Posts about: "Elevons" [Posts: 50 Pages: 3]

Galaxy Flyer
Thanks very much for your comments. It's true, that while supersonic, a windmilling Olympus engine would have sufficient N2 to keep all servics on line. (The hydraulic systems on Concorde also operated at 4000 PSI). The RAT itself was 'said' to be good down to approach speeds, fortunately we never had to find out if that was true. (Although the thing was tested routinely using a hydraulic rig to drive it and check the variable pitch speed control). Thr RAT was in fact located and stowed in the fwd part of the R/H inboard elevon Powered Flying Control Unit Fairing. It was an absolute work of art by Dowty, to make the device fit into such a small space.
Yep, an ash cloud would be particularly bad news, particularly at FL600
Stlton
You are most welcome, thank you for posting this topic also. These forums are a wonderful way for all of us out there in the aviation world to share and learn interesting information from each other.
TURIN
I remember reading By the Rivers of Babylon many MANY years ago. The terrorists, I seem to remember, had a bomb fitted inside Tank 11 (the rear trim tank) during construction 'before it was welded shut'. Not sure if the author had researched how aircraft were built, but still I guess it sold a copy or two. (Well at least you and I read it).

Biggles78
I must admit, it seems excessive carrying 10,000kg in a trim tank, but this fuel system really was a study in elegance. Every single drop of fuel carried was usable by the engines, and the Mach Trimming was so good that you could fine-tune the process so as to achieve the minimum drag configuration for the aircraft of 1/2 degree down elevon in supersonic cruise. One rather amusing point about the fuel Mach trimming; the airworthiness authorities insisted that the aircraft also had a conventional Mach trimmer built into the electric pitch trim system. As the aircraft was mostly flown on autopliot, assuming the fuel trimming was being done correctly (it always was), the auto-trim would wind off this Mach trimming as it was applied, the net result of course being no change to the pitch demand. This really was a totally superfluous addition to the electric trim system. (If for any reason the aircraft HAD been hand flown during acceleration, the pilot would have to nudge the trim button nose down all the time as the A/C accelerated, in order to to oppose the nose up electric trim input).
The fuel, apart from 'lighting the fires' and trimming the aircraft was also used as a cooling medium for engine and IDG oil, as well as for the hydraulic system also. Where it was used to massive effect, was as a cooling medium for the air conditioning system. Here, at Mach 2 conditions, we needed air to exit the 'packs' (on Concorde these were called 'groups') at around -25 deg's C. By the time this air had travelled through the wing ducting it had risen to a sweltering 0 deg's C, at which temperature it entered the cabin. The astonishing thing is, that the air used for this, HP compressor delivery air, P3, was at around 550 deg's C as it left the engine. The ram air itself, used to cool the Primary and Secondary heat exchangers, had a total temperature anything up to 127 deg's C, and to complete this story, the fuel itself had an average temperature of around 60 deg's C. And surprisingly enough, it was a more or less conventional air conditioning system, using air/air intercoolers, an air cycle machine, with just the addition of the fuel exchanger (between the outlet of the secondary heat exchanger and the ACM turbine) to make it any different in concept to most other air cond' systems.

Biggles78
Sorry Biggles78, I'd forgotten to answer your CofG query, so here we go: CofG was a really critical parameter on Concorde, being a delta, with no tailplane made it more so at take off speeds, and as we've previously said, was how we trimmed the aircraft for supersonic flight. CG was expressed as a percentage of the aerodynamic chord line. To get indication of CG you needed to know the mass of fuel in each tank; easy, from the FQI system. You needed to know the moment arm of each tank, (fixed of course). You then needed the zero fuel weight (ZFW) and zero fuel CG (ZFCG); these were manually input into the CG computers by the F/E, from load control data. The final parameter you needed was total fuel weight, again easy from the FQI system.
The 'normal' T/O CG was 53.5%, but in order to increase fuel weight (and hence range) an extra 'bump' was enabled to allow a max T/O CG of 54%. (CG was indicated on a linear gauge, with forward and aft limit 'bugs' either side of the needle. These bugs would move as a function of Mach and at the lower end of the speed range, A/C weight also). As the A/C accelerated, the limit bugs would move rearwards (with of course the rearward shifting centre of pressure) and so the fuel would be moved from the two front trim tanks 9 & 10 to the rear tank. 11. Once tank 11 reached it's preset limit (around 10 tonnes), the remainder of the 'front' fuel would automatically over-spill into tanks 5 & 7. (Once the fuel panel was set up, the whole process was controlled with a single switch). At Mach 2, the CG would be around 59%, the whole rearwards shift being in the order of 6'. As we said before, the 'final' CG could be tweaked to give us a 1/2 degree down elevon, for minimum drag.
I really hope this helps Biggles78.

