Posts about: "Fairford" [Posts: 30 Pages: 2]

ChristiaanJ
Thanks for the MEPU link, that really brings back memories (or was that nightmares ). I remember at Fairford, a small drop of Hydrazine leaked onto the hangar floor; the next thing you heard was a really loud crack, and a after the smoke cleared, there was a sizable hole in the floor.
I'd still really like to know what the 'thoughts' on this APU issue actually were. Although as you rightly point out tank 11 already had a fair amount of 'plumbing' running through it, we are talking here about a duct with sufficient size that can provide enough mass flow to turn over an Olympus engine to at least between 10 and 20% N2. You are looking at an least 10" diameter duct, not including the copious amounts of thermal insulation surrounding it, as well as an extremely sensitive overtemperature protection system. (This tank is going to be near empty, filled with fuel vapour). I'm not really convinced that this idea would even be considered by the CAA/DGAC/FAA etc. for safety reasons alone.
Still, it's food for thought though

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
This is the minimum Mach number that can be flown with the existing CG. (which would be around 59%). Just as the CG indicator (not shown in this photo) gave minimum and maximum CG for a given Mach number, the Machmeter gave a reciprical indication also). You can also see that as the aircraft is not flying at Vmo any more, being at Mach 2 cruise, that the VSI pointer is now away from the orange and black Vmo bug. At our 'not so coffin corner', now that the aircraft is at maximun alllowable altitude, Vmo would naturaly coincide with Mmo; the orange and black Mmo bug being shown at Mach 2.04. This really superb photo taken by Bellerophon gives a graphic illustration of what the panels looked like at Mach 2. Note that the with the TCAS VSI Concorde retained it's original linear VSI also. (Miust have beeen the only aircraft flying with FOUR VSIs. (The originals had to be retained due to the fact that the autopilot Vert' Speed Mode error was derived from the indicator itself. As far as TCAS goes, R/As werer inhibited above FL300 (on acceleration this would coincide with the aircraft becoming supersonic, and the mfrs would not countenance the aircraft doing extreme manoeuvrs as a result of TCAS RAs at supersonic speeds).
The tail wheel was lowered for all 'normal' gear cycles (not stby lowering of free-fall). It was designed to protect the bottom the nacelles in the case of over-rotation, but in practical terms the thing was a waste of space (and weight) and a simple tail skid (used on the prototypes) would have sufficed. Any time that the tail wheel contacted the ground, it would ALWAYS collapse, damage the tailcone structure and in fact aforded no protection whatsoever. Fortunately these events were EXTREMELY few and far between. The biggest problem with the tail wheel was a major design flaw: On gear retraction the assembly would retract in sequence with the nose and main gear, and as it entered the opening in the tailcone, it would release over-centre locks that were holding the spring-loaded doors open. The doors would then firmly spring shut behind the gear assembly and finish the job. UNFORTUNATELY this was a very poor design; if for any reason one of the two doors had not gone over-centre on the previous gear lowering, it would be struck by the retracting tail wheel gear and cause structural damage to the local skin area, that would have to have a repair done. Unfortunately these events were not quite so rare, and several measures were tried to reduce the chance of this happening. Although not a safety issue, it was an issue that was a total pain. (As a matter of interest, G-BOAC had this happen on one of it's first test flights out of Fairford in 1975).
Nick Thomas
As ChristiaanJ said, the last two BA aircraft WERE lighter than the others, and would be preferred aircraft for certain charters. But that is not to say that any aircraft could not happily do ANY sector. We fortunately had no distorted airframes in the British fleet, so this was never an issue. There was very little spread, regarding fuel consumption between different engines; one of the best parts about the Olympus 593 was that it hade very little performance deterioration with time, it was an amazing piece of kit.
Time on wing for the engines was a real variable. Each engine was built up of modules, each one of these had a seperate life. In the early days of operation, time on wing was quite poor, and MANY engines would be removed on an attrition basis. One of the early failure problem was the fuel vapourisers inside the combustion chamber were failing, taking bits of turbine with it!! A Rolls Royce modification that completely changed the design of the vapouriser not only solved the problem completely, but also increased the performance of the engine. As the engine matured in service time on wing greatly improved, and in service failures became a thing of the past. A 'trend analysis' was done after each protracted supersonic flight, where engine parameters were input into a propiatry RR computer program, that was able to detect step changes in the figures, and if this were the case, more boroscope inspections were carried out. The OLY time on wing was nothing compared to the big fan engines, but the conditions that it operated under bore no comparison. Not really sure about absolute figures on this one Nick, I'll ask one of my Rolls Royce friends and see if I can find a figure.

