Page Links: First 1 2 Next Last Index Page
ChristiaanJ 15th Aug 2010, 15:54 permalink Post: 10 |
TURIN
,
I've read "By the Rivers of Babylon" too..... and there is some fact behind the fiction. History does not relate if and where the El Al Concordes would have had APUs. However, history DOES relate, that the two Concordes ordered by Iran Air WOULD have had APUs (which would have made sense in the Middle East). Now, Iran Air was the very last company to cancel its orders, and by the time they did, Concorde 214 (now G-BOAG) and 216 (now G-BOAF) were already well underway (they ended up flying initially as white tails). As a result, both 214 and 216 still have the mounting holes and fittings for an APU. Don't ask me where, but experts know where to find them to this day.... |
||||||||||
M2dude 16th Aug 2010, 12:09 permalink Post: 11 |
ChristiaanJ
Both A/C 214 (OAG) and 216 (OAF) were Variant 192 A/C (British Unsold A/C). 216 was later converted to a 102 (British Airways) Variant, where 214 more or less stayed as a Variant 192. I'm not disputing what you say about possible APU mountings (I guess it would HAVE to be at the front section of the lower cargo hold somewhere) but I for one have certainly never seen any evidence of them. I'm still trying to imagine where the air inlet and exhausts would have to be arranged, not to mention pneumatic services ducting/hydraulics. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out? |
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 17th Aug 2010, 14:33 permalink Post: 17 |
M2dude,
Nice set of photos of "The Thing" here : MEPU at MAE at le Bourget . This one is at the Air and Space Museum at Le Bourget, near Paris. My guess is that is was a spare, since the manufacturing date is 1973. 'SA flew in January '73 and 'SB in December '73. IIRC, Delta Golf arrived at Brooklands with the MEPU still in place; I might have a photo. As to the installation, we're obviously thinking along the same lines.... However, there were already several conduits through tank 11, such as hydraulics for the tail wheel, various electrics, and the 'backbone' fuel manifolds, that ended at the fuel jettison port in the tailcone. A couple of fairly substantial air ducts would only have displaced a few hundred kgs of fuel at the most, out of the more than 10,000 kgs in tank 11. And yes, of course, the whole point of the APU would be to have independent ground start and ground airco available, so clearly an APU would have been bigger and heavier than the MEPU (which was only just over 80 lbs), plus the problem of the air intake and bigger exhaust. I'd have to get the drawings out to see how easy or difficult it would have been to fit one in the available space. Since the tailcone was BAC, and both 214 and 216 were built at Filton, I wonder if anybody there still remembers? |
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 20th Aug 2010, 23:21 permalink Post: 39 |
Quote:
So I happily agree to disagree on the rest... between the two of us, each looking at our own clues, and with the help of anybody else who has more info, we might still find the answer! One thought I had... with an APU in the forward baggage hold, you'd also have to take the air intake and exhaust through the pressure hull, and provide sound and thermal insulation for the entire APU itself. From a design point of view, I'd have gone for the same location of the earlier pseudo-APU (the MEPU), and then solved the remaining problems from that starting point. |
||||||||||
M2dude 22nd Aug 2010, 01:47 permalink Post: 56 |
Biggles78
Quote:
So yes, on the whole, TOC did equal TOD. The 'subsonic climb' wasn't quite as you thought; you'd normally subsonic climb to FL280, staying there (at Mach 0.95) until the acceleration point. Mach 0.95 was 'subsonic cruise'. But you were on the right track. Oh, and NOPE, they never boomed us either Nick Thomas
Quote:
The only problem you ever had with the dual nacelle arrangement was if you had an engine surge above Mach 1.6 (These were relatively rare, but could happen with an engine or intake control system malfuntion). If one engine surged, the other would surge in sympathy, because of the shock system being expelled from one intake severely distorting the airflow into it's neighbour. These surges were loud, quite scary (to the crew that is, most passengers never noticed much), but in themselves did no damage at all. Delicate movement of the throttles (employed during the subsequent surge drill) would invariably restore peace and harmony again to all. (The intake on Concorde was self-starting, so no manual movement of the intake variable surfaces should be needed in this event). After this was over, normal flying was resumed again As I said before, these events were relatively rare, but when they did occur, they would be dealt with smartly and professionally; the engine and intake structure being undamaged. (Post surge inspetion checks were always carried out on the ground after an event, on both engine and intake, but nothing much was EVER found).