Guys, back to the Airbus thing; My friend ChristiaanJ gave some really accurate insights, (he always does) but there is another legacy that carries on the this day; some of the audio warning tones were COPIED from Concorde into Airbus. (For example, the A/P disconnect audio is identical). I think this is great, and gives 'our' aircraft a lasting everyday legacy.

As far as the fly by wire goes, Concorde had a relatively simple analog system, with little or no envelope protection (Except at extreme angles if attack). As has been previously poted before, production series test aircraft 201, F-WTSB, pioneered the use of a sidestick within a new digital fly by wire Controlled Conviguration Vehicle sytem, with envelope protection and attitude rate feedback. (This evolved into the superb system known and loved by the Airbus community). It is a really bizaar twist of fate that the Concorde FBW system has more mechanical similarities to the system used in the B777 than Airbus. (Mechanically similar at the front end, with an electric backdrive system moving the column in A/P mode; Concorde being backdriven by a hydraulic relay jack).
As a final piece of irony; the Primary Flight Control Computers on the B777 are designed and built by GEC Marconi Avionics in Rochester Kent, now BAe Systems. This is the same plant where Elliot (becoming Marconi and finally GEC Marconi Avionics) developed and built the UK half of the AFCS computers. Isn't this aviation world strange?
Galaxy Flyer
Your inputs here are great, and I'm sure appreciated by all. (I assume from your name that you were a C5A pilot. While I was in the RAF on C-130's, our Lockheed rep' used to supply us all with company magazines, that were full of stuff on this new (it was then) giant of the sky. I fell in love with it there and then).
Anyway, back to Conc': The decel' positions were carefully worked out and adhered to; the aim was to be subsonic to within (I think) 50 nm of the east coast. I'll wait for one of my Concorde pilot friends to confirm that here, but i think I'm correct. I do have a fond memory of one flight out of JFK; we were temporarily 'held' by Boston ATC to Mach 1.6 (and at around FL440) because of an Air France Concorde heading for JFK. We saw this guy above us, at around FL580 on a near reciprical , doing Mach 2, screaming straight over the top of us. We were excited by this amazing spectacle, and so were the AF crew over the VHF ('you never boomed us, did we boom you?'). But the most excited person of all was this guy in Boston ATC. ('I've never seen anything like it guys, your two blips whistled over each other on my my screen like crazy').
Stliton
As far as the F/D noise levels were concerned, once the nose and visor were raised, it was as if someone had switched off the noise . The main source of noise up there was just the equipment cooling, and that was not bad either. It was, in my view, little noisier up than most subsonics. (But not the 744, where you are so far away from all the racket ).
Ozgrade3
You're making us blush here; thanks for your comments, I think we are just trying to share some of our experiences (and 'bit's we've picked up over the years).
From my perspective, I did write some stuff used by our pilots, AF even got a copy or two I think.

First, I must apologise to Stilton for hi-jacking his thread. I had inadvertantly asked a question in the wrong thread and have only just realised it, so sorry Stilton. The good part of this is all this delicious Concorde info that were are privileged to be receiving from M2dude and ChristiaanJ is all in the one thread. Unless anyone has any objections maybe the Forum Moderator could merged the other 2 threads into this one.

Thank you for the CoG answer. 6 feet sounds like an awful lot but then I am only able to compare it to the littlies that I fly. The ability to use the trim tanks to only have to use a \xbd\xb0 of elevon must have made a substantial impact on performance and the resulting reduced fuel consumption. To think it was all computer controlled at the time when the PC didn't even exist.

M2, you have said that the fuel system was a work of elegance and the above desciption give me a small insight into this. I know that I am just going to have to find books written about this lady to find out more. I have been lazy when asking about item that I could Google but there was a method behind my laziness. When you and Christiaan share your knowledge there is always a personal anecdote or insight that will never be found in any books that I may be able to find. Gentlemen, for this THANKS seem so insufficient.

The TOC=TOD had me thinking and I believe insomnia may have assisted with some understanding (otherwise the stupid sign for me comes out again ). Gee I hope I have this even partly right. I assume that when accelerating to Mach 2, that it was done while climbing. I was initially stuck with the compression factor of Mach 1 and without thinking the same would happen at Mach 2 (A C Kermode was the hardest book I have read that I didn't understand ). Therefore with that in mind I was stuck trying to figure TOC=TOD. Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent was the flight and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing?

