2nd Oct 2010, 08:45
permalink Post: 508
CRON
I can only speak here from the Concorde ground engineering school that I attended over a total of 13 weeks at Filton in 1980 and 1981; the pilot/flight engineer questions there were I'm sure FAR nastier (and also more operationally specific); we did get to share simulator time though, which was really useful. Like the aircrews, we stayed up in a hotel in Bristol during the week. (I personally had only left BAC, as it was then, for BA at Heathrow in late July 1977, so I was returning to familiar pastures). The exam format would be several dozen multi-choice questions per week/phase; a typical question would go something like:
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Hi again Nick, one really for the likes of BRIT312, EXWOK etc, but there was, as was mentioned before, an emergency forward transfer switch in the roof panel above the pilots (F/O's side if I remember correctly). When placed to the emergency poition two electric and two hydraulic fuel pumps for the rear trim tank #11 would start up automatically, as well as the forward tank inlet valves being opened also.
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
The BA simulator that resided at Filton has been re-located to Brooklands Museum, and has been re-activated, but without motion and I'm not sure about full visuals either. I've not seen it myself yet, but I'm told that things have progressed really well with the operation. Obviously it is no longer certified as an active simulator; I'm not sure about the situation in France, perhaps my friend ChristiaanJ can answer that one.
I seem to remember typical loads for LHR-JFK being around 93-96 tonnes, depending on the passenger load and en-route conditions. Full tanks, depending on the SG was around 96 Tonnes. High fuel temperatures in the summer were a major pain; restricting maximum onload due to the low SG.
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Quote:
| If I may ask - and folk can recall - what would a sample question look like from these exams? |
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Quote:
| So I have been wondering if there were any special procedures for managing the CofG in a rapid descent especially as there could also be many other factors needing the crews attention? |
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
Quote:
| Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification? |
Quote:
| Regarding LHR JFK routes. What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it. |
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 2nd Oct 2010 at 13:40 .
2nd Oct 2010, 17:58
permalink Post: 510
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
Quote:
| Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification? |
Quote:
| The BA simulator that resided at Filton has been re-located to Brooklands Museum, and has been re-activated, but without motion and I'm not sure about full visuals either. I've not seen it myself yet, but I'm told that things have progressed really well with the operation. Obviously it is no longer certified as an active simulator; I'm not sure about the situation in France, perhaps my friend ChristiaanJ can answer that one. |
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
8th Oct 2010, 12:35
permalink Post: 530
The last time that I 'flew' the Concorde simulator at Filton was about 15 years ago. The visuals were the superb Rediffusion (as it was called then) 'Wide' displays and I seem to remember that there was a sort of mechanical mask over the screens that looked somewhat like the visor, and this came up and down with the visor control lever. The very first time that I went on the sim' was in 1980, when the visuals comprised of a TV screen at the central parts of the windsheilds. (The DV and side windows I seem to remember were blanked out). The 'picture' was provided by a TV camera tracking over a huge vertical landscape model, populated with runways, houses, cows, fields etc. (If one of the models became 'unglued' it would appear to shoot horizontally across the screen).
I think that these Rediffusion 'Wide' vusuals were installed in the late 80's/early 90's and were as advanced as any simulator visuals anywhere. I believe that the original 'landscape model' was donated to a university.
Dude
I think that these Rediffusion 'Wide' vusuals were installed in the late 80's/early 90's and were as advanced as any simulator visuals anywhere. I believe that the original 'landscape model' was donated to a university.
Dude
8th Oct 2010, 13:26
permalink Post: 531
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
Quote:
| Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic? |
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
16th Oct 2010, 21:12
permalink Post: 579
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
Filton.
27 L/R, 09 R.
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
I'm guessing 14.
I'm guessing 14.
8) How many wheel brakes?
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
Mach 1.3.
Mach 1.3.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Filton.
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
27 L/R, 09 R.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Braniff.
Braniff.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 16th Oct 2010 at 21:38 .
22nd Oct 2010, 09:26
permalink Post: 597
Ze Concorde Quiz Mk 2 (Or is it Mach 2?).... Ze Answers
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
Quote:
| 1) How many Concorde airframes were built? |
Quote:
| 2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc. |
, 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.
Quote:
| 3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either). |
Quote:
| 4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?). |
Quote:
|
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump
).
|
Quote:
| 6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape? |
Quote:
| 7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft? |
Quote:
| 8) How many wheel brakes? |
Quote:
| 9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled? |
Quote:
| 10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify? |
Quote:
| 11) At what airfield were the first BA crew base training details held? |
Quote:
| 12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem). |
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).
