22nd Aug 2010, 13:18
permalink Post: 66
Biggles78
...The altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane. This is true of all aeroplanes...
Sadly, it isn’t, as subsonic aircraft are allocated a specific cruising flight level and often - for example on the North Atlantic Track system - a specific cruising Mach number as well, and no deviation from that clearance is permitted without specific permission from ATC. Obviously everyone flight plans at the most economic heights and speeds for their aircraft type, but in busy airspace not everyone gets what they want!
Think of your flight plan as being Angelina Jolie, and your ATC clearance as being your wife. Your flight plan is what you’d really like to have, but your ATC clearance is what you’re going to have to live with!
... altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane...this was more true of Concorde?...
Subsonic aircraft could equally benefit from using cruise-climb techniques (early long range aircraft crews knew all about cruise-climb techniques and used them when able) but with the large number of subsonic aircraft now using the world’s airways it is impractical for ATC to allow them to drift up and down at will, and so they are assigned specific cruising altitudes.
Few other aircraft got up to Concorde’s cruising levels, and so ATC were able to issue much more flexible clearances to her.
A typical Concorde ATC clearance would have allowed her to accelerate to M2.00 whilst operating within a "block" of altitude, rather than at a specific flight level. Typically this block clearance would have been to operate anywhere between FL450 up to FL600 without restriction.
So, unlike subsonic aircraft assigned a fixed cruising altitude such as FL350, Concorde could, and did, drift up or down, and was thus able to remain at the optimum altitude for the prevailing conditions throughout most of the flight.
... I remember reading the BA Concorde flew with 2 Captain Pilots (and of course the most important Flight Engineer)...
Concorde operated, as did all 3 crew aircraft in BA, with a standard crew of a Captain, F/O and F/E.
A small number of trips had two Captains on board (or two F/Es for that matter) when training or checking was going on, or an extra crew member was carried for PR purposes, but otherwise, the vast majority of occasions, just the standard crew was on board. Everyone preferred it that way, especially the F/O and F/E!
... The subsonics have issues with Coffin Corner (I think I read that one Airbus model had somehting like 7kts between the high and low end of the envelope when up high); did Concorde have this "problem"?...
Have a look at this picture of G-BOAE, cruising at her maximum certificated altitude of FL600, en-route to Barbados on 16 August 2003:
The available IAS speed range is shown on the ASI, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating 440kts, and the white bug set to 300kts, the VLA ( L owest A uthorised speed) at this altitude.
The available Mach speed range is shown on the Mach meter, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating M2.05, and the yellow bug which indicates the lowest Mach number allowed for the current aircraft CG position (the AFT limit) currently showing M1.35.
So, given that at her maximum altitude she had a speed range of 140kts IAS and a Mach range of M0.7, we can see that coffin corner was not a problem!
main_dog
...I too would like to ask what her idle thrust glide ratio was...
By my calculations, the figures quoted for a straight in approach, give an average glide ratio of around 20:1, however these were for a standard decel/descent, and on Concorde the early part of the decel/descent was not flown at idle power.
A considerable amount of power was left on initially, around 94% N2, for various reasons, and only below M1.0 were the throttles usually selected to idle.
I hadn’t noticed it until now but there does not appear to have been a chart giving glide distance at idle thrust!
However, since the speeds to be flown during the “4 Eng Flame Out” procedure were not too far from the normal decel/descent speeds, I’ll hazard a guess (and that is all it is) that the glide distance from FL600, with no thrust, would have been about 150nm, giving a glide ratio of around 15:1.
...The altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane. This is true of all aeroplanes...
Sadly, it isn’t, as subsonic aircraft are allocated a specific cruising flight level and often - for example on the North Atlantic Track system - a specific cruising Mach number as well, and no deviation from that clearance is permitted without specific permission from ATC. Obviously everyone flight plans at the most economic heights and speeds for their aircraft type, but in busy airspace not everyone gets what they want!
Think of your flight plan as being Angelina Jolie, and your ATC clearance as being your wife. Your flight plan is what you’d really like to have, but your ATC clearance is what you’re going to have to live with!
... altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane...this was more true of Concorde?...