I had also forgotten to take into account the speed factor, DUH!! Subsonic climbs, what 35 - 45 mins to FL4xx and then it is in level cruise for the next 6 hours before TOD. The lady took what, about 3.5 hours, and the extra 20,000 feet it had to climb and descend ate up or into any level cruise it had (or didn't have). Am I on the right track or am I making an ass out of me and me.

I was in the jump seat of a B767 on a trans Tasman crossing, CAVOK, when about 2,000 feet lower a dot followed by a straight white cloud approached and passed by. I found that impressive so the 2 supersonics passing at the speed of an SR71 must have been spectacular. Shame radar track isn't available on You Tube. Oh yes, did they boom you?

As you have said, fuel flow was reduced the higher you got. I think it was 5T per powerplant at FL500 down to 4.1T at FL600. Was there any figures for higher the Levels? I am curious to see how much less fuel would have been used at the higher FLs considering it was reduced by 900Kg/hr for just 10K feet. Very interesting what you said about when the temps were ISA+. I would never have thought such a small temperature change could have effected such a signifigant performance result. It also sounds odd, as you said, the faster you go the less fuel you use.

Last greedy question for this post. How much of the descent was carried out while supersonic and how did this affect the fuel flow?

Biggles78,

Re your questions about the CofG, this diagram should help you to visualise the CofG "corridor".



It's the one for G-AXDN (01) but the production one is closely similar.

To make some more sense of this.... all those percentages quoted are in terms of the "wing root reference chord".
Mentally cut the wing off the fuselage and measure the length of the cut (including the elevons)..
That's the "root reference chord", and it's 27,76 m.
To give you another reference point: the main gear attachment point is located at 57% ""root reference chord".
So any CofG beyond 57% on the ground, and you have yourself a tailsitter (it's happened)..

Galaxy Flyer
We never had a case of lost pressurisation, ever. The cabin windows had dual laminated panes; an inner pressure pane and an outer thermal pane. We had dual systems that kept the cabin at a max diff' of 10.7 PSI, the engine bleeds pushing about 200lb of air per minute into the cabin. This allowed you to fly the cabin at an altitude of around a 6000' maximum only, right up to TOD. If you HAD to fly subsonically, the ideal was Mach 0.95 at FL290. (Subsonically the aircraft had similar range to normal, but took well over twice as long of course). If however you had to shut down an engine, your range deteriorated quite dramatically, and a diversion was usually sought.