MEMORIES
Like so many in the Concorde family, I have millions, I'd like to share a couple here. I remember at Fairford in mid 1974, a CAA test pilot (I honestly forget the gentleman's name) was taking the British pre-production A/C 101 (G-AXDN) for a special test flight. The reason that this flight was so special was that for the first time, the CAA were going to do an acceptance flight trial of the brand new digital air intake system. This revolutionary system had been retro fitted to 101 barely a year earlier, and being a brand new (and totally unique, in electronics terms) system had been plagued with teething troubles. It was quite reasonable for any airworthiness authority to have serious misgivings about any system that was going to wave great big metal lumps around in front of the engine compressor face, and that if only a few degrees out from the commanded position out could cause the engine to 'backfire' etc.
So anyway, 101 took off and disappeared into the very blue sky and we waited, and waited, AND WAITED. (I'd only left the RAF and joined the project a few months previously, and did not want my new association with this amazing aircraft to end). I was biting my nails, drinking coffee, losing my hair... (without the help of M2V ). Anyway after about 2 1/2 hours the aircraft returned to Fairford, and everybody crowds around the crew for the debrief. A very stern faced CAA pilot looked at us all, broke into a grin and said "as far as I'm concerned gentlemen, you've got yourselves an airliner". At that point the room was a study of total happiness, blessed relief, and a need to go to the loo..... But from my point of view, I will remember those words forever.
101, which now resides at the Imperial War Museum Duxford was the fastest Concorde ever. She achieved Mach 2.23, which was an incredible irony, as Concorde can trace a large part of it's developement history back to the BAC 223, proposed SST.
As far as flying memories go, I just don't know where to start; My first ever Concorde flight was in November 1976, out of Fairford on a pre-delivery test flight on G-BOAD. (Now sadly bobbing up and down on the Hudson, next to the USS Intrepid). I was staggered how fast and high we flew (Mach 2.08, FL580). Most of my flying up to that date had been in C-130's in the RAF, at around 340 KTS and FL300; Concorde also being infinately quiter in flight than the good old Herc'. I remember a BA QA guy showing me how I could touch the skin of the aircraft at Mach 2 (You reached behind a door busstle flap, moved your hand through some insulation until you felt bare metal). OUCH!! it was hot, very hot.
But I think one of my most memorable flight memories was aboard G-BOAG, (now residing in the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle) returning from BKK, having stopped off to refuel in BAH. We were forced to fly subsonic over Saudi, and got caught in this amazing electrical storm, There was St Elmo's fire cracking and bubbling all over the visor panels, but just as incredible was the long blue electrical discharge coming off of the nose probe; it seemed to extend about 50' in front of the aircraft. The crime was, none of us on the F/D had a camera. Every time I bump into the captain on that day (are you reading this Ian?), we go back to remonissing about that incredible flight. Also, later on the same sector, after we had decelerated to subsonic cruise again, this time flying up the Adriatic, we had another fascinating sight: It was getting quite dark now, and here we were, travelling at Mach 0.95 at FL290, when above us was all this Mach 0.8 ish traffic at around FL330-350. All we could see were all these navigation and ant-coll' lights above us, seemingly travelling backwards. It was quite a sight. On the original BAH-BKK sector a week earlier, we flew through some of the coldest air I'd ever seen; The air was at ISA -25, and at Mach 2 our TAT was only about 85 deg's C. (You could feel the difference too; the cabin windows felt only warm-ish to the touch). The upside also of all this was that your fuel burn was much lower than usual. (The only downside of course is that your TAS is a little lower). Rolls Royce did some analysis on the flight, and were amazed at how well the propulsion systems coped with some of the temperature sheers that we encountered, sometimes 4 to 5 deg's/second. They said that the prototype AFCS had been defeated by rises of only 0.25 deg's/second ).
Not meaning to go off onto a (yet another) tangent; Negative temperature shears, very common at lower lattidudes, always plagued the development aircraft; you would suddenly accelerate, and in the case of a severe shear, would accelerate and accelerate!! (Your Mach number, quite naturaly, suddenly increased with the falling temperature of course, but because of the powerplant suddenly hitting an area of hyper-efficiencey, the A/C would physically accelerate rapidly, way beyond Mmo). Many modifications were tried to mitigate the effects of severe shears, in the end a clever change to the intake control unit software fixed it. (Thanks to this change the production series A/C would not be capable of level flight Mach numbers of any more than Mach 2.13, remembering that Mmo was set at 2.04).
There was one lovely story, involving the Shah of Iran, having one of MANY flights in a developmment aircraft. The aircraft encounterd quite a hefty series of temperature shears that plagued havoc with some Iranian F4's that were attempting to close on the Concorde, to act as an escort for the Shah. (or so the strory goes). I'm still trying to picture these F4's, on full afterburner trying to get close to a Concorde cruising away on dry power). It is said that the F4's were having such difficulties, due to their relatively crude powerplant, coping with the temperature changes, that the Concorde was ordered to slow down, 'so the escorting F4's could catch up'!! True or not, it is part of Concorde folklore.