Quote:
|
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 22nd Aug 2010, 21:04 permalink Post: 73 |
Quote:
And I enjoy answering those questions, if and whenever I can!
Quote:
It was one reason why, when Air France withdrew an aircraft from service, Fox Delta was the first one to go. Also, due to the gradual improvements in production methods, and minor redesign, the last British production Concorde, G-BOAF, was about a ton lighter than the first one (G-BOAC). While the differences weren't huge, they were noticeable.
Quote:
Quote:
According to 'Wikipedia', 67 engines were built, which would mean, in theory , 64 engines for 16 aircraft and 3 spares.... In practice, of course, fewer aircraft flew at any one time, so the statistics are different, but even so, a lot of engine swapping went on over the years. As to the MTBO, I don't know... it's not my field at all.... |
||||||||||
M2dude 24th Aug 2010, 09:48 permalink Post: 88 |
Biggles78
Quote:
As far as the hydraulic expansion joints go, I will scour around and see if I can find a diagram for you. Try and picture two titanium (or stainless) tubes, on inside the other, with a sealed chamber being formed at the join. Inside this chamber were multiple lands fitted with special viton GLT seals. They did work incredibly well, although occasionally one of the seals gave out, and things got wet, VERY WET. As far as the 4000 PSI hydraulic system, as EXWOK quite rightly pointed out, the loading on the flying control surfaces were immense throughout the whole flight envelope. (Picture alone just the T/O from JFK RWY 31L, where the aircraft is tightly turning and the gear retracting, all at the same time). As well as the flying controls and landing gear, you also had the droop nose to consider, four variable engine intakes as well as a couple of hydraulically operated fuel pumps. Oh, and in emergencies, a hydraulically driven 40 KVA generator too. The reason that 4000 PSI was chosen was that if a large amount of hydraulic 'work' was to be done, the only way to keep the size of jacks and actuators to a reasonable size/weight was to increase the system pressure by 25% from the normal 3000 PSI. (On the A380 they've gone a step further and gone for 5000 PSI, saving them over a tonne on the weight of the aircraft). Concorde used a special hydraulic fluid, Chevron M2V. This is a mineral based fluid, as opposed to the ester based Skydrol, used by the subsonics. The reason that we went for a different fluid was a simple one; Skydrol is rubbish at the high temperatures that Concorde operated at, no good at all in fact, so we needed something better and in M2V we found the PERFECT fluid. As an aside, unlike Skydrol, that attacks paintwork, certain rubber seals, skin, EYES etc., M2V is completely harmless, wash your hair in it. (I did, several times when we had leaks. Thinking about it, maybe THAT is why my hair is such a diminished asset EXWOK It's so great having another of my pilot friends diving in to this post, welcome welcome I remember the Mech' Signalling part of the air tests, my lunch has just finished coming back up thank you. (for interest chaps and chapesses, with mechanical signalling, using just the conventional control runs under the floor, there was no auto-stabilisation). The artificialfeel system worked incredibly well I thought, I always found it curious that the peak load law in the computer was at the transonic rather that the supersonic speed range. It was explained to me long ago that this was because the controls really are at their most sensitive here, but at high Mach numbers are partially 'stalled out', due to shockwave movements along the surfaces, and were therefore less effective. (For this reason I was told, the inner elevons were so critical for supersonic control, being the most effective of all elevons at high speed). To all , I forgot to mention in my previous post regarding the engine failure in G-BOAF in 1980; I remember an FAA surveyor, who was taking a look at the carnage within the engine bay, saying that in his opinion, no other aircraft in the world could have survived the intensity of the titanium fire that ensued. Analysis showed that the fire was successfully extinguished, possibly at the first shot of the fire bottle. This was a testament to the way that the Concorde engine bay could be completely 'locked down' when the fire handle was pulled, as well as to the way that the whole engine installation was technically encased in armour plate. To put all this in context, acording to Rolls Royce a titanium fire, once it takes hold, can destroy the compressor of a jet engine in four seconds. Dude |
||||||||||
Totally_Bananas 3rd Sep 2010, 10:04 permalink Post: 196 |
A small article in flight global suggest unspecified work is being carried out on the bristol based G-BOAF.