It's great that Bellerophon is posting here again; we need a steely eyed Concorde pilot's input here (not just the boffins/nutters and nerds [that's me ]. To touch more on a couple of his valid points;
Fuel burn: The aircraft would naturally require less fuel as she became lighter and as a consequence gently climbed to maintain cruise Mach number, this is what the engine control system was doing all the time, even though the throttles were wide open it was 'tweaking'.. BUT, the decreasing IAS as you climbed, due of course to the reducing density, just like any other aircraft meant that drag was reducing too, so it was a combination of both of these factors, reducing weight and reducing drag.
Flying controls: It was a slightly weird but wonderful arrangement; pilots inputs would move a servo valve in the hydraulic relay jack, the jack would move in response and drive both a resolver AND mechanical linkages. The resolver ourput was sumed with the flying control position resolvers, and the error signal was fed into an autostab' computer, where it was summed with stabilisation demands (primarily axis rate and acceleration). The autostab computer would the directly drive the surface, and the reducing error signal would reduce the demand etc. While all this was going on, the mechanical linkages would slavishly follow, but as long as you were in FBW (what we used to call 'signalling') mode, these mechanical inputs were de-clutched at the PFCU, so did nothing at all. Only if there was an EXTREMELY unlikely failure of BOTH FBW channels would these inputs be clutched in and the flying control group (rudders, inner elevons or outer and mid' elevons) would then be in Mechanical signalling. The system redundancy was checked after engine start on every flight. But to reinforce what Bellerophon stated, there was no mechanical reversion here; without hydraulics you had nothing. Another aside here; the designers, being paranoid like all good designers (no offence Christiaan ) were worried what would happen if the controls would somehow jam up. A jammed mechanical flying control input run itself would have no effect on FBW operation whatsoever, due to spring boxes being fitted to the runs. A 'Mech Jam' light would be set, together with a separate red light and audio warning, but this was all. But to completely protect against the aircraft was fitted with a Safety Flight Computer (SFC) system. The idea was, if a control axis (pitch or roll only) jammed up, the captain could press down on a switch light set between the two halves of his control wheel, (at the centre of the 'W') and the Emergency Flight Controls would activate. Strain gauges at the front of the control wheel, two sets on each control column for pitch and roll axis, would input into an SFC that would covert the control force into an elevon demand. These commands were then fed into the autostab' computers, and hence directly into the controls. (A little like L-1011 CWS in a way). There was a little test button that was used to test this system, again after engine start. So although the controls were jammed, the aircraft could still be flown. (Never used in anger I'm pleased to report).
But there was a problem; if this system was inadvertantly used, the results could have been catastrophic, as the system was extremely sensitive indeed, and full elevon movement could be enabled with only moderate effort. Because of this hairy prospect some safeguards were obviously put in place. The first safeguard was an interlock in the autostab' engage logic; If the switchlight had been inadvertently selected beforehand (the light was green by the way) you would not be able to engage pitch or roll autostab's (both channels too) so you would not be going flying until that was fixed. The second safeguard was a little more subtle; A plastic, frangible cover was fitted over the switchlight, unless the captain pressed reasonably hard the cover would prevent the switchlight from being pressed. At least that was the theory, in practice this little bit of plastic could be a pain in the ass . It was carefully fashioned, and I seem to remember BAe charging the airlines a few hundred pounds each for these things. If some wally fitted the cover upside down (and unless you were careful it was easy to do) THE THING WOULD NOT BREAK!! I remember at Fairford in 1976, G-BOAD was on pre-delivery flight testing, and the late great test pilot John Cochrane was doing a test of the system. The cover on this occasion HAD been fitted upside down, and of course he could not plunge his thumb through it and engage the EFC button. After trying everything, in the end he removed a shoe, took out his pen, and smashed the plastic cover until it broke. (It's OK, the autopilot was engaged at the time). Unfortunately, his combined shoe/pen emergency device also wrecked the switchlight as well, so the system still could not engage. (There was only a switchlight on the captain's side). After he landed and he confronted us all with his dilemma, he was shaking; not with rage but with laughter. (This was the great John Cochrane, sometimes the dour Scotsman but he was always able to see the lighter side). After that event, careful instructions were issued regarding the fit of the cover, and it was modified and made a little more frangible.

Biggles78
The tailwheel design really was the one exception in poor design terms, but I'm sure that if the aircraft was doing what she should be doing right now, (you know routinely flying across the Atlantic and beyond, instead of languishing in museums), modifications would have finally put this particular malady to bed). In design terms, the rest of the aircraft was nothing short of a flying work of art, a masterpiece. Having said that though, personally I would rather that four rather than three hydraulic systems had been used. Originally there were four systems in the design, but the RED system was deleted, as it was felt to be superfluous. My own view is that this particular decision was total poppycock. Oh, and Green, Blue and Yellow hydraulic systems was something else that Airbus copied from Concorde.... although we ourselves pinched that idea off of the Comet ).
As far as the hydraulic expansion joints go, I will scour around and see if I can find a diagram for you. Try and picture two titanium (or stainless) tubes, on inside the other, with a sealed chamber being formed at the join. Inside this chamber were multiple lands fitted with special viton GLT seals. They did work incredibly well, although occasionally one of the seals gave out, and things got wet, VERY WET.
As far as the 4000 PSI hydraulic system, as EXWOK quite rightly pointed out, the loading on the flying control surfaces were immense throughout the whole flight envelope. (Picture alone just the T/O from JFK RWY 31L, where the aircraft is tightly turning and the gear retracting, all at the same time). As well as the flying controls and landing gear, you also had the droop nose to consider, four variable engine intakes as well as a couple of hydraulically operated fuel pumps. Oh, and in emergencies, a hydraulically driven 40 KVA generator too. The reason that 4000 PSI was chosen was that if a large amount of hydraulic 'work' was to be done, the only way to keep the size of jacks and actuators to a reasonable size/weight was to increase the system pressure by 25% from the normal 3000 PSI. (On the A380 they've gone a step further and gone for 5000 PSI, saving them over a tonne on the weight of the aircraft).
Concorde used a special hydraulic fluid, Chevron M2V. This is a mineral based fluid, as opposed to the ester based Skydrol, used by the subsonics. The reason that we went for a different fluid was a simple one; Skydrol is rubbish at the high temperatures that Concorde operated at, no good at all in fact, so we needed something better and in M2V we found the PERFECT fluid. As an aside, unlike Skydrol, that attacks paintwork, certain rubber seals, skin, EYES etc., M2V is completely harmless, wash your hair in it. (I did, several times when we had leaks. Thinking about it, maybe THAT is why my hair is such a diminished asset

EXWOK
It's so great having another of my pilot friends diving in to this post, welcome welcome
I remember the Mech' Signalling part of the air tests, my lunch has just finished coming back up thank you. (for interest chaps and chapesses, with mechanical signalling, using just the conventional control runs under the floor, there was no auto-stabilisation).

