19th Aug 2010, 11:16
permalink Post: 25
Biggles78
Stupid, you? no way!! (Besides, I'm Mr Stupid of the aviation world, that's my title
). The thing is, out here in the world of flying machines, there are almost an infinite number of questions (and hopefully answers too). This applies to just about all aircraft from the Wright Flyer up!!.
Keep asking away, there are so many of us Concorde 'nuts' out here who are more than happy to help out/bore the socks off you.
Fuel burns: The problem was that when flying slow/taxying, Concorde was an extreme gas guzzler, even when idling each engine burnt around 1.1 tonnes/hour (so every 15 minutes after push back meant over a tonne gone). A typical taxi fuel would be around 1.4/1.5 tonnes, depending on the runway in use on the day. I'd have to leave it to some of my pilot/F/E friends to remember some of the specific fuel burns after take off etc, but I can at least give you some interesting consumption figures:
At the beginning of the take off roll, each engine would be burning around 21 tonnes/hour. (Made up of around 12 T/Hr dry fuel (Fe) and 9T/Hr afterburner (reheat to us Brits) fuel (Fr). As Fr was scheduled against Fe, as a function of inlet total temp (T1) by the time V2 was reached (around 220 KTS) the rising T1 has pushed the total fuel flow (Ft) up to a staggering 25 tonnes/hour/engine. As i've pointed out before in previous topics, although the afterburner only gave us a 17% improvement in take off thrust, it was responsible for around an 80% hike in fuel burn. (Hence that is whay it was only used sparingly). However when reheat was used for transonic acceleration, it used a dramatically reduced schedule (roughly a 60% rise in fuel flow) , so it was not quite as scary. The afterburner would be lit at the commencement of the acceleration (0.96 Mach) and cancelled completely at 1.7 Mach. After this time the aircraft would accelerate on dry power only up to mach 2 and beyond. (The cooler the temperature the quicker the time to Mach 2). On an ISA+ day, it sometimes felt that the aircraft was flying through cold porridge, and could take quite a while to get to Mach 2 after reaheat cancellation, where as on a nice ISA - day, she would go like a bat out of hell, and the AFCS would have to jump in to prevent overspeeds.
Before I hit some more numbers, let me say that with Concorde, TOC = TOD!! After reheat cancellation at Mach 1.7, the aircraft would be at FL 430. The aircraft would climb at an IAS of 530 KTS until Mach 2 was reached at fractionally over FL500. From then on the aircraft would cruise/climb as fuel was burnt, up to a maximum of FL600. On warmish days (eg. the North Atlantic) TOD would typically be around FL570-580. On a cool day (the lowes temperatures would of course be reached in the more tropical regions; the LGR-BGI sector encountered this), FL 600 would be reached easily and she would love to climb some more. BUT, the aircaft was only certificated to 60,000' with passengers onboard, for decompression emergency descent time reasons, and so we were stuck with it. The pity is of course, the fuel burn would have been improved, but we never were able to take advantage of this. On test flights however, the aircraft would routinely zoom climb to FL 630. On her maiden flight, aircaft 208 (G-BOAB) reached an altitude of 65000'; the highest recorded Concorde altitude was on one of the French development aircraft, which achieved 68,000'. On a technical point, the analog ADC's were 'only' calibrated to 65,000'.
Anyway, back to some figues; at Mach 2, 50,000', the typical fuel burn per engine would be around 5 tonnes/hour, falling to around 4.2 tonnes/hour at 60,000'.
THE NOSE You are quite correct in your assumption, there were two positions of droop: 5 deg's for taxi/take-off and low speed flight and 12.5 deg's for landing. The glazed visor retracted into the nose and could ONLY be raised once the nose was fully up, and had to be stowed before the nose could move down. There were 2 emergency nose lowering sysyems; one using stby (Yellow) hydraulics and a free-fall system. Free-fall would drop the nose all the way to 12.5 deg's, the visor free falling into the nose also.
Stupid, you? no way!! (Besides, I'm Mr Stupid of the aviation world, that's my title
). The thing is, out here in the world of flying machines, there are almost an infinite number of questions (and hopefully answers too). This applies to just about all aircraft from the Wright Flyer up!!.
Keep asking away, there are so many of us Concorde 'nuts' out here who are more than happy to help out/bore the socks off you.