Quote:
| 13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's? |
Quote:
| 14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight? |
I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 22nd Oct 2010 at 11:21 . Reason: oops, misssed out question 2
27th Oct 2010, 22:33
permalink Post: 616
Mike-Bracknell
It is not nonsense, and you are quite at liberty to post here. Wow, that's still quite a question though Mike. There are two TECHNICAL issues that overshadow all others, namely airframe corrosion and hydraulic system deterioration. Unfortunately none of the BA aircraft were stored inside from the outset, so we have a real issue here as far as corrosion goes, plus all the hydraulic systems were drained, resulting in seal drying out and probable moisture ingress into the 3 systems. But given sufficient funds (and assuming you find an organisation to take over design responsibility from Airbus;
ironic when you consider that without Concorde there would almost certainly have been no such organisation
) there is still no technical reason why the problems (and there are dozens of other problems to consider) could not be overcome, the money side of things is another matter
Looking first at the French fleet, the main candidate for restoration to flight status would be F-BTSD at Le Bourget. Not only has this aircraft been lovingly cared for and stored INSIDE, but the aircraft has had several systems (including the Green hydraulic system) powered and reservoirs not drained.
The British story is less clear; G-BOAA in East Fortune was effectively killed when the wings were cut off for transportation, so that one is out of the question. G-BOAB, the last and only Concorde at LHR has been left to rot outside, in fact holes were even drill in the fuselage to drain water, so this one is a no no too. G-BOAC at Manchester, now the oldest surviving production aircraft was initially stored outside, but now resides in a purpose built exhibition 'hangar'. Now she COULD be a potential candidate for consideration; when I last saw her just over a year ago she was absolutely pristine; a testament to the team that have been caring for her there. G-BOAD, stored next to the USS Intrepid in New York, we can probably forget, due to having been exposed to 7 years worth of salt water corrosion from the Hudson River. (Also, while she was temporarily stored in New Jersey a couple of years ago, some IDIOT in a truck bent the whole nose section when he hit her. The radome was smashed (replaced with a rather clever fibreglass fabrication) and the nose straightened with a blow-torch and hammer (I am not joking!!). G-BOAE at Grantley Adams airport in Barbados has been stored under cover for much of the time; provided she has not suffered too much from the wam damp atmosphere of Barbados, well she could be a potential candiitate too. G-BOAF in Filton, well PROVIDED she is still OK after her 'removal from public view' experience could also be a potential candidate also. And finally, G-BOAG in Seattle; well she had been left outside, right next to a highway (and close to a truck stop too). She did not look too good the last time I saw her; the undercarriage barrels werer all brown and discoloured and the paintwork was completely dull and matte. (She had a new paint job not too long before retirement too). So out of the 'BA Seven', I PERSONALLY would go for G-BOAF, G-BOAC or G-BOAG.
As I have said often here before, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that what you, Mike, suggest will ever happen, but in spite of what others might say, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. My own gut feeling is a resounding 'no', but I could be wrong, . (And NO ONE would be happier than I if I am wrong; I was with the BA aircraft through construction, flight testing and the entire service life with BA).
As for the cost? It really is a case of 'how long is a piece of string', but for 2 aircraft we could be looking in excess of $100 or more, who knows?
But as the Everly Brothers used to sing 'All I have to do is dream.'
Keep posting Mike.
Dude
.
Quote:
| IF funding were secured to get 1 Concorde from each fleet into the air again, which one out of each fleet would be the easiest to return to service, given what has gone on since retirement? Also, a subpoint, does anyone have any finger-in-the-air figures as to how much cost it would take and whether there's any fundamental issues that would need to be sorted aside from the airworthiness certificate etc. |
Looking first at the French fleet, the main candidate for restoration to flight status would be F-BTSD at Le Bourget. Not only has this aircraft been lovingly cared for and stored INSIDE, but the aircraft has had several systems (including the Green hydraulic system) powered and reservoirs not drained.