The artificialfeel system worked incredibly well I thought, I always found it curious that the peak load law in the computer was at the transonic rather that the supersonic speed range. It was explained to me long ago that this was because the controls really are at their most sensitive here, but at high Mach numbers are partially 'stalled out', due to shockwave movements along the surfaces, and were therefore less effective. (For this reason I was told, the inner elevons were so critical for supersonic control, being the most effective of all elevons at high speed).

To all , I forgot to mention in my previous post regarding the engine failure in G-BOAF in 1980; I remember an FAA surveyor, who was taking a look at the carnage within the engine bay, saying that in his opinion, no other aircraft in the world could have survived the intensity of the titanium fire that ensued. Analysis showed that the fire was successfully extinguished, possibly at the first shot of the fire bottle. This was a testament to the way that the Concorde engine bay could be completely 'locked down' when the fire handle was pulled, as well as to the way that the whole engine installation was technically encased in armour plate. To put all this in context, acording to Rolls Royce a titanium fire, once it takes hold, can destroy the compressor of a jet engine in four seconds.


Dude

A great thread and it only goes to show that you can always learn even about a subject that you thought you knew quite a lot about

As M2Dude described the rearwards transfer of fuel during acceleration was meant to be an automated process but in reality there was a lot of manual input. The first requirement of the F/E was to match the rearwards movement of the C of G to that of the ever increasing Mach number. If this was proving to be no problem he would take over the transfer manually by switching off the pumps on one side of tank 9 or 10 so as to pump only to either tank 5 or 7. This was because if you transferred evenly to these tanks due to their different shape size and position the aircraft would go out of trim laterally so the F/E would pump rearward just to one tank so as to keep the C of G going aft whilst maintaining lateral trim.

Being Concorde nothing was straight forward , which meant that when Tanks 5 and 7 ran out and you started using tanks 6 and 8, their size shape and position,was exactly opposite to that of tanks 5 and 7 so it now required the F/E to pump fuel the opposite way across the ship, using various valves and pumps, so as to keep the aircraft in trim laterally.

All the time he had to maintain the trim so as to keep an elevon trim of \xbd deg down, which as fuel was burnt required him to trickle fuel forward from tank 11. On the longer trips such as those to and from BGI the fuel towards the end of cruise became quite low and to stop fuel in the collectors from dropping below 1000kgs each, fuel would be transferred from tank 11 into the collectors until the
C of G had reached it's forward limit at Mach 2.0 of 57.5 %. If then the collectors dropped to 1000kgs the aircraft had to descend to subsonic heights and speed.

Surges

Surges were not an uncommon or common event on Concorde,but when they happened as they usually affected both engines on that side the aircraft would lurch /yaw and everybody on board would know about it as \x93Her In Doors\x94 would testify to that when glasses full and otherwise ended up in her lap during the meal service when a surge occurred.

The drill required all engines to be throttled to a predetermined position and the intake and engine control switches moved to their other position. If this stopped the surge then the throttles were restored to their cruise power a pair at a time and if no surge re-occured then the aircraft would return to cruise / climb

The crews post surge action was normally to have a cup of tea and light up a cigarette.

In the early days on a flight between London and Bahrain when the aircraft was in supersonic cruise the F/E who was a mature and refined gentleman, had to go to the toilet, which was just behind the front galley, and whilst there the engines surged. He was seen running from the toilet to the flight deck with his trousers around his ankles, which was a hell of shock to his refined nature

Enough for now sorry about the length

For the sharp-eyed who may have actually gone back to look at Bellerophon's picture, you may note that the AFT bug is lower than M1.56, contrary to the flt envelope above. Billy ruffian will know for sure, but here's my surmise:

FL600 level flt means he was going to BGI. The length of this sector was, in crude terms, about 200NM more than the quoted max range of the aircraft, so the range envelope was being pushed a little.

