5th Nov 2010, 23:31
permalink Post: 664
Sincerely, this thread just gets more interesting.
Was any consideration given to the fitting of a Head up display ?
With such a manually flown Aircraft it would seem to be a natural for such an aid.
I realise the technology was in it's infancy at the gestation of the Concorde project but was there ever a proposal or even testing of such a device ?
Was any consideration given to the fitting of a Head up display ?
With such a manually flown Aircraft it would seem to be a natural for such an aid.
I realise the technology was in it's infancy at the gestation of the Concorde project but was there ever a proposal or even testing of such a device ?
6th Nov 2010, 00:21
permalink Post: 665
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
stilton
Sincerely, this thread just gets more interesting.
|
But I agree, post after post has either an interesting question or an interesting answer!
Quote:
|
Was any consideration given to the fitting of a Head up display ?
With such a manually flown aircraft it would seem to be a natural for such an aid. |
AFAIK , even today, only very few commercial aircraft types have HUDs installed.
Quote:
| I realise the technology was in it's infancy at the gestation of the Concorde project... |
Quote:
| ....but was there ever a proposal or even testing of such a device ? |
SFENA (the firm I worked for) did work on a very limited HUD, basically just for runway alignment during take-off and roll-out, and IIRC some were installed on early A300s and A310s, but the idea never really seems to have caught on.
CJ
6th Nov 2010, 04:59
permalink Post: 666
Thanks Christiaan.
Yes I think the Mercure had a HUD if i'm not mistaken.
Yes I think the Mercure had a HUD if i'm not mistaken.
6th Nov 2010, 12:59
permalink Post: 667
Quote:
| Yes I think the Mercure had a HUD if i'm not mistaken |
6th Nov 2010, 16:16
permalink Post: 669
stilton
,
Brian Abraham
,
Just Googled this to confirm a less-than-certain memory.....
Today, only the 737 (later variants) has a HUD fitted.
Not sure if it's a standard fit, or a customer option.
CJ
PS : off-topic, but the Mercure was a nice aircraft, even rarer than Concorde (incl. the prototypes only 12 built).
One is at the LBG museum, looking immaculate, and being kept "alive" by volunteers, but of course out of hours.
Just Googled this to confirm a less-than-certain memory.....
Today, only the 737 (later variants) has a HUD fitted.
Not sure if it's a standard fit, or a customer option.
CJ
PS : off-topic, but the Mercure was a nice aircraft, even rarer than Concorde (incl. the prototypes only 12 built).
One is at the LBG museum, looking immaculate, and being kept "alive" by volunteers, but of course out of hours.
6th Nov 2010, 17:19
permalink Post: 670
Concorde had a very advanced HUD fitted. It was a spring-loaded wire frame (a bue transparent plastic thing on 'OAG) which you could flip up in front of you to help judge the landing attitude. With final attitude about 11 degrees and secondary nozzles scraping the runway at (from memory) about 12.5 degrees attitude control was key.
Three-engined ferrys were approved. Went through it on the sim, and this is only from memory but you set full re-heated power on the symmetric pair, and the assymmetric engine at 75kts. "Power Set" was called slightly later than normal (130kts). Any re-heat failure before V1 = RTO.
There were loads of complex additional issues to go through at planning (the 3-engine ferry manual wasn't the thickest on the fleet - but it was thick enough!) and I don't think I'd have been too keen on doing one (I was never asked, and I don't know of any Concorde having done it - more "seasoned" fleet members may know better!): I think it was a slighly more critical proposition even than doing it on a blunty, and most guys I know have reservations about it on their fleets too...
Three-engined ferrys were approved. Went through it on the sim, and this is only from memory but you set full re-heated power on the symmetric pair, and the assymmetric engine at 75kts. "Power Set" was called slightly later than normal (130kts). Any re-heat failure before V1 = RTO.
There were loads of complex additional issues to go through at planning (the 3-engine ferry manual wasn't the thickest on the fleet - but it was thick enough!) and I don't think I'd have been too keen on doing one (I was never asked, and I don't know of any Concorde having done it - more "seasoned" fleet members may know better!): I think it was a slighly more critical proposition even than doing it on a blunty, and most guys I know have reservations about it on their fleets too...
6th Nov 2010, 18:04
permalink Post: 671
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
NW1
Concorde had a very advanced HUD fitted.
|
Wasn't that the same thingmabob that was used to set your 'throne' to the exact eyeheight?
I knew it existed, but somehow never saw it. How and where was it stowed when not in use?