The British story is less clear; G-BOAA in East Fortune was effectively killed when the wings were cut off for transportation, so that one is out of the question. G-BOAB, the last and only Concorde at LHR has been left to rot outside, in fact holes were even drill in the fuselage to drain water, so this one is a no no too. G-BOAC at Manchester, now the oldest surviving production aircraft was initially stored outside, but now resides in a purpose built exhibition 'hangar'. Now she COULD be a potential candidate for consideration; when I last saw her just over a year ago she was absolutely pristine; a testament to the team that have been caring for her there. G-BOAD, stored next to the USS Intrepid in New York, we can probably forget, due to having been exposed to 7 years worth of salt water corrosion from the Hudson River. (Also, while she was temporarily stored in New Jersey a couple of years ago, some IDIOT in a truck bent the whole nose section when he hit her. The radome was smashed (replaced with a rather clever fibreglass fabrication) and the nose straightened with a blow-torch and hammer (I am not joking!!). G-BOAE at Grantley Adams airport in Barbados has been stored under cover for much of the time; provided she has not suffered too much from the wam damp atmosphere of Barbados, well she could be a potential candiitate too. G-BOAF in Filton, well PROVIDED she is still OK after her 'removal from public view' experience could also be a potential candidate also. And finally, G-BOAG in Seattle; well she had been left outside, right next to a highway (and close to a truck stop too). She did not look too good the last time I saw her; the undercarriage barrels werer all brown and discoloured and the paintwork was completely dull and matte. (She had a new paint job not too long before retirement too). So out of the 'BA Seven', I PERSONALLY would go for G-BOAF, G-BOAC or G-BOAG.
As I have said often here before, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that what you, Mike, suggest will ever happen, but in spite of what others might say, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. My own gut feeling is a resounding 'no', but I could be wrong, . (And NO ONE would be happier than I if I am wrong; I was with the BA aircraft through construction, flight testing and the entire service life with BA).
As for the cost? It really is a case of 'how long is a piece of string', but for 2 aircraft we could be looking in excess of $100 or more, who knows?
But as the Everly Brothers used to sing 'All I have to do is dream.'
Keep posting Mike.
Dude
.
29th Oct 2010, 16:25
permalink Post: 627
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
Quote:
| On which there was a splendid rumour that what put the final nail in the great birds coffin was that our transatlantic allies realised that if hijacked there was nothing that could catch her !! |
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
Last edited by M2dude; 29th Oct 2010 at 16:52 . Reason: spelling (yet again) :-(
14th Nov 2010, 08:50
permalink Post: 716
Landroger
Come on Rog, let's not be silly now. I was not 'upset', and you can use the 'T' word any time you feel that you need to lad. It's just that you used a very poor example to use when, I don't know what your point was anyway, comparing Concorde with any other aeroplane.
The J58 powerplant design for the SR-71 is superb, and considering the early 1960's era that it was developed, was nothing short of astounding.
For Mach 3 cruise air is bypassed around the engine core and fed staright into the afterburner duct, where it supplied the afterburner directly. Still a remarkable design though, even now.
Oh she didn't; she just leaked. (not on the same scale as the SR-71 though).. If you were nuts enough to walk under a fully fueled Concorde without an umbrella you often got quite wet and smelly. The leaks were 'drips' and not running streams, and maximum permissable leak rates were mandated and controlled, but if she became particularly 'drippy' it was straight back to the hangar for tank re-sealing for our Concorde. The fuel tanks were sealed using liquid viton rubber, the idea being that the viton when it solidified would filll in all the nooks and crannies of the tanks. Controlling leaks was one of the most time and labour consuming aspects of Concorde maintenance, to get in and seal some of the smaller tanks was challenging to say the least, and some pretty small chappies were required for some of the tank areas.
I still remember that when we were building Concorde, this idiot of a production manager at Filton (the same one that was responsible for the debacle of G-BOAD sitting on her tail) insisted that the fuel tanks were filled with fuel as soon as the tanks were completed, whether the sealant was dry or not. I still wonder how much of the in-service leak maladies could be directly attributed to him.
Dude
Come on Rog, let's not be silly now. I was not 'upset', and you can use the 'T' word any time you feel that you need to lad. It's just that you used a very poor example to use when, I don't know what your point was anyway, comparing Concorde with any other aeroplane.
The J58 powerplant design for the SR-71 is superb, and considering the early 1960's era that it was developed, was nothing short of astounding.
For Mach 3 cruise air is bypassed around the engine core and fed staright into the afterburner duct, where it supplied the afterburner directly. Still a remarkable design though, even now.
Quote:
| While mentioning the SR71, a striking image of them - to me anyway - was of the streams of fuel, leaking from every seam of the fuselage immediately following in-flight refuelling. These apparently 'sealed up' when she expanded in supersonic flight. How did Concorde avoid this rather startling phenomenon? |
I still remember that when we were building Concorde, this idiot of a production manager at Filton (the same one that was responsible for the debacle of G-BOAD sitting on her tail) insisted that the fuel tanks were filled with fuel as soon as the tanks were completed, whether the sealant was dry or not. I still wonder how much of the in-service leak maladies could be directly attributed to him.