Because there was no land you could stay supersonic all the way, so at the end of the cruise you would be supersonic, but with relatively little fuel in the tanks, and most of it in Tank 11 (at the back) to keep the CG aft. Even with a tweak to tanks 1&4 to run them at 50% level, eventually the CG would come forward as you burnt fuel out of tank 11. That's what is probably happening in Bellerophon's photo, hence the 'AFT' Mach bug being at a lower Mach. If the FCPI ('ICOVOL') was in the frame I wager you would see the elevons a somewhat above the optimum 1/2degree down position

The bugger was this; if you were a little tight on fuel, just when you wanted to maximise the time spent supersonic you'd have to start an early decel because there just wasn't enough fuel left to maintain the CG far enough aft to sustain M2.

All part of the fun, and why every sector was interesting and rewarding.

Another IPhone answer, so apologies for rubbish post. On rotation the process was about as subtle as a coffee grinder. As the elevons were raised the downforce against them caused the aircraft to rotate about the mainwheels, raising the nose, increasing angle of attack and finally allowing the wing to generate some lift. Apologies again to all

Dude

Nick Thomas,
I think M2dude has already answered your question.

Anyway, herewith a few very crude scribbles to further illustrate your question and his answers.



Simplistically, an "old-fashioned" airplane has an asymmetric wing profile (at take-off even more so because of the flaps). Such a profile will start producing lift as soon as you start moving, and if you had enough take-off space, the aircraft would fly off the ground even without rotating it - in practice you rotate to get a more optimum angle of attack, more lift and a better climb speed to "get over the fence".



The Concorde wing, in the same circumstances, is little better than a big flat plank, and will not produce any lift at all, or at least far too little to carry the aircraft.



As M2dude already said, raising the elevons produces enough of a downforce at the trailing edge to lift the nose, and from there on the wing does start producing lift.
Not quite conventional lift, but "vortex lift" (a different subject), but lift just the same.

CJ

Why not?
Let's admit that being faced with that nasty situation in reality would not have been amusing....
But kicking the idea around a moment, why not? It's what I did seeing the question at first.

Obviously depends a bit on the fuel remaining, but yes, I think one could have move the CG sufficiently rearward.

LOL, don't you think they'd all would have moved as far back as possible anyway?

Possibly, but not enough that an experienced pilot couldn't handle it, I would think.

I don't quite follow you there...

One thing that promptly occurred to me for this 'no nose wheel' scenario is braking, since both engine reverse and main gear wheel braking act below the CG, so they'd both act to pull the nose down.
At some point, stick fully back, hence elevons fully up, will no longer be enough to fully counteract that, so you'll have to cancel reverse and braking, and probably commit to an overrun.
Your scenario of doing it as a 'three-pointer' on the tail might wel be the better one !


And while we're at it, what about ditching a Concorde?
It's hinted at in the Safety Cards.
It's been tried lots of times, with models in water tanks.
It wasn't really feasible.......