Dude

M2dude ,

Thanks for bringing up the story of the temperature shears at low latitudes, saves me some explaining !

The phenomenon was not really "discovered" until the route proving started.
As you say, it meant abrupt changes in Mach and Tt.
Since the pitch autopilot in, say, 'Mach Hold', had only one way to cope with those changes : pitching up or pitching down, this resulted in abrupt climb and descent manoeuvres that were totally inacceptable.

It was not only fixed by modifiying the intake controls.... !
It also led to a fairly major mod in the AFCS, by bringing the auto-throttle into the loop.
Instead of letting the pitch A/P take the aircraft into a zoom climb to try and stay within the "speed limits", it woold be the autothrottle pulling the throttles back.
After a fair amount of flight tests, this became the final form of the 'Max Cruise' mode.

I know... I should have kept a diary.
All this happened 35 years ago, so I can't put exact dates, or even specific aircraft, into the story. At least I still have some Concorde doc, that at times allows me to refresh my memory.

But one thing stayed in my memory over the years ...

The initial A/P+A/T 'Max Cruise' mod meant a major modification of the autothrottle computers. One of the circuit boards in particular was totally "butchered" on-site (Fairford), with well over a hundred track cuts and new wire links, not to mention the number of component changes (to give an idea to the 'experts', these were double-sided PCBs of about 15x20cm).

We got the job done (4 boards : 2 boards per computer, 2 computers), got the computers tested and on the aircraft. Knowing full well how easy it was to introduce faults and problems during such a modification (a dud solder joint could be enough), we expected to see them back within days, or at least within a few flights.

Well..... those computers left the lab with each about a thousand hours "on the clock" (they have little elapsed-time counters that indicated hours under power, NOT flight hours).
The first time we saw them back (for a minor mod, not a fault), both clocks showed over 10,000 hours !

Ah, those were the days

CJ

First of all, many, many thanks to our four main sources of Concorde 'nectar'; M2Dude, ChristiaanJ, Bellerophon and Exwok. Their input, each from a slightly different viewpoint, is absolutely captivating. As fascinating as the lady herself.