Subsonic aircraft could equally benefit from using cruise-climb techniques (early long range aircraft crews knew all about cruise-climb techniques and used them when able) but with the large number of subsonic aircraft now using the world’s airways it is impractical for ATC to allow them to drift up and down at will, and so they are assigned specific cruising altitudes.
Few other aircraft got up to Concorde’s cruising levels, and so ATC were able to issue much more flexible clearances to her.
A typical Concorde ATC clearance would have allowed her to accelerate to M2.00 whilst operating within a "block" of altitude, rather than at a specific flight level. Typically this block clearance would have been to operate anywhere between FL450 up to FL600 without restriction.
So, unlike subsonic aircraft assigned a fixed cruising altitude such as FL350, Concorde could, and did, drift up or down, and was thus able to remain at the optimum altitude for the prevailing conditions throughout most of the flight.
... I remember reading the BA Concorde flew with 2 Captain Pilots (and of course the most important Flight Engineer)...
Concorde operated, as did all 3 crew aircraft in BA, with a standard crew of a Captain, F/O and F/E.
A small number of trips had two Captains on board (or two F/Es for that matter) when training or checking was going on, or an extra crew member was carried for PR purposes, but otherwise, the vast majority of occasions, just the standard crew was on board. Everyone preferred it that way, especially the F/O and F/E!
... The subsonics have issues with Coffin Corner (I think I read that one Airbus model had somehting like 7kts between the high and low end of the envelope when up high); did Concorde have this "problem"?...
Have a look at this picture of G-BOAE, cruising at her maximum certificated altitude of FL600, en-route to Barbados on 16 August 2003:
The available IAS speed range is shown on the ASI, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating 440kts, and the white bug set to 300kts, the VLA ( L owest A uthorised speed) at this altitude.
The available Mach speed range is shown on the Mach meter, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating M2.05, and the yellow bug which indicates the lowest Mach number allowed for the current aircraft CG position (the AFT limit) currently showing M1.35.
So, given that at her maximum altitude she had a speed range of 140kts IAS and a Mach range of M0.7, we can see that coffin corner was not a problem!
main_dog
...I too would like to ask what her idle thrust glide ratio was...
By my calculations, the figures quoted for a straight in approach, give an average glide ratio of around 20:1, however these were for a standard decel/descent, and on Concorde the early part of the decel/descent was not flown at idle power.
A considerable amount of power was left on initially, around 94% N2, for various reasons, and only below M1.0 were the throttles usually selected to idle.
I hadn’t noticed it until now but there does not appear to have been a chart giving glide distance at idle thrust!
However, since the speeds to be flown during the “4 Eng Flame Out” procedure were not too far from the normal decel/descent speeds, I’ll hazard a guess (and that is all it is) that the glide distance from FL600, with no thrust, would have been about 150nm, giving a glide ratio of around 15:1.
6th Sep 2010, 23:08
permalink Post: 240
Quick link to
Bellerophon
's post #66 and photo to save you having to 'leaf' back...
G-BOAE at Mach 2
Much as I look at that picture, I can't see the groundspeed.....
Ah, oh, ooooops!!!! Of course it's there, in the little window on the top right of the HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator, the lower one of the two big central instruments).
Shanewhite , in a way, that illustrates that for flying the aircraft things like TAS and GS are not really that important... that's why there are no big instruments indicating TAS or GS, but only IAS and Mach, with only a little digital window for GS, which IS important for navigation (largely handled by the inertial navigation system, which is the system where the GS display comes from), but not for the minute-to-minute handling of the aircraft.
Bellerophon , dumb question from a techie... the 373 miles is presumably just the distance to the next INS waypoint?
CJ
G-BOAE at Mach 2
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Bellerophon
You will see that at FL600 the aircraft had a GS of 1,139 kts whilst flying at M2.00 and an IAS of 429 kts.
|
Ah, oh, ooooops!!!! Of course it's there, in the little window on the top right of the HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator, the lower one of the two big central instruments).
Shanewhite , in a way, that illustrates that for flying the aircraft things like TAS and GS are not really that important... that's why there are no big instruments indicating TAS or GS, but only IAS and Mach, with only a little digital window for GS, which IS important for navigation (largely handled by the inertial navigation system, which is the system where the GS display comes from), but not for the minute-to-minute handling of the aircraft.