CJ

Hi again Stilton. We really need one of the flying folk to answer this one fully, I am not sure what drill there was for this scenario, but I'm sure there was one. The Concorde flying manual had a drill for everything, from a four engine flame out at Mach 2 to a blocked toilet (ok, maybe not the loo thing ), and one of my winged friends EXWOK, Bellerophon, SEO Brit312 would remember one.
As far as your point about moving the CG further aft; you never had oodles of fuel to play with , and I'm sure that the guys will mention about handling the aircraft on approach with the CG too far aft. (After landing four tonnes of fuel were transferred from Tanks 5 & 7 into the empty fwd Trim Tank 9, 'to aid ground stability'. ie, help stop the aircraft from trying to sit on it's rear end as the passengers got off).
As far as your visor query goes, well the visor is either up, or retracted into the nose. The nose itself (which I suspect is what you are really referring to) would already be at the fully down 12 1/2 degree setting for landing anyway.
Oh, and back to the ground stability issue, was Concorde ever sat on it's tail by accident? Oh yes, just once to my knowledge. In May 1977, aircraft G-BOAA was returned to Filton for some modifications that were required, and part of these 'mods' was some improvements to the main trim-transfer pipes connecting the three trim transfer tanks 9, 10 & 11, as well as the trim tanks 5 & 7. Now the flow into tank 11 (the rear tank) had to be checked, but there was insufficient fuel at the front of the aircraft for stability. This shortcoming was passed on to the BAe manager in charge of everything, who stuffily refused to listen, and INSISTED that these transfer checks were carried out, 'do as I tell you, I am the manager here'. The man's sole concession to any sort of common sense was to allow a BAe employee to sit on the flight deck 'and watch the CG indicator', what the point of this was, well your guess is as good as mine. The name of the guy sitting on the flight deck was... John Thomas. (Hilarious I know, but true). So in goes the fuel, and in a very short period of time, John Thomas notices that the roof of the Filton assembly hangar seems to be slowly getting closer, and closer, and BANG!! The aircraft nose is high into the roof section of the hangar, but fortunately because the hangar is so huge, the nose did not hit anything, it was just stuck up there, complete with a very worried/terrified John Thomas who is sitting terrified in the captain's seat, staring at the hangar roof. The rear of the aircraft however was not so lucky. The right hand inner elevon came down on top of a hydraulic rig, damaging the elevon badly, as well as FLATTENING the rig. The opened #3 engine bay door came down on some large access steps, tearing the corner of the door. (not much left of the steps either). The rear fuselage, in the area of the hydraulic tanks, was holed quite badly by some access staging, entire spectacle coming to a very 'grinding' halt.
So now we have this Concorde G-BOAA, due to be returned to BA the following day, sat down on top of a lot of equipment, it's nose high in the air with a terrified John Thomas requiring a change of underwear. (The brilliant manager of course was nowhere to be seen). The aircraft was eventually returned to it's rightful attitude by someone WITH some sense instructing Mr Thomas on how to slowly, a little at a time, pump the fuel from Tank 11 forward into Tank 9.
And was OAA returned to BA the following day? errr no. The best skin repair man that BAe had to offer was sent from Weybridge to sort out the holes in the rear fuselage (he did an amazing job) and the crunched bits of aeroplane were repaired or replaced. OAA flew back to Heathrow four short (??) days later.

Dude

Thanks on the CG info!!

Right, do this everytime I fly on the sim!

Yes, so my not-so-trivial questions, aimed more for F/E and Ground Engineers are:
1) with the same quantity on tanks 6 and 8, for example, 10 tons, there would be a roll tendency? I suspect yes, but not sure.
2) Using valves 6/7 and 5/8 would make lateral unbalance gone or they just leveled the fuel height on each pair of tanks? (Assuming that all these 4 tanks had the same height, what sounds logical to me)
3) Is there any table with these tanks quantities to reach lateral balance or the F/E did fine tune just by making elevons level?

I have these doubts for a looooooooong time, as I never found the lateral arm of the tanks, just the longitudinal (in % MAC that is equal to root chord in Concorde). So I assumed in FSLabs ConcordeX that if all these 4 tanks were FULL and symmetrical as a group, there would be no imbalance, that means: different quantities and different arms gives the same momentum.

Due to this, I always keep 300~500 kgs more on the 7 and 8 (right) tanks than on 5 and 6, but I'm really not sure if it's a realistic value.

The fuel system was just FANTASTIC... and making it work engineer-less under any abnormal condition would be something VERY difficult, in my humble opinion.

Nice week for everyone!!

Blue concorde
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, so my not-so-trivial questions, aimed more for F/E and Ground Engineers are:
1) with the same quantity on tanks 6 and 8, for example, 10 tons, there would be a roll tendency? I suspect yes, but not sure.
2) Using valves 6/7 and 5/8 would make lateral unbalance gone or they just leveled the fuel height on each pair of tanks? (Assuming that all these 4 tanks had the same height, what sounds logical to me)
3) Is there any table with these tanks quantities to reach lateral balance or the F/E did fine tune just by making elevons level?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In answer to your questions , unlike the chart for C of G purposes there was no such chart for lateral trim rreasons. We would just transfer fuel across the ship so as to keep the elevons level at between 0 and 1 degree down. However when transfering fuel across the ship as the paired tanks are fore and aft of the C of G then when getting lateral trim you also affect the
C of G.

It is along time ago now and I cannot recall actual figures but your suggestion of between 500 and 700 kgs is I think a good ball park figure

The interconnect valves were never used under normal circumstances, but give it a go it might just over come your problem.

Nick Thomas

---------------------------------------------------------------------

remember that around 1980 one Concorde was painted on one side in the Singapore livery. Obviously the flight to Singapore would need at least one fuel stop. What I have always wondered is which part of the route was flown supersonic? Was she granted any overland supersonic rights? Also was it feasible to have a short supersonic section followed by a subsonic bit and then back to supersonic? I guess that having to use reheat to accelerate
twice to mach 2 would use too much fuel.