Christiaan rang an awful lot of bells with his description of some of the electronics - it was very, very similar to the stuff I used to work on, back in the early days of production CT Scanners. Cut tracks and wire links were the 'staff of life' and the stuff of nightmare. Our first minicomputers - to reconstruct the CT image - had 32 kilobytes of memory on four boards, each about 17" square!! My phone has about 2 Gigabytes of memory! Now this was in the late seventies, when Concorde had been flying for a good number of years.

My question, which is a bit of a tilt at windmills, is this; If you had to build Concorde all over again with the same airframe and engines, how much more room, how much lighter and how much more capable would the electronics be if they were made using the latest surface mount, Extremely High Density integrated circuits and microprocessors?

Thanks again everyone, for the best thread I have read on PPRuNe for two years (and there have been some superb ones in that time )

Roger.

LOL. That should teach me to check my sources before putting finger to keyboard !
Most of my personal memories date from my Fairford years (1969 - 1974), so there may be the odd gap.....

CJ

It was determined in a very early stage, that an engine surge or engine failure at supersonic speed would produce a very abrupt, inacceptable, and possibly dangerous, amount of yaw.

So the prototypes were equipped with "autorudder" computers. They used pressure sensors in the engines to detect engine failures, and they would then kick in a "pre-dosed" amount of rudder, that would then be "washed-out" gradually while the pilot dealt with the issue and added rudder trim.

They were manufactured by SFENA, and since I was their flight test support at Fairford, they became automatically my "babies".

The computers (analog, big boxes, the same size as the autopilots or air intake computers) were extremely reliable (we had only two passive faults during the entire flying career of 002).
Unfortunately the same could not be said of the pressure sensors, and since it was always easier to "pull" a computer than a pressure sensor, we found a computer on the bench every few weeks, which then had to be taken through a full test spec and sent back with "no fault found", before anybody was willing to look at the sensors.

Luckily a better solution was found, using a lateral accelerometer, and from the preprod aircraft onwards, each big separate autorudder computer was replaced by a single board tucked away in the autostab computer.

Since the function was always "on", there was no separate autorudder engage switch. Many years later, I discovered that several airline Concorde pilots did not even know the function existed....

CJ

As M2dude says, there were about three separate ways of extending the nose gear, making the event extremely unlikely, and indeed it never happened in service.
It's a halfway interesting "what if" question...
Bearing in mind the c.g. is already almost over the main wheels... could it have been done by moving the c.g. as far back as possible, keeping the droop nose at 0\xb0, and after touchdown keeping the nose off the ground for as long as possible?
The radome would have shattered, but the droop nose structure would have acted like a skid.
Just as well nobody ever needed to try it.

There is only one well-known case of a landing gear problem.

Visualise a moment the main landing gear. The main leg 'l' is held down in the vertical position by a large hydraulic "stay" '\' .
___
\l

(I know that, to most people, it looks at first like the retraction cylinder, but it isn't. The retraction cylinder is much shorter, and inside the wheel bay.)

Now the story... It happened during what was going to be the last-but-one flight of the British prototype, 002, during a demonstration flight at Weston-super-Mare.
After a slow pass with the gear down, the co-pilot flying the aircraft put it into a steep turn, retracting the gear at the same time.

The next moment, there was a very loud bang, and one of the main gear lights did not go "green".

Somebody from the crew went to the back cabin, where there is a small porthole to look into the wheel well. When asked what he could see, the answer was "nothing..." ; both the main stay and the retraction cylinder had parted company with the aircraft, and the gear leg was dangling free.

The pilot, John Cochrane, took over the controls, and brought the aircraft back to Fairford. With his guardian angel doing overtime, he managed to put down the aircraft and keep it straight during the roll-out, without the gear collapsing.

I didn't see the landing, but I saw 002 in the hangar the next day. By that time a steel bar had been fitted to keep the leg upright, but the damage was still impressive.
Later on, a spare stay was fitted, but 002s flight test career was over. She stayed in storage at Fairford for some time, and was then flown to the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton, where she still can be seen to this day.
Wisely, for the few minutes flight, they did not retract the gear....

