the carrier is trying to privatise itself ... but there is more:
In the same February, AF very nearly lost ANOTHER Concorde, yet again largely down to total incompetence and lack of adherence to established procedures. Aircraft F-BTSD was flying between CDG and JFK when there was a failure of the reheat delivery pipe that runs from the engine 1st stage fuel pump to the reheat shut-off valve. This failure, although not particularly serious, led to a chain of events that very nearly resulted in the loss of the aircraft, and all those onboard. (Air France engines were overhauled seperately to BA, who never experienced this particular failure). What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too late. The aircraft just managed to land in Halifax, with barely enough fuel left in the tanks to taxi!! So, herer we are, AF are horrified that they have come very close to yet another disaster, knowing full well that yet again human error was a major factor.
But there is more....
One week later another AF aircraft loses part of a rudder panel due to de-lamination of the honeycomb surface, not particularly serious in itself, but it put even more jitters up the trousers of AF. (Rudder failures had happened to BA aircraft many years previous to this, but BA had purchased brand new and improved rudders from Airbus UK in Filton, but Air France chose not too).
So it seems that the chairmen of both Air France and Airbus (who regards Concorde as a waste of its valuable resources) have a 'secret' meeting to plan what was effectively the murder of Concorde. There is no way that AF want BA to carry on flying Concorde while they have to cease operations, so the plan is for Airbus to make a huge hike in their product support costs; these costs would have to be borne by BA exclusively, which they both knew would not be possible. If these support costs were not met, there would be no manufacturers support, and without this there would be no type certificate, and without this, no more Concorde.
Their (AF & Airbus) hope was that BA would not challenge this move legally, and sadly for the world of aviation they did not. At a meeting, BA AND AIR FRANCE!!!! were told by Airbus about the hike in product support costs, and BA would also have to cease operations. BA were not even allowed to continue until March 2004 (the Barbados season was nearly fully booked already), and so would have to cease operations in October 2003.
But the British were far from blameless in all this; a now retired very senior British airline person had always obsessively HATED Concorde, so the French conspiracy was a very early Christmas present for him; he finally got what he had always wanted. The 'end of Concorde' anouncement by both airlines was made in April 2003; AF had got what their executives wanted and finished flying in May, reluctantly leaving BA to fly until late October. If you want a full (and extremely well informed) explanation of what happened in that whole debacle, the article by Don Pevsner is worth reading. It can be found at this website:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the truly disgusting events in France in early 2003, Concorde would still be proudly flying for BA. (And with modifications and enhancements would fly safely for many more years).
quote** "in the hands of true professionals, Concorde was the safest aircraft that ever flew. and in the hands of BA crews at least, she was always just that..*

Oh and yes you were correct, the Olympus (the world's first ever 2 spool engine) was originally a 'Bristol-Siddeley' design, before BS were absorbed into Rolls-Royce. Stanley Hookers book is in my view totally superb, a true classic.

Dude

Have read this thread now the last days with joy and thought long to put down a question if you may allow me.
When still in the skies us as operations loadcontroler on a different station but able to browse through the CDG passenger lists often checked for "the famous pax" on board the Lady (what was the nick for her at AF as someone (ChristiaanJ?) mentioned at AF the Concorde was a "he"?) I learned that a Concorde flight needed more than one loadsheet for the flight due to the complex fuelling system and the extreme move of the CG. Don't know if this is gossip or there's a true part in it. Did you get, except from the standard MACs for ZFW, TOW and LAW also a TOC MAC (maybe?).
Just wanted to say thanks to you all for the great time reading this thread.
Trabbi

This just goes on getting better. Welcome Clive!

After all the high tech stuff I have a much more prosaic question. Looking out of my Devon window this morning I could see aircraft streaming up the channel, and by checking their positions on Flightradar 24 (sad, I know) I know that I can see craft at fl350+ nearly the whole way across the channel, so it occurs to me that I should have been able to see AF Concordes on their way into CDG, but never did (although I certainly heard them). Would Concorde have been visible from the ground at cruising height, and would it have left contrails?

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!

Down here in Devon, the only contact we had with Concorde was the spine-tingling "whomp-bomp" every evening as flights out of CDG lit up down the channel. Replaying that sound in my memory, I would say that the time between the two thumps was between 1/3 and 1/2 sec, and yet a bit of maths tells me that at 1300 MPH, Concorde travelled her own length in less than 1/10 sec. This always puzzled me at the time, and I still can't explain it. Any ideas, anyone?

the best thread ever on the net and so polite.

all those technicals and in deep infos.

i never flown myself the Concorde but my dad made one CDG DKR RIO and one CDG JFK and as others mention he was smiling back from those flights even the flights were for work.

i had the chance to see the Concorde at night in the AF maintenance at CDG it was called Airbus-Concorde division and despite i was more on the other side : the 747 division i loved to stay around and just watching that wonderful Bird waiting to fly the next morning.

alas when moving to Canada we lost all the pictures and souvenirs of those days but they re back with you.

thank you Lady and Gentlemen.

and Bravo, merci.