Any ideas/rumours? |
||||||||||
M2dude 4th Sep 2010, 10:49 permalink Post: 212 |
BRIT312
Quote:
It's generally known that the BA aircraft were temporarily re-registered to facilitate Braniff's operation out of IAD to DFW; G-BOAA, B, D & E were re-registered from G-BOAA and so on, to G-N94AA etc. Being an older registration, G-BOAC was re-registered as G-N81AC. At IAD, the 'G' part of the registration was covered over, leaving a now perfect 'American' tail number. Only five aircraft were involved in the operation (at the time BA operated just six aircraft, G-BOAF was still at the manufacturers at Filton, and G-BFKW (later to become G-BOAG) was on loan from British Aerospace. In order for the necessary FAA certification, required for operation by a US airline, a modification package were required by the FAA. Some of these modifications seemed a little 'picky' and irrelevant at the time (they still do). However some modifications were certainly not in this category, and quite honestly should have been 'picked up' by the CAA & DGAC during original certification of the aircraft. As an example, if the flying controls had been operating on GREEN or BLUE hydraulics only (due to an indicated spool valve jam) and that particular hydraulic system was subsequently lost, there was originally no automatic switching to select the standby YELLOW system into the flying controls; the controls would have been completely unpowered until a manual selection was made by the pilot. . One of the 'FAA Mods' was to facilitate just that, so if this (extremely unlikely I grant you) scenario had occurred, then YELLOW would automatically been selected into the controls, and at no time would the controls have been in an unpowered state. The Braniff operation ended in May 1980, due to heavy losses on the subsonic only route, and it's a rather sad irony that aircraft G-BOAF had been modified and reregistered at Filton, from it's original registration of G-BFKX to G-N94AF. Unfortunately the aircraft was delivered to BA in June 1980, one month too late to participate, and prior to delivery it's registration was converted to it's 'normal' British registration; all other aircraft also reverted to original registrations also. ChristiaanJ
Quote:
Bellerophon A brilliant description of the mechanics of final approach. It's so easy for us mere mortals to forget just what an involved and skilled process it was, to fly, and in particular land our totally amazing aircraft. Dude Last edited by M2dude; 4th Sep 2010 at 13:12 . |
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 11th Sep 2010, 16:32 permalink Post: 317 |
Quote:
The first production Concorde (204, G-BOAC) was about a ton heavier than the last on (216, G-BOAF). IIRC most of that was achieved by judicious use of titanium in certain locations. The aluminium alloy was not Dural, but a special alloy called RR58, AU2GN or hiduminium which was used because of its superior 'creep' properties ('creep' = slow permanent deformation under a combination of mechanical stress and high temperatures).
Quote:
(As an example of the latter, ever looked at a photo of the top of the wing of a Concorde with all those oval-shaped access panels? They were all machined.
Quote:
It also made for greater precision and repeatablity, more consistent quality, etc. And the scrap from the milling operation was recovered and recycled.... CJ |
||||||||||
M2dude 30th Sep 2010, 13:58 permalink Post: 499 |
Concorde Trivia Quiz.. The Answers
As promised here are the answers to our trivia quiz.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys. Dude |
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 30th Sep 2010, 15:03 permalink Post: 500 |
I copied this off M2dude's post a couple of days ago, and tried to answer it all offline without cheating by looking up the answers elsewhere.