CJ

OMG that takes me back!!!!
Alan Radford and Wally Chapman at Fairford, it seems like a million years ago. I've never even seen this one before (and I thought I'd seen them all).
I FEEL OLD
A really great piece of nostalgia.

Dude

Same here, Dude.....
So you knew Wally Chapman too....

CJ

My long (eternal?) love affair with Concorde probably started, like with so many other people (at least those ancient enough to remember) on March 2nd 1969. I was at home at my mum's house on leave from the RAF, (I really was a funny hairy little 'erk') when the live TV coverage, in glorious black and white, showed the first prototype 001 taking to the air in Toulouse. Raymond Baxter's classic commentary understatement of 'she flies, Concorde flies', combined with the sight of this sleek white aircraft, trailing a cloud of thick black exhaust smoke, taking to the air for the first time. (The prototype aircraft in my view looked a little ungainly compared to the pre-production and production babies, and the -22R engines fitted to the original aircraft was a real coal burner). And as far as TV went, it was quite a year; While on night shift at RAF Lyneham I got to watch the live feed of the first Apollo moon landing too.
The next stage in my love affair was in 1970, when this same hairy little 'erk' heard this roar in the sky over Swindon while shopping and saw the British prototype 002 with its accompanying Canberra chase plane flying very low, straight over the top of Debenhams; my jaw dropped as I stared at this amazing (but rather loud) spectacle unfolding right in front of my eyes.
The die was cast I guess for me in 1972. I was on the ramp at RAF Lyneham, chatting to a visiting USAF C-141 crew. "do ya ever get 'the Concorde' flyin' anywhere near hear ?" asked one of the pilots. I was about to tell him that sometimes on occasion we get a brief glimpse, when the pre-production aircraft 101 flew straight over the top of us. Now these USAF guys just stood there in awe, their eyes popping out like organ stops, and I just figured that this amazingly on cue spectacle just had to be a sign. When I left the RAF two years later I joined BAC at Filton and Fairford engaged on the production and flight testing side of Concorde, leaving there for BA at the end of July 1977. (The story goes that I was delivered to BA a week after G-BOAE as part of a surplus, auxiliary spares package ).
So that's my personal Concorde love affair, it started in 1969 and continues to this day, forty one years later. GOD I AM OLD!!

Dude

My "Concorde Story" really started around April 1968.

I'd only just finished my aeronautical enginering studies and had already been sending CVs all over the place... when I received a letter from the French firm (SFENA) that was building the French half of the Concorde automatic flight control system, to meet them for an interview : they needed a "flight test support engineer" to take care of their equipment in the UK (Fairford and Filton).

"No experience needed".... since everything in Concorde was new anyway....
My engineering degree, which included a fair amount of electronics, was considered enough... I could learn the rest "on the job".
What clinched the deal at the time was that I was aleady pretty well bilingual Dutch/English, and spoke enough French to get by, whereas in those days most of the French engineers in the firm had very little if any English.

So Dec. 1st, 1968, I moved to Paris, after delivering wife and new-born daughter to mother-in-law in London.
Some nine months of intensive study followed, before my move to Fairford and my first encounter with Concorde 002.

During my "indoctrination", the firm thought it would be a good idea to at least have a personal look at what I was going to work on, and also meet my 'counterparts' at Toulouse I was to be in continuous contact with.
So, sometime end January 1969, only a few weeks before the first flight of 001, I first set eyes on a real Concorde, still buzzing with final preparations.
With all our stuff being in the "pointy end", that's where we went, of course, and I spent half an hour or so in the left hand seat getting familiar with the cockpit lay-out and "our" systems..... the same seat where Andr\xe9 Turcat would be sitting a few weeks later during the first flight.

After that came five years of Concorde at Fairford and Filton, until the development flight test support largely came to an end, and was taken over by our 'product support' department, and I returned to France.

In my case, I wouldn't yet have called it a "love affair" in those days, more an intensively satisfying job.
It was really not until afterwards, that I started to regard those "Concorde days" as the best time of my professional career, and that I started to realise she'd gotten "under my skin".