Dude
24th Nov 2010, 18:55
permalink Post: 766
islander539
,
We ARE concerned, actually, and for the moment I don't think there is another thread on PPRuNe dealing with it.
I quote from your link:
"Mark Stewart, from Airbus, said: ....
"But the aircraft will return to its outdoor exhibition space sometime in the spring, and remain there until it moves to a new home.""
While the maintenance was indeed due, this seems to be an outright lie, so far.
After the maintenance, which will mainly consists of removing insulation that acts as a sponge for humidity, causing mould and corrosion, the aircraft is to be 'cocooned' (read: taped-off and sealed),and will be parked outside until the 'Concorde Trust' comes up with the money for a permanent museum.
Tough for the people who lost their job, deeply disheartening for the many volunteers who put their time in to show the aircraft to the public.
And a loss to us all... Alpha Fox at Filton was one of the excellent exhibits in the UK (been there, know the people concerned...).
CJ
We ARE concerned, actually, and for the moment I don't think there is another thread on PPRuNe dealing with it.
I quote from your link:
"Mark Stewart, from Airbus, said: ....
"But the aircraft will return to its outdoor exhibition space sometime in the spring, and remain there until it moves to a new home.""
While the maintenance was indeed due, this seems to be an outright lie, so far.
After the maintenance, which will mainly consists of removing insulation that acts as a sponge for humidity, causing mould and corrosion, the aircraft is to be 'cocooned' (read: taped-off and sealed),and will be parked outside until the 'Concorde Trust' comes up with the money for a permanent museum.
Tough for the people who lost their job, deeply disheartening for the many volunteers who put their time in to show the aircraft to the public.
And a loss to us all... Alpha Fox at Filton was one of the excellent exhibits in the UK (been there, know the people concerned...).
CJ
26th Nov 2010, 08:47
permalink Post: 781
speedbirdconcorde
Yes we did, just a couple if I remember correctly and relatively minor failures at that. (Regular ultrasonic NDT inspections had been instigated to pre-empt these failures from actually occuring). New elevon purchases were rightly seen to be the answer to the problem; the poorly designed trailing edge extension modifications of the late 1970's were as was said before, the source of these failures, due to moisture ingress in the honeycombe structure).
Mr Vortex
As has been posted previously, there was a small NACA duct on the right hand side of the fin, that provided the air source for fuel tank pressurisation. This pressure was controlled to 1.5 PSIG.
This switch operated two valves that would drain out any residual fuel for maintenance (for example, replacing a vent valve); it was not used very often however.
Islander539 and ChristiaanJ
The actions of Airbus at Filton are nothing short of disgusting. By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels). They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde', what total
crap
!!
The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. The reasons that scarebus are giving for all this are vague and misleading, but here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, nomatter how unlikely, from being progressed. So we have G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition (she's suffered from being outside for 7 years, but nothing terminal) and actually in the hands of the dreaded scarebus (who would rather forget that Concorde ever existed, and was almost certainly the reason why they even noe exist). Doesn't take much working out now, does it?
Dude
Quote:
|
Regarding the rather important role of the elevons on Concorde
where there any failures during her time in the skies ?
|
Mr Vortex
Quote:
|
I've just wonder that does the Concorde use a surge tank or
some a kind of a NACA duct like on B737 for pressurize the fuel in a tank? |
Quote:
Also, in Concorde F/E panel around the fuel control panel there're switch call trim pipe drain switch. Which I tried to read and figure it out but finally I don't know what it actually do
and in which circumstance do we need to use it
|
Islander539 and ChristiaanJ
The actions of Airbus at Filton are nothing short of disgusting. By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels). They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde', what total
crap
!!
The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. The reasons that scarebus are giving for all this are vague and misleading, but here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, nomatter how unlikely, from being progressed. So we have G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition (she's suffered from being outside for 7 years, but nothing terminal) and actually in the hands of the dreaded scarebus (who would rather forget that Concorde ever existed, and was almost certainly the reason why they even noe exist). Doesn't take much working out now, does it?
Dude
26th Nov 2010, 15:56
permalink Post: 787
Just some notes on the side.
With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin.
This is nothing new.
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available.
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.
I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures.
My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.
To be exact, 18,257 hours and 5,639 supersonic cycles
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.
In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.
Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.
CJ
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
...By 'removing the insulation' you will need to strip the cabin completely bare (seats, galleys, ceiling panels and all of the side-wall panels).
|
Quote:
| They say that 'Filton was only ever going to be an interim home for Concorde'. |
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
Quote:
| The idea is to 'cocoon' the aircraft 'until a permanent home is found'. I hope all readers here realise that this will involve BREAKING UP THE AIRFRAME to make it road transportable. |
Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport.