1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde? LOL... 13. I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13. Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank. And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft. 2) How many seats were there? Good question. As Nick asked, which seats? Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified. Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit. Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven? Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos! 3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved? Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts. But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time..... It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope. 4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it? Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg. IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up. Brain not completely addled, then. 5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service? FL600, as certified. 6) How many wheels on the aircraft? Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back 7) How many flying control modes were there? Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS? Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used. 8) How many positions of nose droop were there? Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft). 9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft? No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system? It was after "my time"... 10) How many main electrical sources were there? Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources. There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine. Then there were two DC batteries. And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post. Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical. Nice one, M2dude! And certainly not all trivia! CJ |
||||||||||
M2dude 27th Oct 2010, 22:33 permalink Post: 616 |
Mike-Bracknell
Quote:
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 . |
||||||||||
M2dude 26th Nov 2010, 08:47 permalink Post: 781 |
speedbirdconcorde
Quote:
Mr Vortex
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||||||||||
ChristiaanJ 26th Nov 2010, 15:56 permalink Post: 787 |
Just some notes on the side.
Quote:
Quote:
For "Filton", read "Filton airfield and the Airbus site".
Quote:
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:
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:
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 |
||||||||||
M2dude 27th Nov 2010, 09:02 permalink Post: 790 |
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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 . |
||||||||||
M2dude 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 Last edited by M2dude; 29th Nov 2010 at 13:09 . |
||||||||||
DavvaP 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. |
||||||||||
M2dude 8th Dec 2010, 18:05 permalink Post: 841 |
Landroger
Quote:
howiehowie93
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tom355UK
Quote:
Jeepers Tom that is one hell of a question. Assuming there was a market for such a venture (personally not sure right now) I think you are looking at BILLIONS of $, and for this reason alone I think you'd find that a multi-national/continental effort would be required. There is little doubt that technology is not the major barrier here, but economics and political will. (Nice thought though, I do agree). As far as a powerplant goes, well the PW5000 is a really superb engine, although well down on the thrust requirement for an 'NG' SST. More likely I would have thought would be e development of the Olympus, there was/is still such an enormous amount of potential in this basic design. (But who knows, this is all pure speculation anyway). And have no fears about posting here Tom, most of us are quite happy to answer away (We've said before that there is no such thing as a stupid question; you are most welcome here ). DavvaP
Quote:
I am honoured to say that I was lucky enough to be onboard G-BOAF for that flight from LHR-BZZ and as far as I could tell, the liners had no impact whatsoever. One amusing part of the flight was when we deliberately allowed tank 3 to run dry and see just what the indicated fuel quantity was as #3 engine flamed out (we were subsonic at this point of course). The gauge slowly crept down (in order for the tank to to run dry, the tank 7 & 8 transfer pumps were switched off) and we all watched in eager anticipation/dread....... as the counters reached zero weeeeeee... the engine flamed out. I am being completely honest here, the engine wound down EXACTLY at ZERO indicated contents). Those 7 aircraft really did look magnificent I know, it was just sad as to the reason they were all lined up there. Mr.Vortex
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best regards to all Dude |
||||||||||
M2dude 11th Dec 2010, 22:17 permalink Post: 856 |
Them darn intakes
Hi Guys, quite a few little points here, so here's my angle(s):
Pedalz
Quote:
My friend EXWOK perfectly answered the intake hydraulics allocations.
Quote:
You might want to take a look at 'When Intakes Go Wrong Part 1: Concorde engine intake "Thrust" and Parts 2 & 3: Concorde engine intake "Thrust" Not to mention Part 3: dixi188
Quote:
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
Due to the lateness of the hour (and me being up at 4 ), that will have to do for now guys. Best regards to all Dude Last edited by M2dude; 12th Dec 2010 at 04:51 . Reason: Adding a bit and correcting another |