30th Nov 2010, 10:16
permalink Post: 820
Hi DavvaP, and welcome. As far as ice on the wing goes, I'm sure as any of my pilot friends here will agree that she was treated just like a subsonic in that regard; any ice or snow build up on the surfaces of the wings would not be tolerated and would have to be removed before flight. (She may have had a revolutionary wing design, but still this was a wing nonetheless
). She would also require pre-flight chemical anti-icing/de-icing treatment from a ground truck just like the rest, in shall we say, 'less than tropical conditions'. (Winters in Prestwick during crew base training... such fond memories
). As far as active ice protection on the wings, there was a highly sophisticated Lucas electrical 'spraymat' system fitted, but only the wetted areas of the wing, forward of the engines were 'covered'. Two digitall cyclic timers (CTPUs) would automatically regulate cyclic switching on and off of 115 VAC for various load areas of the wing at a time at pilot pre-selectable intervals (2, 4 or 8 seconds). Also as part of this system, there was
continuous
de-icing for certain other load areas too, so you had a mix of cyclic and continuous de-icing in operation. The whole idea here was to prevent chunks of ice entering and damaging the engines, the only other areas of this electrical de-icing system were the intake lips and side-walls and also the D Box area above the auxilliary inlet vane, built into the spill door. (This would only operate if the auxilliary inlet door itself was open). The whole shooting match would automatically switch itself off, for obvious reasons, above a TAT of 15\xb0 C. (ie. the vast majority of the flight). The only other de-icing system (apart from the galley drain masts) was on the engine inlet guide vanes, but this was purely pneumatic and again would swith itself off above 15\xb0 C.
I think you will find that precious little of Concorde is now not generally available in the public domain, some control software and laws are still I would expect covered by some sort of patent. (That is why when I publiished here the engine 'E Schedule' graphs I deliberately deleted the equations for the various running lines.
Your efficiency question was a valid one; as IAS and Mach number increase the aerodynamic drag (in all it's forms) will generally increase, but the efficiency OF A WELL DESIGNED powerplant wil also increase, and Concorde was definately no exception here. The real beauty of Concorde was just HOW MUCH the powerplant efficiency increased with increasing speed and more than totally eclipsed the aerodynamic drag rise with this increasing speed. At supersonic speeds, the closer you could fly to Vmo/Mmo the lower the fuel burn was. (Especiall true at Mach 2, although the autopilot would hold you Mach 2 (ish) in Max Cruise mode, flying closer to Mmo, Mach 2.04, would save fuel, assuming the static air temoerature was low enough to sustain this). This fact (along with about a million others) produced what we all like to call 'The Magic of Concorde'
Best Regards
Dude
). She would also require pre-flight chemical anti-icing/de-icing treatment from a ground truck just like the rest, in shall we say, 'less than tropical conditions'. (Winters in Prestwick during crew base training... such fond memories
). As far as active ice protection on the wings, there was a highly sophisticated Lucas electrical 'spraymat' system fitted, but only the wetted areas of the wing, forward of the engines were 'covered'. Two digitall cyclic timers (CTPUs) would automatically regulate cyclic switching on and off of 115 VAC for various load areas of the wing at a time at pilot pre-selectable intervals (2, 4 or 8 seconds). Also as part of this system, there was
continuous
de-icing for certain other load areas too, so you had a mix of cyclic and continuous de-icing in operation. The whole idea here was to prevent chunks of ice entering and damaging the engines, the only other areas of this electrical de-icing system were the intake lips and side-walls and also the D Box area above the auxilliary inlet vane, built into the spill door. (This would only operate if the auxilliary inlet door itself was open). The whole shooting match would automatically switch itself off, for obvious reasons, above a TAT of 15\xb0 C. (ie. the vast majority of the flight). The only other de-icing system (apart from the galley drain masts) was on the engine inlet guide vanes, but this was purely pneumatic and again would swith itself off above 15\xb0 C.
I think you will find that precious little of Concorde is now not generally available in the public domain, some control software and laws are still I would expect covered by some sort of patent. (That is why when I publiished here the engine 'E Schedule' graphs I deliberately deleted the equations for the various running lines.