Fuel burns: The problem was that when flying slow/taxying, Concorde was an extreme gas guzzler, even when idling each engine burnt around 1.1 tonnes/hour (so every 15 minutes after push back meant over a tonne gone). A typical taxi fuel would be around 1.4/1.5 tonnes, depending on the runway in use on the day. I'd have to leave it to some of my pilot/F/E friends to remember some of the specific fuel burns after take off etc, but I can at least give you some interesting consumption figures:
At the beginning of the take off roll, each engine would be burning around 21 tonnes/hour. (Made up of around 12 T/Hr dry fuel (Fe) and 9T/Hr afterburner (reheat to us Brits) fuel (Fr). As Fr was scheduled against Fe, as a function of inlet total temp (T1) by the time V2 was reached (around 220 KTS) the rising T1 has pushed the total fuel flow (Ft) up to a staggering 25 tonnes/hour/engine. As i've pointed out before in previous topics, although the afterburner only gave us a 17% improvement in take off thrust, it was responsible for around an 80% hike in fuel burn. (Hence that is whay it was only used sparingly). However when reheat was used for transonic acceleration, it used a dramatically reduced schedule (roughly a 60% rise in fuel flow) , so it was not quite as scary. The afterburner would be lit at the commencement of the acceleration (0.96 Mach) and cancelled completely at 1.7 Mach. After this time the aircraft would accelerate on dry power only up to mach 2 and beyond. (The cooler the temperature the quicker the time to Mach 2). On an ISA+ day, it sometimes felt that the aircraft was flying through cold porridge, and could take quite a while to get to Mach 2 after reaheat cancellation, where as on a nice ISA - day, she would go like a bat out of hell, and the AFCS would have to jump in to prevent overspeeds.
Before I hit some more numbers, let me say that with Concorde, TOC = TOD!! After reheat cancellation at Mach 1.7, the aircraft would be at FL 430. The aircraft would climb at an IAS of 530 KTS until Mach 2 was reached at fractionally over FL500. From then on the aircraft would cruise/climb as fuel was burnt, up to a maximum of FL600. On warmish days (eg. the North Atlantic) TOD would typically be around FL570-580. On a cool day (the lowes temperatures would of course be reached in the more tropical regions; the LGR-BGI sector encountered this), FL 600 would be reached easily and she would love to climb some more. BUT, the aircaft was only certificated to 60,000' with passengers onboard, for decompression emergency descent time reasons, and so we were stuck with it. The pity is of course, the fuel burn would have been improved, but we never were able to take advantage of this. On test flights however, the aircraft would routinely zoom climb to FL 630. On her maiden flight, aircaft 208 (G-BOAB) reached an altitude of 65000'; the highest recorded Concorde altitude was on one of the French development aircraft, which achieved 68,000'. On a technical point, the analog ADC's were 'only' calibrated to 65,000'.
Anyway, back to some figues; at Mach 2, 50,000', the typical fuel burn per engine would be around 5 tonnes/hour, falling to around 4.2 tonnes/hour at 60,000'.
THE NOSE You are quite correct in your assumption, there were two positions of droop: 5 deg's for taxi/take-off and low speed flight and 12.5 deg's for landing. The glazed visor retracted into the nose and could ONLY be raised once the nose was fully up, and had to be stowed before the nose could move down. There were 2 emergency nose lowering sysyems; one using stby (Yellow) hydraulics and a free-fall system. Free-fall would drop the nose all the way to 12.5 deg's, the visor free falling into the nose also.
Last edited by M2dude; 19th Aug 2010 at 12:40 . Reason: mistooks
20th Sep 2010, 17:48
permalink Post: 429
G-BOAB
I've been driving to Hatton Cross past TBA recently. AB has been released from the engine run pen and parked outside what was, in the past, the Conc maintenance hangar. I have to say that she's a credit to whoever is looking after her - considerably cleaner than the blunties I now fly for a day-job.
And it still looks like the future, not the past.
I must say it makes getting into Mr Boeing's (admittedly very nice) aeroplane seem deadly dull in comparison. Ah well........
And it still looks like the future, not the past.
I must say it makes getting into Mr Boeing's (admittedly very nice) aeroplane seem deadly dull in comparison. Ah well........
30th Sep 2010, 13:58
permalink Post: 499
Concorde Trivia Quiz.. The Answers
As promised here are the answers to our trivia quiz.