It was actually G-BOAD that was 1/2 painted in Singapore Airlines colours in the last part of !977
For more info on this subject check out this web site

CONCORDE SST : Singapore Concorde Services

The original route LHR- Bahrain flew subsonic across Europe and then accelerated to supersonic just off the coast in the north of the Adriatric. It was Supersonic then all the way to Bahrain avoiding islands in the Med but crossing the coast of the Lebenon still at supersonic speeds. This sector even with the long subsonic period [0.95 Mach] still cut the journey time LHR to BAH by 2.5 hours. For the crews the return trip to LHR was more exciting as once the throttles were opened to full power their position never changed until TOD. Once airbourne ---- reheat off at----------------- 500 ft
climb rating[switches] at----1000ft
climb/accel at 0.95r/heats back on and
away you go

The Bahrain - Singapore sector were my favourite though with only a short delay after Take Off before being cleared supersonic and because of the cold air temps at 50000ft plus the old girl would go up to 60,000ft and cruise there at Mach 2.0 and we would roar just south of Sri Lanka north of Indonesia and down the Malacca Straits slowing down and trying to avoid all the thunder heads

Although nothing actually to stop accelerating twice in a sector the fuel use on a long trip would usually not make this viable

NOTE How do you get the posh blue quote inserts

Interesting, thank you very much!!



Did that happen in any of the commercial routes or the charter ones? Is is true that due to the many changes in supersonic overflight permissions on the Middle East, a double acceleration was used during a period of time to/from Bahrain?

Regarding the quote box: add a [xxxxQUOTE] at the beginning and [xxxx/QUOTE] at the end of the section you want to be quoted, without the xxxx after the "[".

Ladyland, very nice! felt myself being served while reading.

How was this around-the-world trip? Did the crew have time to enjoy the so different locations visited?

Nick - good question. The elevons were not hidden at high AoA (no elevators, no T-tail issue) but high alpha longitudinal stability was an issue in early development, one of the fixes were the moustache strakes you see at the front - they help energise the wing vorteces and improve rudder authority at high AoA. Apparently. Well that's what they told us at ground school - the result was that right up to limiting AoA all flight controls were effective, including the potentially blanked-off rudder. IIRC the stick-shake was at about 16 degrees which left about 3 degrees slack above approach AoA and it all worked just fine in that environment.

The rudder failures weren't really down to a fault with the original design, here's the story as I remember it:

The ctrl surfaces are made of a honeycomb-core bonded to the skins, essentially. They originally had a blunt trailing-edge, as was then de-rigeur with supersonic design. At some stage it was decided that a sharp trailing edge was actually beneficial so they had an extension fitted, which had the unfortunate effect of allowing a certain amount of water ingress to the core. Heating and expansion of this lead to disbonding and ultimately failure of the surfaces. (I suspect my engineering colleagues will have a much better and more accurate explanation).

Now - here's the important bit, and another example of this aeroplane's excellent failsafe engineering; Concorde had two rudders, one above the other (same as the 747). Each is driven by one dual-bodied PFCU. You ABSOLUTELY don't want a PFCU endangered by ctrl surface damage so each surface is divided in two, either side of the PFCU control horn.

Visualise the PFCU attached to the centre of two surfaces with an end rib on each, but skinned to look like one surface. Therefore, in the case of the surface suffering damage, it can only spread to a point short of the all-important PFCU. Look at the rudder-failure pictures and you'll see what I mean.

So - far from the 'rudder' breaking up, the reality is that half of one of the rudders had failed.

It was somewhat inevitable that Concorde's control sfcs would suffer, given the horrific loads they endured, and this was dealt with at the design stage. The elevons had the same sort of design.

It does of course look bad when you land with bits missing and this, plus the Regulators and company safety depts ensured that eventually some HUGELY expensive replacements were built.

NICK THOMAS
It was perfectly safe to hand fly the aircraft even at Mach 2. There was at least one legendary captain who always believed in hand flying. The controls were not overly sensitive as the outer and middle elevons were partly stalled out due to shockwave formation at Mach 2. (The load law of the Artificial Feel Computers actually decreased above transonic speeds).
And Nick.... No clues
Dude

The Captain I believe you are thinking of, not only hand flew the aircraft for the entire sector, but also ate his meal, and talked to the passenger who visited the flightdeck whilst he was flying it

He was not unique,and many would hand fly it during climb/accel and for the descent but most pilots would engage the Autopliot especially for supersonic cruise