And I can call myself lucky.... I've "met" 002 again 35 years after last seeing her in the Fairford hangar.
And I've also sat again in that self-same left-hand seat on 001, more than 40 years after that first time.
And I've had the chance of flying once on Concorde, even if in the end she retired just before I did.

landlady is right. We were there, at the right time, and the right place.
I think that says it all.

CJ

Self Loading Freight
The aircraft could be very unforgiving regarding rough runways, and was a major design headache in the early days. There was particular concern regarding about runway conditions in JFK, and extensive modifications were carried out to the shock absorbers to help reduce the effects. However simplified solutions WERE sought by the manufacturers, one of these being to try and reduce the damping of the main gear by removing a meausured amount of oil from the cylinders and chage the 'tuning' of the leg, but this proved to be, er... less than successful:
In early 1977, aircraft 210, G-BOAE was doing it's pre-delivery test flying out of Filton (Fairford was now closed as a permanent test base, but day flying was carried out from there, the aircraft returning to Filton at night). and it was decided to try this rechnique on 210. A little French guy from the landing gear manufacturer Messier spent all day, travelling from the other side of France to Filton in the west of England, and arrived at the plant at around 23:30. He spent several hours that night, draining off his carefully calculated amount of fluid from each of the main landing gears, and returned to France a happy little bunny the following morning. BIG MISTAKE !!
When OAE did it's test flying the following day, everything seemed to be going well, but on the final landing of the at Fairford.. THUMP!!! The barrels of the shock absorbers bottomed, sending a sizable shock through the entire airframe. No structural damage was done, but several systems went off line, and I particularly remember one of the incidence vane heaters being knackered by the force of the vane thumping against the stops. Our poor little Messier rep' arrives home LATE that night, only to receive a message telling him to go straight back to Filton. The poor guy was a wreck, but like a true trooper headed straight back to the UK, and inserted his carefully measured amount of oil back into the main landing gears of G-BOAE. (Always thought that this would have made a great comedy sketch)

Dude

The first two sets of BA crews did their circuit flying at Fairford, and the crews after that went to all sorts of different airfields in the UK , France and Portugal

Now as far as take-off is concerned

27 left and right
09 right

Landing 27 L & R----- 09 L & R---- 23 and 05 [ but not in the later years]