Your efficiency question was a valid one; as IAS and Mach number increase the aerodynamic drag (in all it's forms) will generally increase, but the efficiency OF A WELL DESIGNED powerplant wil also increase, and Concorde was definately no exception here. The real beauty of Concorde was just HOW MUCH the powerplant efficiency increased with increasing speed and more than totally eclipsed the aerodynamic drag rise with this increasing speed. At supersonic speeds, the closer you could fly to Vmo/Mmo the lower the fuel burn was. (Especiall true at Mach 2, although the autopilot would hold you Mach 2 (ish) in Max Cruise mode, flying closer to Mmo, Mach 2.04, would save fuel, assuming the static air temoerature was low enough to sustain this). This fact (along with about a million others) produced what we all like to call 'The Magic of Concorde'
Best Regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 30th Nov 2010 at 12:21 .
23rd Dec 2010, 00:39
permalink Post: 957
Superstab
Hmm. There was, I think, a raft of high-incidence (alpha) protection fitted.
Digging out the old BAe conversion course notes:
The "Anti-Stall" (SFC) 1&2 sytems offered:
Super Stab: Increased authority of pitch autostab as incidence increased above 13.5 degrees - proportional to pitch rate and incidence angle - and a nose down pitch trim with a Vc (CAS) deceleration with incidence > 13.5
Stick "Wobbler": the "unmistakable warning" - when incidence > 19 and Vc<270kts the control columns took a life of their own and tried to fling you into the forward galley. Served you right.
Some other high incidence stuff was fed from the ADC rather than the SFC, like:
The ">13.5d incidence" feed to the SFC
CAS (Vc) feed to the SFC
Incidence from 16 to 19 degrees (rate dependant) to get the SFC to feed in up to 4 degree nose down pitch command and the sticj wobbler trigger.
Increase of authority of yaw autostab as incidence > 13.5d
Autotrim inhibit > 14.5d incidence
Stick shaker >16.5d incidence
AP/FD disconnect > 17.5d incidence
There was loads of other technical stuff which engineers understood, but we had to learn by writing diagrams which made sense to us enough to pass the written exam. The bottom line was an aeroplane which flew beautifully, but which you had to understand well, and which you could not tease beyond its limits. If you ignored a limit or an SOP then you reached an unpleasant place far quicker than with the blunties - it was a challenge which rewarded as quickly and as deeply as it punished.
Digging out the old BAe conversion course notes:
The "Anti-Stall" (SFC) 1&2 sytems offered:
Super Stab: Increased authority of pitch autostab as incidence increased above 13.5 degrees - proportional to pitch rate and incidence angle - and a nose down pitch trim with a Vc (CAS) deceleration with incidence > 13.5
Stick "Wobbler": the "unmistakable warning" - when incidence > 19 and Vc<270kts the control columns took a life of their own and tried to fling you into the forward galley. Served you right.
Some other high incidence stuff was fed from the ADC rather than the SFC, like:
The ">13.5d incidence" feed to the SFC
CAS (Vc) feed to the SFC
Incidence from 16 to 19 degrees (rate dependant) to get the SFC to feed in up to 4 degree nose down pitch command and the sticj wobbler trigger.
Increase of authority of yaw autostab as incidence > 13.5d
Autotrim inhibit > 14.5d incidence
Stick shaker >16.5d incidence
AP/FD disconnect > 17.5d incidence
There was loads of other technical stuff which engineers understood, but we had to learn by writing diagrams which made sense to us enough to pass the written exam. The bottom line was an aeroplane which flew beautifully, but which you had to understand well, and which you could not tease beyond its limits. If you ignored a limit or an SOP then you reached an unpleasant place far quicker than with the blunties - it was a challenge which rewarded as quickly and as deeply as it punished.
14th Jan 2011, 08:37
permalink Post: 1093
Happy New Year!
Hello again, chaps and chapesses, and a belated HNY to all.
I was prompted to post again by a fellow forumite..... I haven't really been in the mood to write after I fell over on the ice
(well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it...) damaging a few bones, and then caught 'flu (woman 'flu, not man 'flu,) so I'm hoping that after a shaky start, 2011 will brighten up a bit now!
This is the year I will retire
..... I really don't know how I feel about that....but if anyone knows a kindly book publisher, perhaps it's time I thought about how to subsidise the pension, and keep Mr LL (or the Landlord, as he likes to be known), in gin and golf balls.
In reply to Shaggy's question with regard to the table top which was put into place after take-off at D2R, it didn't divide the cabins .... it was put accross the actual doorway to make an extra work-space during service. (Rather like a side-board in your dining room. Posh or what!) The fwd crew would take everything that could be needed during service from the front to the mid...wine, fizz, ice, lemon, water, etc., which would help the cabin crew (as opposed to the galley crew) to quickly replenish anything they needed without having to return to the galleys and more importantly, disturb the smooth running of the service...trolleys may be in the cabin and no-one wants to ask the crew on the trolleys to get more wine/water/whatever when they were busy. Of course, you could never second-guess what would be needed, and most probably someone would ask for a drink which you wouldn't have at the mid, but the things we needed all the time were there. The table top remained in place until the seat-belt sign came on for landing, and it was really handy. (Probably designed by a woman!) It was also a place for a couple of pax to stand and have a drink and a chat after the meal service was completed, if they fancied stretching their legs or were waiting for the loo.