Quote:
| The reasons....here's my take. There are pressures around from various people and bodies 'to return a British Concorde to flying condition.' Now a lot (NOT ALL) of these people although very well intentioned are not that well informed and their wishes are not reasonably possible. But the pressures exist nonetheless, and scarebus will do anything to prevent this possibility, no matter how unlikely, from being progressed. |
My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years.
Quote:
| G-BOAF, the youngest Concorde in the world, with the lowest airframe hours, in pretty good structural condition... |
As noted in another post, not the lowest, but a lot less than the 23,000+ hours of G-BOAD and G-BOAE.
In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC).
At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight.
Nowadays of course this is pretty irrelevant since any aircraft after seven years outside would need a 'Major' overhaul at the very least .
And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure.
CJ
27th Nov 2010, 09:02
permalink Post: 790
ChristiaanJ
With respect my friend that is utter codswallop. You can doubt things all you want, they've already said that they would remove it all; that by definition means all the cabin side-walls, galleys and roof panels, as well as the underfloor areas. When G-BBDG (202) was cocooned at Filton they did just that, and
the only intact part of the interior left was the flight deck!!
Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people
Total crap I'm afraid Christian. You can doubt it all you want; you're entitled to your opinions as we all are here. But the fact remains that there is a certain producer of airframes in Europe that has come out with nothing but lies and deceit with regard to Concorde, since early 2003, and it continues to do so to this day. (Guesses anyone?) You conveniently seem to forget that it was
scarebus themselves
who unilaterally closed the Concorde Filton exhibit...'for maintenace' ..
YET ANOTHER TOTAL PACK OF LIES!!
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying
about Concorde pressures, they
JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!!
And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.
Big deal, she needed a C Check. Unlike in France, a Concorde major (D check) here did not take over a year to complete, and an inter could be in and out of the shed in a couple of months. Oh, and the check was completed correctly and thoroughly.
I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).
Dude
Quote:
| With the lack of comm from Airbus, of course we don't know the details, but I would have thought the problem is essentially the under-floor insulation, the same that causes the musty smell in the Fox-Charlie cockpit. If so, I doubt they'd bother to strip the cabin. |
Quote:
| At present, the 'permanent home' is planned to be at Cribb's Causeway, where land is already available. Since this is only just on the other side of Filton airfield, so far there is no question of breaking up the airframe, or road transport. |
Unfortunately, this lot have a habit of talking with forked tongue as far as Concorde goes; you can not in any way be sure about this, and we should really stop believing everything that this lot in Toulouse tell us . (Recent history here has taught us this all too well, and nothing would please scarebus more than there to be no reminders of Concorde at all on the airfield at Filton). More to the point, there is absolutely no certainty that the Cribb's Causeway site will ever be built anyway, you just can NOT say that the airframe will not ne broken up for road transportation, because if she does go to another museum in the absence of the Cribb's Causeway site being built, that will DEFINATELY happen. But at least we now have another 'written off' British Concorde; I guess this fact obviously pleases some people
Quote:
| I doubt this.... The "pressures" from these bodies and people consist only of noises on internet forums and in the press. As long as BA (as the owner), Airbus (as the current 'guardian' and legacy manufacturer) and the CAA (as the regulatory body) say "NO", Airbus knows perfectly well it'll never happen, pressures or no pressures. My own take is simply, that they're fed up with a Concorde on their site, that their early 'enthusiasts' who campaigned for 'A Concorde at Filton' have now left, and that it's now Airbus exerting pressure on the Concorde Trust and other bodies to provide that 'permanent home' they've been talking about for years. |
And as far as responding to pressures; They could not give a flying
about Concorde pressures, they
JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW!!
And yes they are fed up with Concorde.. poor dears. Perhaps OAF should never have gone to Filton in the first place; The continuing thought of Filton bending over backwards to please it's French masters makes one want to throw up. The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.