CJ
7th Nov 2010, 00:09
permalink Post: 672
NW1
and
ChristiaanJ
Ahh yes, the super hi-tech 'HUD'. It was right up there with the 'eye level datum' indicator and not to forget, the reheat capabiliy indicator in terms of sophistication. (Extremely reliable though
).
As far as 3 engined ferries went; well NW1, not sure if you'd call me seasoned or just just clapped out and wrinkly, but it did happen a very few times in days of yore, mostly from SNN back to LHR. There were at least two; OAF in 1980 when she had the infamous LP1 blade fail (and Monty Burton's immortal words during the 'event' "what *** ing drill?). The second one that I can remember was OAA in 1991 when there was another far less serious compressor blade failure. In each case for the ferry flight, the broken engine was 'swaged' to prevent it windmilling and the aircraft would be flown back to the LHR garage by a management crew. There was however another required ferry measure as well as the engine swaging, this measure was to prevent the good engines going into contingency, due to the very slightly flamed out dead 'donk'. This procedure required the Engine Speed Unit to be removed from the electronics rack and a special jumper plug fitted in it's place (without the jumper fitted the start switch would never latch in. In this case also the E/O would also need to manually disengage the start switch at 25% N2). I have to admit that I never in my life ever saw this jumper plug, and in the cases that I can remember the aircraft departed SNN with the three engines at contingency. I remember that the case of OAA back in '91 most certainly was; I was flown out to SNN equiped with a pile of circuit diagrams and test boxes to investigate what we all thought was just a surge related engine shutdown. only to find a slightly more hairy state of afairs, with a very broken engine indeed. As a matter of interest, this particular failure was the only one ever in the history of Concorde in BA attributed to the engine having run for a protracted time in rotating stall. (This had happened on the previous day). A lot was learned by both BA and Rolls Royce after this event, and this failure never occured again.
Dude
Ahh yes, the super hi-tech 'HUD'. It was right up there with the 'eye level datum' indicator and not to forget, the reheat capabiliy indicator in terms of sophistication. (Extremely reliable though
).
As far as 3 engined ferries went; well NW1, not sure if you'd call me seasoned or just just clapped out and wrinkly, but it did happen a very few times in days of yore, mostly from SNN back to LHR. There were at least two; OAF in 1980 when she had the infamous LP1 blade fail (and Monty Burton's immortal words during the 'event' "what *** ing drill?). The second one that I can remember was OAA in 1991 when there was another far less serious compressor blade failure. In each case for the ferry flight, the broken engine was 'swaged' to prevent it windmilling and the aircraft would be flown back to the LHR garage by a management crew. There was however another required ferry measure as well as the engine swaging, this measure was to prevent the good engines going into contingency, due to the very slightly flamed out dead 'donk'. This procedure required the Engine Speed Unit to be removed from the electronics rack and a special jumper plug fitted in it's place (without the jumper fitted the start switch would never latch in. In this case also the E/O would also need to manually disengage the start switch at 25% N2). I have to admit that I never in my life ever saw this jumper plug, and in the cases that I can remember the aircraft departed SNN with the three engines at contingency. I remember that the case of OAA back in '91 most certainly was; I was flown out to SNN equiped with a pile of circuit diagrams and test boxes to investigate what we all thought was just a surge related engine shutdown. only to find a slightly more hairy state of afairs, with a very broken engine indeed. As a matter of interest, this particular failure was the only one ever in the history of Concorde in BA attributed to the engine having run for a protracted time in rotating stall. (This had happened on the previous day). A lot was learned by both BA and Rolls Royce after this event, and this failure never occured again.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 7th Nov 2010 at 01:34 .
21st Nov 2010, 15:37
permalink Post: 751
Mr Vortex
An ejection was recommended because it was possible, not that was necessarily impossible to land a Draken dead stick. F-16s have done a number of them, I witnessed one at KTPA. There was a video of the HUD view of one at NAS Glenview, IL.
To your question, it would depend on distance to go to the airport, glide ratio (high but probably not terribly worse than any conventional airliner) and most importantly the capability of the RAT providing hydraulic power.
M2dude , any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?
GF
An ejection was recommended because it was possible, not that was necessarily impossible to land a Draken dead stick. F-16s have done a number of them, I witnessed one at KTPA. There was a video of the HUD view of one at NAS Glenview, IL.
To your question, it would depend on distance to go to the airport, glide ratio (high but probably not terribly worse than any conventional airliner) and most importantly the capability of the RAT providing hydraulic power.
M2dude , any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?
GF