Actually there were 14 (but if you are not necessarily a Concorde person, 13 is acceptable). There were '13 fuel tanks, numbered 1 - 11' as we used to tell all the visitors to the aircraft, (The wingtip tanks 5A & 7A making up the extra 2) PLUS a single small
scavenge tank
at the rear of the aircraft that was used to remove fuel from the vent lines and return this fuel via a transfer pump back to tank 3. (A fuel level sensor would trigger the pump with only 1 US Gallon of fuel in the tank). If the trim gallery became over-pressurised (ie tank 3 already full to the brim) an overflow relief valve (ORV) underneath the rear of the aircraft would open and dump the contents of the tank overboard. There was a flight deck indication if the scavenge pump was running in flight to give the crew an indication that a tank somewhere was probably over-filling and to take the appropriate action. There was one added goody about the ORV; If you were on the ground with the refuel door open and due to a refuelling overfill anywhere, fuel entered the scavenge tank, at 7 gallons the ORV would open and rapidly dump the fuel on the floor. For this reason a vent pipe and fuel drum was often placed underneath the ORV during high load refuels. If this was not fitted and you just happened to walk underneath the aircraft at the wrong moment during fuelling........
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
This is the stinker.... there were 114 (although at entry into service there were 115!!). 100 passenger seats + 6 cabin crew seats + 5 flight deck seats (including the fold up seat in the aisle at the rear) PLUS 3 LOO SEATS (Originally 4 loos, the fourth loo being removed in the early 1980's).
50,189' and 530 KEAS, but we'll settle for anything around FL500 being correct.
Aircraft 216, G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built. When 216 first flew in 1979 she was a variant 192 'British Unsold Aircraft' and was registered as G-BFKX. In late 1979, BA purchased the aircraft and it was subsequently converted to a Type 102 British Airways variant, and after modifications were complete, test flights were carried out from Filton under the registration of G-N94AF. This registration was to enable the aircraft to participate in the Braniff interchange between IAD and DFW, but when the Braniff Concorde adventure unfortunately ended in 1980, she was again re-registered to G-BOAF, this is how she was delivered to BA later that year.
Easy one this I hope; 60.000'. (As we've said before this limitation was imposed because of the dual window failure / emergency descent time consideration, not as a performance issue. On test flights 63,000' was routinely attained, and altitudes of up to 68,000' were achieved during development flying. (On her maiden flight, G-BOAB achieved 65,000' and Mach 2.04; the first British constructed Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight, and the ONLY one of the original five BA aircraft to achieve this).
Hopefully an easy one... there were TWELVE: 2 nose wheels, 8 main wheels and 2 tail wheels. (No, even I'm not nasty enough to include the wheels on the bar trolleys
). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Three modes; Blue electronic signalling, green electronic signalling and mechanical signalling. I suppose we COULD be pedantic here and include the Emergency Flight Control mode where even with a jammed control column/control wheel, strain gauges (and Safety Flight Control Computers of course) would still enable you to control the elevons.
OK, three basically. Up (Duh!), 5 degrees for taxi/take off and low speed flight and 12.5 degrees for landing. As ChristiaanJ quite rightly pointed out in an earlier post, the prototype (and pre-production) aircraft landing position was 17.5 degrees of droop. (In my view the nose of the aircraft looked a little like an armadillo in this extreme configuration).
In 1977 the new digital Plessey PVS 1580 Aircraft Integrated Data System was progressively fitted to the BA fleet, this being the first microprocessor application on Concorde, this application being followed in several other systems during the life of the aircraft. The 'final' applications being TCAS and the superb retrofitted Bendix RDR-4A weather radar system.
No we are not including torch batteries and emergency lights etc.
There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).
I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.
Dude
Quote:
| 1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde? |
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
Quote:
| 2) How many seats were there? |
Quote:
| 3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved? |
Quote:
| 4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it? |
Quote:
| 5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service? |
Quote:
| 6) How many wheels on the aircraft |
). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Quote:
| 7) How many flying control modes were there? |
Quote:
| 8) How many positions of nose droop were there? |
Quote:
| 9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft? |
Quote:
| 10) How many main electrical sources were there? |
There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).
I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.
Dude
16th Oct 2010, 20:45
permalink Post: 578
OAB11D
Not posting any answers here yet, but you've done very well, SLF or not. I am sure that I speak for all of 'us' when I say that your input is more than welcome here, as are you sir. From your screen name I assume you once flew in 11D on G-BOAB?
You might want to look again at my wording for the 'destinations' question #2, it said British CONSTRUCTED aircraft. (I apreciate that once the G was covered over in IAD the aircraft became American registered).
Dude
Not posting any answers here yet, but you've done very well, SLF or not. I am sure that I speak for all of 'us' when I say that your input is more than welcome here, as are you sir. From your screen name I assume you once flew in 11D on G-BOAB?