Quote:
| In 2003, the issue with G-BOAF was that she was almost 'out of hours', with only a few hours left until the next big overhaul (an 'Inter', IIRC). At the time, this was the reason why G-BOAF did not partake to the full extent in the flying during the last months, so as to have a few hours 'spare' for the last few flights, and of course the final flight. |
Quote:
| And that's another reason why Airbus wouldn't be bothered by those "pressures" mentioned earlier... they know perfectly well nobody is going to come up with the \xa3100M +++ to re-create the necessary infrastructure. |
I tend to agree with the RTF point, the \xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3\xa3's involved are generally prohibitive and it will probably never happen, but you and I have been in aviation long enough to realise that nothing is impossible. (At least not this side of the Channel). All aircraft left outside in the elements are obviously going to suffer, and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements. (Only OAC in Manchester and OAE in BGI are now finally cared for under cover, the poor old 'wing clipped' OAA in Edinburgh does not really count). This ridiculous fact is is a source of both wonder and ANGER in the minds of most Concorde people in the UK. (Makes me sick personally!!).
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 27th Nov 2010 at 14:21 .
28th Nov 2010, 21:23
permalink Post: 801
You and I both would love to see more of this video material, as you say it is totally priceless. I have no clue where most of it resides (if any is held by Airbus at Filton, then we are all screwed. It is possible I suppose that Rolls Royce might have some though; I'll have to check). But generally, I am afraid if I need any video material for lectures etc. my sources are invariably YouTube or my Great Uncle Google.
Regards
Dude
Regards
Dude
28th Nov 2010, 22:52
permalink Post: 802
speedbirdconcorde
,
M2dude
,
Ever been involved with movie making, even on the sideline?
For every minute, there's usually another thirty minutes or so of "takes".
Most of them end up straight in the bin (or the "cutting room floor", to use that ancient expression), either because they're similar but not quite as good, or because something went wrong.
Only rare samples get saved.... there's a great photo of the shadow of the Lear Jet on a Concorde, that's still around.
Still, I think there's more around than we think... I just discovered "Concorde -The World's Greatest Airliner', a DVD still on sale at the "Concorde at Filton" website, with 'stuff' I'd never seen before.
Personally, I still wonder....
"Airport 79 -Concorde" was a totally rubbishy movie.
But, in 1979, special effects and computer-generated images were still primitive, so a lot of the actual air-to-air, and in particular the low flying in the "Alps" (in reality the Pyr\xe9n\xe9es) is real, flown by French test pilot Jean Franchi.
One of the scenes in the film involves a looping (!) to evade a missile.
Franchi suggested to replace this with a barrel roll , which he'd already performed repeatedly with a Concorde.
Sadly, his suggestion wasn't taken up by the producer, and the movie still has the improbable "loop-the-loop".
But, the question will remain forever....
Did Jean Franchi ever perform one of his barrel rolls in front of the Lear Jet, to show what it would look like?
And is any of that footage still stored somewhere?
I still dream....
CJ
Ever been involved with movie making, even on the sideline?
For every minute, there's usually another thirty minutes or so of "takes".
Most of them end up straight in the bin (or the "cutting room floor", to use that ancient expression), either because they're similar but not quite as good, or because something went wrong.
Only rare samples get saved.... there's a great photo of the shadow of the Lear Jet on a Concorde, that's still around.
Still, I think there's more around than we think... I just discovered "Concorde -The World's Greatest Airliner', a DVD still on sale at the "Concorde at Filton" website, with 'stuff' I'd never seen before.
Personally, I still wonder....
"Airport 79 -Concorde" was a totally rubbishy movie.
But, in 1979, special effects and computer-generated images were still primitive, so a lot of the actual air-to-air, and in particular the low flying in the "Alps" (in reality the Pyr\xe9n\xe9es) is real, flown by French test pilot Jean Franchi.
One of the scenes in the film involves a looping (!) to evade a missile.
Franchi suggested to replace this with a barrel roll , which he'd already performed repeatedly with a Concorde.
Sadly, his suggestion wasn't taken up by the producer, and the movie still has the improbable "loop-the-loop".
But, the question will remain forever....
Did Jean Franchi ever perform one of his barrel rolls in front of the Lear Jet, to show what it would look like?
And is any of that footage still stored somewhere?
I still dream....
CJ
29th Nov 2010, 07:18
permalink Post: 805
Dozy Wannabe
I am afraid it is a case of 'go figure'. Recent history (as well as what is going on right now) shows that there is little interest in even caring for the aeroplane at Filton, let alone preserving her. Who built what is not the point here anyway.. When design and construction of the aircraft was carried out there were TWO airframe companies, A\xe9rospatiale and BAC. Now we just have Airbus, with virtually zero British input now. (Don't get me wrong, this is the fault of the British and not the French, we are the ones that threw everything away). I can not explain the attitude of Airbus to the aeroplane, it just remains a cold hard fact.... THEY ARE NOT
INTERESTED
We are all well aware that the disposal of the aircraft was the decision of the airlines thank you, I did know that.