Dude, your pic of pushback in IAD is fabulous! Just look what we were missing by being on-board!
With warm regards,
LL x
I was prompted to post again by a fellow forumite..... I haven't really been in the mood to write after I fell over on the ice
(well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it...) damaging a few bones, and then caught 'flu (woman 'flu, not man 'flu,) so I'm hoping that after a shaky start, 2011 will brighten up a bit now!
This is the year I will retire
..... I really don't know how I feel about that....but if anyone knows a kindly book publisher, perhaps it's time I thought about how to subsidise the pension, and keep Mr LL (or the Landlord, as he likes to be known), in gin and golf balls.
In reply to Shaggy's question with regard to the table top which was put into place after take-off at D2R, it didn't divide the cabins .... it was put accross the actual doorway to make an extra work-space during service. (Rather like a side-board in your dining room. Posh or what!) The fwd crew would take everything that could be needed during service from the front to the mid...wine, fizz, ice, lemon, water, etc., which would help the cabin crew (as opposed to the galley crew) to quickly replenish anything they needed without having to return to the galleys and more importantly, disturb the smooth running of the service...trolleys may be in the cabin and no-one wants to ask the crew on the trolleys to get more wine/water/whatever when they were busy. Of course, you could never second-guess what would be needed, and most probably someone would ask for a drink which you wouldn't have at the mid, but the things we needed all the time were there. The table top remained in place until the seat-belt sign came on for landing, and it was really handy. (Probably designed by a woman!) It was also a place for a couple of pax to stand and have a drink and a chat after the meal service was completed, if they fancied stretching their legs or were waiting for the loo.
Dude, your pic of pushback in IAD is fabulous! Just look what we were missing by being on-board!
With warm regards,
LL x
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
12th Mar 2011, 21:49
permalink Post: 1239
The engine starting sequence was also in airline operation 3-4-2-1. At the gate the altered sequence was 3-2 prior the pushback and 4-1 after due to safety reasons for ground crew and for noise restrictions at some airport stands.
Brit312 explained in post #140:
I must admit that I am no expert (not yet
), but it seems both sequences follow the logic to feed the blue hydraulic by engine#3 first, then one of the two yellow systems (2 or 4) and the green hydraulic (engines 1&2) which supplies power to some more services than the blue (droop nose and visor, landing gear, main wheel brakes with anti-skid and nosewheel steering).
Well, I hope, this was not a stupid answer before I took a chance for a nonstupid question
- but I am so exited about this thread and just want a little bit to give back!
Thanks for the probably best thing ever I have found in the internet. Thank you M2dude, Brit312, ChristiaanJ, Exwok, Bellerophon, Landlady et al.!
Brit312 explained in post #140:
Quote:
|
Yes we always started just the two inboard engines prior to push back and the outers when the push back was complete. This was for a number of reasons, but I do seem to remember it was not unheard of to break the tow bar shear pin on the initial push, so the less power the better
Remember that Concorde had no APU and no across the ship ducting for stating engines, therefore prior to push an air start unit was plugged into each pair of engines and the inboard engines would be started. This allowed, after push back, air from each inboard engine to be used to start it's outboard engine. The other good reason for starting the inboards prior to push was that with no APU the cabin temp would rise quite quickly [specially in places like Bahrain in summer] and never mind the passengers comfort, but some of M2dude and ChristiaanJ fancy electronic equipment was very temp sensitive , especially those intake control units down the rear galley. With Two engines running we could use their bleed air to at least try and hold the cabin air temp during the push back |
), but it seems both sequences follow the logic to feed the blue hydraulic by engine#3 first, then one of the two yellow systems (2 or 4) and the green hydraulic (engines 1&2) which supplies power to some more services than the blue (droop nose and visor, landing gear, main wheel brakes with anti-skid and nosewheel steering).
Well, I hope, this was not a stupid answer before I took a chance for a nonstupid question
- but I am so exited about this thread and just want a little bit to give back!
Thanks for the probably best thing ever I have found in the internet. Thank you M2dude, Brit312, ChristiaanJ, Exwok, Bellerophon, Landlady et al.!