You might want to look again at my wording for the 'destinations' question #2, it said British CONSTRUCTED aircraft. (I apreciate that once the G was covered over in IAD the aircraft became American registered).
Dude
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
.
8th Feb 2011, 17:49
permalink Post: 1183
"Project Rocket"
I understand that British Airways used G-BOAB to test the new \x93Project Rocket\x94 toilets designs. What about the new galleys that were also part of \x93Project Rocket\x94, where they ever fitted to G-BOAB, and does anyone have any pictures or drawings of these galleys?
21st Feb 2011, 21:13
permalink Post: 1195
steve-de-s
Steve, I remember that OAB was fitted with the new loos and part of the new galley. They tested the new vacuum loos with DOG FOOD (no I don't know the brand
) and as far as I recall 'the suckers' worked as advertised.
The plan was that OAB would test fly the new loos and galleys, but that was before the nasty little greasy assassins got their way and OAB (and OAA) never got the RTF as well as the frame 72 modifications.
Best regards
Dude
Quote:
| I understand that British Airways used G-BOAB to test the new \x93Project Rocket\x94 toilets designs. What about the new galleys that were also part of \x93Project Rocket\x94, where they ever fitted to G-BOAB, and does anyone have any pictures or drawings of these galleys? |
) and as far as I recall 'the suckers' worked as advertised.
The plan was that OAB would test fly the new loos and galleys, but that was before the nasty little greasy assassins got their way and OAB (and OAA) never got the RTF as well as the frame 72 modifications.
Best regards
Dude
22nd Feb 2011, 18:31
permalink Post: 1199
Quote:
|
I understand that British Airways used G-BOAB to test the new \x93Project Rocket\x94 toilets designs. What about the new galleys that were also part of \x93Project Rocket\x94, where they ever fitted to G-BOAB, and does anyone have any pictures or drawings of these galleys?
|
Mr. Marilake
1st Mar 2011, 09:34
permalink Post: 1224
gordonroxburgh
Just looking at some old 202 pictures Gordon and by golly you are right. Could have sworn it was a 202 (DG) robbery but it obviously it was not. The plot thickens. (I do remember that we had a hell of a job getting hold of this electroluminescent panel for OAD, hence the memory).
It's not really an issue of technology, more one of utter annoyance. The regular passengers really would not want this nonsense, and nomatter what way you looked at it, it looked totally out of place and was a total waste of space. (Let alone weight). As I said before, it was all about 'emperor's new clothes' with certain people at the time'. (The rest of us saw it for what it was, blue hogwash).
steve-de-s
I think you will find that it was G-BOAB, during ground evaluation testing Steve. Fortunately Concorde never flew in service with any of this wavy blue ceiling crap.
Best Regards
Dude
Quote:
| 'Dg still has her original fitted. It was not the same indicator, simply a 5deg lock indicator and a switch (poss wiper park). I wonder where this one came from! |
Quote:
| The blue wave looked impressive with the cabin lights off, crap and tacky with them on. What would have been better was a new 787 style, LED lighting system on the aircraft, but that level of technology was not yet developed properly in 2000 |
steve-de-s
Quote:
| I first saw this video a few months ago, which aircraft was it filmed on? |
Best Regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 1st Mar 2011 at 09:50 .
23rd Apr 2011, 09:13
permalink Post: 1316
CliveL
(And ChristiaanJ)
Sure can Clive. These are the BA 5102 numbers, Air France 5101 numbers were corespondingly identical chronologically.: G-BOAC - 5102-01. G-BOAA - 5102-02. G-BOAB - 5102-03. G-BOAD - 5102-04. G-BOAE - 5102-05. Although G-BOAG (G-BFKW) and G-BOAF (G-BFKX) were originally Variant 192 (British Unsold) aircraft, these correspondingly became 5102-06 and 5102-07. I wonder if anyone here remembers G-BOAF doing her pre-delivery flying at Filton registered as G-N91AF? I remember when I was at Filton doing one of my Concorde type courses in 1980, and there was good old Foxy Lady with her 'Branniff' registration. She was
re
-re-registered
to G-BOAF prior to delivery to BA.
The Component 30 skin thickness issue was not relevant for
RELIFE 2
; you and I know that the major 'skin' issue here was the centre fuselage crown area. The issue of Component 30 was a 201/202 issue only. (Assuming that the French had the need/desire/capability of adding another airframe to their fleet.