Now like it or not, there really is a lot of anger behind the fact that no INTACT British aircraft has been stored under cover from the beginning, and only one of those aircraft in the UK itself is stored away from the elements. G-BOAC the oldest production Concorde in the world, is beautifully preserved and cared for in Manchester, which makes a hell of a contrast to G-BOAF, the YOUNGEST Concorde in the world at Filton. I am really sorry if all this discord saddens you, it pleases none of us I'm sure, but truth is often like that I'm afraid, we have to deal with it; a national disgrace.
There is also no point avoiding this truth as far as the ceasation of services goes, just because when you unravel the duplicity and deceit behind the happenings of 2003, you discover a sense of disgust and outrage on the part of the British Concorde community. Far from 'not making a blind bit of difference' it makes a huge amount of difference to where we are. I do agree that we should concentrate on celebrating this truly wonderful national icon (I do so every day), but we must not be afraid of looking at the history that has got us (the aeroplane) in the sorry state we are now.
Regards
Dude
I am afraid it is a case of 'go figure'. Recent history (as well as what is going on right now) shows that there is little interest in even caring for the aeroplane at Filton, let alone preserving her. Who built what is not the point here anyway.. When design and construction of the aircraft was carried out there were TWO airframe companies, A\xe9rospatiale and BAC. Now we just have Airbus, with virtually zero British input now. (Don't get me wrong, this is the fault of the British and not the French, we are the ones that threw everything away). I can not explain the attitude of Airbus to the aeroplane, it just remains a cold hard fact.... THEY ARE NOT
INTERESTED
We are all well aware that the disposal of the aircraft was the decision of the airlines thank you, I did know that.
Now like it or not, there really is a lot of anger behind the fact that no INTACT British aircraft has been stored under cover from the beginning, and only one of those aircraft in the UK itself is stored away from the elements. G-BOAC the oldest production Concorde in the world, is beautifully preserved and cared for in Manchester, which makes a hell of a contrast to G-BOAF, the YOUNGEST Concorde in the world at Filton. I am really sorry if all this discord saddens you, it pleases none of us I'm sure, but truth is often like that I'm afraid, we have to deal with it; a national disgrace.
There is also no point avoiding this truth as far as the ceasation of services goes, just because when you unravel the duplicity and deceit behind the happenings of 2003, you discover a sense of disgust and outrage on the part of the British Concorde community. Far from 'not making a blind bit of difference' it makes a huge amount of difference to where we are. I do agree that we should concentrate on celebrating this truly wonderful national icon (I do so every day), but we must not be afraid of looking at the history that has got us (the aeroplane) in the sorry state we are now.
Regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 29th Nov 2010 at 13:09 .
29th Nov 2010, 23:53
permalink Post: 819
I've got another question about the lady if I may. It was touched on before - about the deicing on her. Having watched a few Air Crash Investigation programs on TV (so, yes, completely NO knowledge about aircraft from any experience at all!), it seems that there are restrictions about how much ice can be on a wing and the aircraft still allowed to take off.
From what I've been told on concorde, how the wing was so radically different from subsonic craft, what limits were there for ice on her wings - was she as affected as other aircraft?
One other thing I was wondering about - how much of concorde is now still under the protection of patents / copyright etc? I suspect not much, as the information posted here is showing quite intimate parts - or are these all publicly available documents anyway? This isn't to question whether the information in this thread is in anyway secret - just wondering how much of the information about concorde is actually still under wraps and can't be told?
Lastly (its late!) is it actually possible for a supersonic aircraft to achieve *higher* fuel efficiency than subsonic aircraft? Only reason I ask is that with all the drag numbers quoted previously it seems that the fuel efficiency climbs higher the faster you go when above mach 1? Or am I just completely off-base with that?
Thanks for this WONDERFUL thread. I've had the wonderful opportunity to see G-BOAF at filton just before she closed, and just wish I still had the chance to fly on her. m2dude - if you have it within you to post your theories about why what happened in 2003, I'd love to hear it.
- DavvaP.
From what I've been told on concorde, how the wing was so radically different from subsonic craft, what limits were there for ice on her wings - was she as affected as other aircraft?
One other thing I was wondering about - how much of concorde is now still under the protection of patents / copyright etc? I suspect not much, as the information posted here is showing quite intimate parts - or are these all publicly available documents anyway? This isn't to question whether the information in this thread is in anyway secret - just wondering how much of the information about concorde is actually still under wraps and can't be told?