Bellerophon , dumb question from a techie... the 373 miles is presumably just the distance to the next INS waypoint?
CJ
24th Sep 2010, 07:24
permalink Post: 461
My Own Personal Love Afair
My long (eternal?) love affair with Concorde probably started, like with so many other people (at least those ancient enough to remember) on March 2nd 1969. I was at home at my mum's house on leave from the RAF, (I really was a funny hairy little 'erk') when the live TV coverage, in glorious black and white, showed the first prototype 001 taking to the air in Toulouse. Raymond Baxter's classic commentary understatement of 'she flies, Concorde flies', combined with the sight of this sleek white aircraft, trailing a cloud of thick black exhaust smoke, taking to the air for the first time. (The prototype aircraft in my view looked a little ungainly compared to the pre-production and production babies, and the -22R engines fitted to the original aircraft was a real coal burner). And as far as TV went, it was quite a year; While on night shift at RAF Lyneham I got to watch the live feed of the first Apollo moon landing too.
The next stage in my love affair was in 1970, when this same hairy little 'erk' heard this roar in the sky over Swindon while shopping
and saw the British prototype 002 with its accompanying Canberra chase plane flying very low, straight over the top of Debenhams; my jaw dropped as I stared at this amazing (but rather loud) spectacle unfolding right in front of my eyes.
The die was cast I guess for me in 1972. I was on the ramp at RAF Lyneham, chatting to a visiting USAF C-141 crew. "do ya ever get 'the Concorde' flyin' anywhere near hear ?" asked one of the pilots. I was about to tell him that sometimes on occasion we get a brief glimpse, when the pre-production aircraft 101 flew straight over the top of us. Now these USAF guys just stood there in awe, their eyes popping out like organ stops, and I just figured that this amazingly on cue spectacle just had to be a sign. When I left the RAF two years later I joined BAC at Filton and Fairford engaged on the production and flight testing side of Concorde, leaving there for BA at the end of July 1977. (The story goes that I was delivered to BA a week after G-BOAE as part of a surplus, auxiliary spares package
).
So that's my personal Concorde love affair, it started in 1969 and continues to this day, forty one years later. GOD I AM OLD!!
Dude
The next stage in my love affair was in 1970, when this same hairy little 'erk' heard this roar in the sky over Swindon while shopping
and saw the British prototype 002 with its accompanying Canberra chase plane flying very low, straight over the top of Debenhams; my jaw dropped as I stared at this amazing (but rather loud) spectacle unfolding right in front of my eyes.
The die was cast I guess for me in 1972. I was on the ramp at RAF Lyneham, chatting to a visiting USAF C-141 crew. "do ya ever get 'the Concorde' flyin' anywhere near hear ?" asked one of the pilots. I was about to tell him that sometimes on occasion we get a brief glimpse, when the pre-production aircraft 101 flew straight over the top of us. Now these USAF guys just stood there in awe, their eyes popping out like organ stops, and I just figured that this amazingly on cue spectacle just had to be a sign. When I left the RAF two years later I joined BAC at Filton and Fairford engaged on the production and flight testing side of Concorde, leaving there for BA at the end of July 1977. (The story goes that I was delivered to BA a week after G-BOAE as part of a surplus, auxiliary spares package
).
So that's my personal Concorde love affair, it started in 1969 and continues to this day, forty one years later. GOD I AM OLD!!
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 24th Sep 2010 at 08:07 .
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
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
.
2nd Nov 2010, 21:56
permalink Post: 656
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
landlady
I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again....
|
I know this will sadden you... but better forewarned than discovering it on the day, no?
When they set up the Barbados 'Concorde Experience' on G-BOAE, they decided it would work far better if people could move one way, from the back to the front, rather than continuously getting in each others way.
Now, the two little service doors in the rear galley are not really suited as entrances for the public.
You should know!
Hence the decision was made to remove the rear galley (which they undoubtely kept in storage somewhere, if not actually on display) and to have people enter through the rear baggage hold door, through the baggage hold, and from there into the rear cabin.
(Much the same was done on Delta Golf, the Concorde now at the Brooklands, Weybridge museum.)
So, the only galley tops will be those in the forward galley. Snif....
CJ
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
29th Nov 2010, 10:35
permalink Post: 809
Short clip of AE arriving at JFK
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
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