And sorry everyone about the \xa330 cost of converting 202 into an airliner, I meant (dumb ass that I am) \xa330 MILLION.
Best regards
Dude
Quote:
| Dude, can I join Christiaan in requesting more information on that '5000' series numbering; I have never come across it before. |
to G-BOAF prior to delivery to BA.
Quote:
| Also, I have asked the CAA surveyor who was most likely to have made that reskinning decision for more data. Perhaps he can remember the problem with the forward fuselage skins. Certainly when we were standing together inside 102 last week and talking about fuselage modifications for relifing the aircraft the problem of Component 30 was not mentioned! |
And sorry everyone about the \xa330 cost of converting 202 into an airliner, I meant (dumb ass that I am) \xa330 MILLION.
Best regards
Dude
11th May 2011, 06:13
permalink Post: 1361
Quote:
| G-BOAB is slowly becoming the "forgotten" Concorde. |
12th May 2011, 10:18
permalink Post: 1362
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
You would not wind up on the brakes either, the carbon brakes were extremely sensitive to overtorquing.
|
13th May 2011, 11:55
permalink Post: 1363
Club Concorde
seems very bullish about its plan to moor G-BOAB in the Thames outside the London Eye. I asked around the office here (just down the river in Southwark); nearly everyone thought it was a fabulous idea.
13th May 2011, 16:13
permalink Post: 1364
Quax .95
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks?
What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels.
Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks.
tristar 500
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks?
What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels.
Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks.
tristar 500
13th May 2011, 17:44
permalink Post: 1366
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
tristar 500
Quax .95
Looking at the pic of G-BOAB in the detuner brings me to the question how they performed the run-up. No brakes, just chocks? What makes you think they would not have any brakes?? When performing any engine runs always set the brakes & chock the wheels. Just think back to the A340 that was written off in France when the brakes were released & the aircraft jumped the chocks. tristar 500 |
The question is less odd than it seems....
With full take-off power plus reheat, Concorde could not be held on brakes alone (hence the various procedures at take-off).
Maybe somebody has the full story.... in the light of chocks being less than perfect....
CJ
17th May 2011, 06:26
permalink Post: 1368
I was at Heathrow on last Sunday, 15th May; G-BOAB is still in the location detailed by Heritage Concorde. Also I can confirm that the detuner where you can see G-BOAB parked in the other picture, has now been completely demolished.
13th Aug 2011, 12:00
permalink Post: 1427
Filton
Save Bristol\x92s Concorde and the Brabazon Hangar
The Brabazon Hangar dominates the south side of Filton Airfield. During the 1960s it became the home of the UK Concorde production line, but Concorde wasn\x92t the first aircraft to be built within this amazing structure.
The hangar was originally built during the 1940s to enable the construction of the massive Bristol Aircraft Company\x92s type 167, which is better known as the Brabazon and hence this is where the name of the hangar came from . This giant airliner aircraft had a 230ft wingspan, and was powered by eight pair-coupled Bristol Centaurus piston engines and was Britain\x92s attempt at a non-stop trans-Atlantic airliner.
The prototype flew in 1949 six years and \xa33 million after the conception, and sadly the aircraft was already obsolete. The British de Havilland Comet jet-powered airliner was already well on the way and on the other side of the Atlantic, Boeing were developing their 707, and both of these would fly faster and carry more passengers than the Brabazon The prototype flew for a short while and a second turboprop-powered prototype (Brabazon II) was being built when the project was abandoned. Both aircraft were subsequently broken up in 1953.
With the demise of the Brabazon project Bristol was then left with one of the largest aircraft production facilities in Europe and therefore the giant Brabazon hangars were put to other uses, these included being used for the production line for the much more successful Bristol Britannia airliner.
But the Brabazon hangar has become more famous today as the birthplace of all the British built Concordes, ten airframes were built there, one prototype known as 002, one pre-production known as 01, one development production known as Delta Golf, and of course the seven airliner production airframes detailed below\x85
G-BOAA
G-BOAB
G-BOAC
G-BOAD
G-BOAE
G-BOAF
G-BOAG
Concorde 216 G-BOAF was the last Concorde built anywhere in the world, and of course the very last one to fly in November 2003. During her final flight she flew back to her birthplace, to Filton to form a major part of a new planned Bristol aviation museum. The plan was to house the whole of the Bristol Aviation Collection, known as the BAC, in one building, a centre to celebrate Bristol\x92s incredible aviation history, and let\x92s not forget that Bristol led the world.