Lastly (its late!) is it actually possible for a supersonic aircraft to achieve *higher* fuel efficiency than subsonic aircraft? Only reason I ask is that with all the drag numbers quoted previously it seems that the fuel efficiency climbs higher the faster you go when above mach 1? Or am I just completely off-base with that?
Thanks for this WONDERFUL thread. I've had the wonderful opportunity to see G-BOAF at filton just before she closed, and just wish I still had the chance to fly on her. m2dude - if you have it within you to post your theories about why what happened in 2003, I'd love to hear it.
- DavvaP.
4th Dec 2010, 14:17
permalink Post: 833
This statement has been sent to Heritage Concorde by Airbus in the UK!
It's been place on my site, but I have also placed it on here so as many as possible will get a chance to read it.
Steve
\x93I am sure you will receive a lot of feedback regarding the aircraft and the maintenance work that needs to be performed. In the end, however, it comes down to one key point: the owner of the aircraft, British Airways, inspected its property, and determined that while the plane was in relatively good shape, these repairs are required. As such, the maintenance and preservation work will occur. I am sure you can agree, if the maintenance and repair did not occur, the plane would only degrade further.
Reference your source\x92s comments below:
It's been place on my site, but I have also placed it on here so as many as possible will get a chance to read it.
Steve
\x93I am sure you will receive a lot of feedback regarding the aircraft and the maintenance work that needs to be performed. In the end, however, it comes down to one key point: the owner of the aircraft, British Airways, inspected its property, and determined that while the plane was in relatively good shape, these repairs are required. As such, the maintenance and preservation work will occur. I am sure you can agree, if the maintenance and repair did not occur, the plane would only degrade further.
Reference your source\x92s comments below:
- Airbus at Filton, and its predecessor companies, have maintained aircraft for many years and have a highly trained and skilled workforce who understand aircraft and maintenance programs
- We have performed a visual inspection of the airframe each week since the aircraft arrived and latterly had become concerned over indications of corrosion (please do not refer to this as rust) such as blistering and cracking.
- The \x93holes in the fuselage\x94 were certainly not created for TV. Our job is to maintain the aircraft, not damage it. These holes are in fact the result of corrosion in some of the lower belly panels which have been further exposed as maintenance/preparation begins. The hole in the leading edge is old damage that has been temporarily and repeatedly patched continuously over the years. We are now performing a more permanent fix.
- There are 7 windows leaking in total, including one on the flight deck which must be resealed to prevent cracking. The failure to repair leaks will present a huge risk, especially during the winter period, as window glazings can crack due to the expansion of water as it freezes, and there are very few replacements available. \x93
21st Dec 2010, 11:47
permalink Post: 915
CliveL
At BA the ZFW & ZFCG were sent to the aircraft from Load Control via NOCARS
. Only joking folks, with no third VHF ACARS never happened, it was VHF verbal. On charters a despatcher would usually either fly with the aircraft or be positioned at the charter destination in order to make the load control calculations. My pilot buddies will confirm this I'm sure
(I seem to remember that in the early 90s we were looking to fit Concorde with ACARS, but when informally approached, Filton pleaded 'please, not another aerial position
'.... we had only just got over the TCAS installation issues you see).
... Oh, he was Vietnamese eh? And not LOOPY??????
tee hee, We are certainly living and learning here thanks Clive, keep on posting
.
Best Regards
Dude
At BA the ZFW & ZFCG were sent to the aircraft from Load Control via NOCARS
. Only joking folks, with no third VHF ACARS never happened, it was VHF verbal. On charters a despatcher would usually either fly with the aircraft or be positioned at the charter destination in order to make the load control calculations. My pilot buddies will confirm this I'm sure
(I seem to remember that in the early 90s we were looking to fit Concorde with ACARS, but when informally approached, Filton pleaded 'please, not another aerial position
'.... we had only just got over the TCAS installation issues you see).
... Oh, he was Vietnamese eh? And not LOOPY??????
tee hee, We are certainly living and learning here thanks Clive, keep on posting
.
Best Regards
Dude
23rd Dec 2010, 08:39
permalink Post: 960
Flexure and stuff
EXWOK
Clive, I think we need your help here. I was also told, both while I was at Fairford and during one of my two ground school courses at Filton in the early 80s, that the lateral stiffeners (underneath the wing just inboard of the Rib 12 area) were added to reduce outer wing flexure and in themselves gave us a performance penalty. Can you shed any light Clive?
Best regards
Dude
Quote:
| - the whole aeroflexing of the 'A' tanks thing was something mentioned during ground school on my conversion course; I may have misunderstood or it may have been less than accurate info. |
Best regards
Dude