Now I cannot remember if you could take off on 23

OK guys, here are the answers. If you disagree about any of them then fire away, the old memory certainly 'aint perfect.
As many of you have guessed, there were 22: The 14 production airframes, the 2 production series development aircraft (201 & 202), the 2 pre-production airframes (101 & 102) and the 2 prototypes 001 & 002. PLUS, the major fatigue test specimen at the RAE Farnborough and the static test specimen at CEAT in Toulouse. The CEAT tests actually tested the wing to destruction; I seem to remember it was something like a 200% overload before the wing failed at the root. And great but rather sad pictures VOLUME , never seen these before.
OK, from MY memory , we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
11:15
The BA193 and BA 195.
OK, there were 12 engine feed pumps (3 per engine) 8 main transfer tank pumps (2 each for the transfer tanks 5, 6, 7 & 8), 4 'A' tank pumps (2 each for 5A & 7A), 8 trim-transfer tank pumps (2 electric pumps each for tanks 9, 10 & 11 PLUS 2 hydraulically driven pumps for tank 9), 4 electric engine start pumps (there was a single electric start pump per engine that delivered fuel to it's own dedicated start atomiser in the combustion chamber. The pump automatically ran when the engine HP valve was set to OPEN and would continue running for 30 seconds after the DEBOW switch was returned to the 'normal' position), 4 engine first stage pumps (a single mechanically driven pump per engine), 4 second stage pumps (a single pneumatically driven pump, sometimes termed 'the turbopump, per engine. This would cut out at around 20,000'), our scavenge tank pump (triggered automatically when there was 7 US gallons in the tank; pumping it back into tank 2. This pump was identical to an 'A' tank transfer pump), and FINALLY, a single de-air pump for tank 10. The pump would drive the fuel through a mesh, removing air bubbles from the fuel. Tank 11 used the L/H trim pump for de-air (similar principle)and would be switched on during take-off. This is why the tank 5 trim inlet valve being set to over-ride OPEN would result in the tank being highly pressurised in the case of the Gonesse disaster; the pump would obviously pressurise the L/H trim gallery and any tank on that side with an open inlet valve!!!
G-AXDN, aircraft 101. (A production wing, fuselage, droop nose and intakes, but with the short tail section and secondary nozzles of the prototypes.
Ready ChristiaanJ? There were 18....Yes, the single SFENA standby horizon, 9 INS gyros (one per X,Y and Z platform in each of the 3 INUs), 8 autostab' rate gyros (one per axis for each of the 2 autostab' computers PLUS a monitor gyro for the pitch axis). The radar by the way used attitude signals from the INS.
9. One per main wheel plus the single 'in flight braking' nose wheel brake.
Mach 0.7!!! Between this and Mach 1.26 the intake surfaces were positioned as a function of engine N1 if the engine was shut down for any reason. (Otherwise of course the intake surfaces were fully up). You needed a sub idle N1 of 57% and below for all this to happen, and it was to assist relight performance and reduce buffet. Between Mach 1.26 and 1.32 the ramps were driven down slightly to about 5%, full supersonic scheduling itself commencing at Mach 1.32.
Already brilliantly answered by Brit312 (as well as the FSLabs diagram). Yep, Geen GO, T/O monitor armed, fuel flow and P7 at or above datum, A/C on ground, reverse not selected and CON light not on. Amber CON (Reheat selected and not detected, N1 OK or reverse selected and primary nozzle (Aj) not at minimum. Blue REV; steady buckets at reverse, flashing buckets in transit.
Fairford, followed by Brize Norton, and then a host of airfields from Prestwick and Shannon to Chateauroux.
OK, probably no surprises now:
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
It was FedEx, they planned to operate two stripped out aircraft, leased from BA, between Shannon and JFK as high value parcel carriers. The idea was that parcels would be flown in from all over Europe by small FedEx feeder aircraft and the parcels transferred to Concorde which would then speed on to JFK in around 2 1/2 hours. It never happened because of a combination of economics appraisal by FedEx and BA deciding that it could would not release the aircraft anyway.
A/C 101, G-AXDN first flew on 17th December 1971 with FIXED INTAKES!! (101 was going to be the launch vehicle for the new digital intake control system, but the 'boxes' were still being designed). This placed an operating limit of Mach 1.5 on the aircraft, limiting her ability with such a restricted flight envelope. She returned to Filton in late 1972 for installation of the system, as well as the new Olympus 593-602 engine. (The engine, very similar to the production Mk 610 version, used a quite revolutionary annular combustion chamber, and eliminated at a stroke the thick smoke exhaust that had up to then been Concorde's unwanted visual signiture). The aircraft flew more or less smokeless on 15 March 1973, achieving Mach 2 soon afterwards. As ChristiaanJ pointed out, the British prototype 002 had a similar gap, actually significantly higher, of 19 months. (The French aircraft 001 had an even longer gap of some 20 months).

I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all

Dude

In 1987 we also used Machrihanish because they were digging up the end of Prestwicks runway which made it too short for touch and go

In1998 we also used Porto as I think Chateauroux asked us to leave after too many noise complaints

Before we started base flying at Brize Norton there was a lot of negative opinion about it due to possible noise. The first day of training the airport was saturated with noise complaints, however what the local population did not know was that the Concorde had gone U/S and did not fly on that day. They could not see due to cloud cover but what they were complaining about were the RAF VC-10 in the circuit , and these aircraft had been training there for months with no complaints.

Shannon was always considered too risky for Concorde to base it self at for Base training, however in 1998 when things in N.Ireland had settled down a bit we did base a Concorde for a few days in Shannon for base training.