But like so many things in this fast changing world, ideas and directions soon change and as in this case not for the better.
Heritage Concorde has heard of one idea that it wishes to push forward with anyone who would be willing to work alongside the group. With next years closure of Filton airfield, one incredible heritage building stands at risk of being ripped down and lost forever, the Brabazon Hangar. So why not use this building as the centre of the history of Bristol aviation and space industry, and in memory of the man who started it all, Sir George White. It\x92s large enough to form one of the most incredible museums in the world; it would be able to house the whole BAC collection with Concorde 216 at the centre, where she was built.
This idea needs to be looked into and not dismissed so easily by the people leading the effort for the new museum. Heritage Concorde will start to develop this idea further.
Any ideas, any offer of help or advice???
Steve de Sausmarez
The Brabazon Hangar dominates the south side of Filton Airfield. During the 1960s it became the home of the UK Concorde production line, but Concorde wasn\x92t the first aircraft to be built within this amazing structure.
The hangar was originally built during the 1940s to enable the construction of the massive Bristol Aircraft Company\x92s type 167, which is better known as the Brabazon and hence this is where the name of the hangar came from . This giant airliner aircraft had a 230ft wingspan, and was powered by eight pair-coupled Bristol Centaurus piston engines and was Britain\x92s attempt at a non-stop trans-Atlantic airliner.
The prototype flew in 1949 six years and \xa33 million after the conception, and sadly the aircraft was already obsolete. The British de Havilland Comet jet-powered airliner was already well on the way and on the other side of the Atlantic, Boeing were developing their 707, and both of these would fly faster and carry more passengers than the Brabazon The prototype flew for a short while and a second turboprop-powered prototype (Brabazon II) was being built when the project was abandoned. Both aircraft were subsequently broken up in 1953.
With the demise of the Brabazon project Bristol was then left with one of the largest aircraft production facilities in Europe and therefore the giant Brabazon hangars were put to other uses, these included being used for the production line for the much more successful Bristol Britannia airliner.
But the Brabazon hangar has become more famous today as the birthplace of all the British built Concordes, ten airframes were built there, one prototype known as 002, one pre-production known as 01, one development production known as Delta Golf, and of course the seven airliner production airframes detailed below\x85
G-BOAA
G-BOAB
G-BOAC
G-BOAD
G-BOAE
G-BOAF
G-BOAG
Concorde 216 G-BOAF was the last Concorde built anywhere in the world, and of course the very last one to fly in November 2003. During her final flight she flew back to her birthplace, to Filton to form a major part of a new planned Bristol aviation museum. The plan was to house the whole of the Bristol Aviation Collection, known as the BAC, in one building, a centre to celebrate Bristol\x92s incredible aviation history, and let\x92s not forget that Bristol led the world.
But like so many things in this fast changing world, ideas and directions soon change and as in this case not for the better.
Heritage Concorde has heard of one idea that it wishes to push forward with anyone who would be willing to work alongside the group. With next years closure of Filton airfield, one incredible heritage building stands at risk of being ripped down and lost forever, the Brabazon Hangar. So why not use this building as the centre of the history of Bristol aviation and space industry, and in memory of the man who started it all, Sir George White. It\x92s large enough to form one of the most incredible museums in the world; it would be able to house the whole BAC collection with Concorde 216 at the centre, where she was built.
This idea needs to be looked into and not dismissed so easily by the people leading the effort for the new museum. Heritage Concorde will start to develop this idea further.
Any ideas, any offer of help or advice???
Steve de Sausmarez
18th Jul 2016, 06:52
permalink Post: 1946
Roger. Great first post!. I too have been lucky enough to 'flight-deck' Concorde as a passenger, tho' not for the landing. {Did that as a pax in a Trident, amongst others!] I still have the video that I took!. Like you, I was interested in the flying of it, and asked questions, but didn't have the same luck as you with the jump seat.
I recently flew Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur in an A.380, and whilst driving from Croydon to Heathrow, went along the road at the side of BA Engineering, and there, looking beautiful in the sun, was 'my' Concorde, G-BOAB. Happy memories!. There was, I believe, the occasional rudder skin loss on a couple of Concordes, and vibration was experienced if I remember correctly.
I recently flew Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur in an A.380, and whilst driving from Croydon to Heathrow, went along the road at the side of BA Engineering, and there, looking beautiful in the sun, was 'my' Concorde, G-BOAB. Happy memories!. There was, I believe, the occasional rudder skin loss on a couple of Concordes, and vibration was experienced if I remember correctly.