If I remember correctly during all the flight testing program at Fairford, BAC built a lay-by on the main road so that the public could watch the aircraft come and go free of charge. Apparently some bright spark bought himself a white coat and a roll of parking tickets and started charging people for parking. Now that is what you call free enterprise

Brit312
I was up at Prestwick in 1988. and I remember that several details were carried out doing touch and goes at Machrihanish also, when the late GREAT John Cook was running things flight training wise.
Concorde noisy? What WERE they talking about
Oh this was typical; so many of, shall we say, the less sensible members of our species, would blame Concorde for absolutely ANYTHING, whether sh was flying or not
Actually a few training sesions were carried out there in the mid to late 1990's, before the norm, became Chateuroux. I remember 'Dirty Nellies' fondly, as anyone who is familiar with SNN will understand.
It was not so much as a lay by as a real car park, right on the edge of the runway. Whenever the aeoroplane was going to fly, word got around and the car park filled up quickly. Right up to when the Fairford Flight Test Centre was closed in early 1977, the car park was always filled to overflowing.

Thanks for coming up with the additional flight training airfields Brit312, my poor old memory is fading... FAST......

Dude

VApilot2004
This really is a sad state of afairs I know. G-BOAD even had the 'radome tore off and the droop nose bent sideways by an idiot of a truck driver when she was stored in New Jersey 18 months or so ago. A new 'radome' was fabricated out of fibreglass (quite a reasonable attempt actually) and the bent nose? A hammer and blowtorch fixed that!! (I'm not joking). I have American engineer friends at JFK who can not even bring themselves to look at what Alpha Delta has become. They used to take exquisite care of Concorde during JFK transits, and to see her now, well it's just too much for those guys. (This is another personal one for me I'm afraid, G-BOAD was the first Concorde I ever flew on, November 5th 1976 out of Fairford).

Regards
Dude

Nick Thomas
Jeepers Nick, I must have about a million, but I'd like to share a few here. (Some of them I have prattled on about before in this thread, so I apologise for any repetitions).I suppose my very FIRST Concorde image would have to be in Swindon in 1970, when I was this young RAF 'erk' at nearby RAF Lyneham; I heard this loud roar in the sky over what is now Debenhams, and looked up and saw for the very first time Concorde 002, along with her attendant Canberra chase plane.
My next memorable image was at Fairford in the summer 1974. (No longer a young RAF erk, but a still fairly young lad now working for BAC). I'd seen quite a few spectacular take-offs in my short time at BAC, but A/C 101 (G-AXDN) was being flown by a French DGAC pilot (I forget the gentleman's name I'm afraid) and did the most amazing of take-offs. It was the clearest of blue summer skies, and this guy rotated 101 and just climbed steeply into the Gloucestershire sky, and climbed and climbed until she was virtually out of view; truly memorable.
Another image that I will never forget is the view of Concorde taking off from JFK RW31L, viewed from the right side of the runway sat in a truck (I did this dozens of times and never tired of watching the spectacle). It always amazed me how ANY airliner could turn and climb that amazing fashion, and would try and keep her in view as she did an almost complete circuit around JFK. (But I found the view from the aircraft, when seated in the supernumerary seat just behind the captain even more amazing. You'd looked out of the rear L/H window and see nothing but the water of Jamaica Bay going by, very fast and VERY close).
Another GREAT image was in 1995; on a special test flight on-board G-BOAD out of LHR. I was sat on the flight deck with the three guys (just us four on the whole aeroplane) and we were positioned just aft and to the left of the BA189 Concorde service to IAD. We started the supersonic acceleration together, but as we peeled off south for our extensive test flight, the BA189 (can't remember for the life of me the registration) just seemed to streak ahead just like the Starship Enterprise, and was out of sight completely quite soon after that.
And I shall never forget the very sad view of the last ever Concorde take-off, watching from the side of Heathrow RW 27R in November 2003. OAF took off with all her usual grace, but symbolically just disappeared into the overcast, dark and gloomy sky. My own final personal image after 33 years of watching Concorde is that the aviation world, just like that November sky, is a far gloomier place without her.

Best regards
Dude