21st Aug 2010, 18:52
permalink Post: 52
Well said Biggles 78. It's not just the technical know how of CJ and M2dude that is so impressive; it's also the clear way that they explain everything.
If an engine had a fire or an explosive failure; it would seem on the face of it that the adjacent engine could easily be affected. As everything on Concorde has a sound technical reason. I have been wondering what that reason or reasons was? and also if there was any inbuilt dividing protection between engines on the same wing?
Not being an expert on jet engines (or any aviation matter), I was wondering am I right to assume that as air pressure decreases with altitude then the amount of thrust needed to maintain M2 would also decrease? This would explain the reduced fuel consumption at higher altitudes.
Would I also be right to assume that the max power delivered by the engines would reduce at altitude, thus even if the engines were run at near to available max power at high altitude it would be no way near the max power at lower levels? The reason I ask this is that I started to think that if the engines were being run at near to max output then the life of the engines would be compromised. Yet if what I have said above is true this would not be the case?
My other query concerns the FE. I understand that he set take off power etc and I can understand that it would be difficult for the pilots to do this at a time of heavy workload. I also understand that he also checked the pilots inputs into the INS system. So was he/she also a qualified pilot?
Once again many thanks
If an engine had a fire or an explosive failure; it would seem on the face of it that the adjacent engine could easily be affected. As everything on Concorde has a sound technical reason. I have been wondering what that reason or reasons was? and also if there was any inbuilt dividing protection between engines on the same wing?
Not being an expert on jet engines (or any aviation matter), I was wondering am I right to assume that as air pressure decreases with altitude then the amount of thrust needed to maintain M2 would also decrease? This would explain the reduced fuel consumption at higher altitudes.
Would I also be right to assume that the max power delivered by the engines would reduce at altitude, thus even if the engines were run at near to available max power at high altitude it would be no way near the max power at lower levels? The reason I ask this is that I started to think that if the engines were being run at near to max output then the life of the engines would be compromised. Yet if what I have said above is true this would not be the case?
My other query concerns the FE. I understand that he set take off power etc and I can understand that it would be difficult for the pilots to do this at a time of heavy workload. I also understand that he also checked the pilots inputs into the INS system. So was he/she also a qualified pilot?
Once again many thanks
Last edited by Nick Thomas; 21st Aug 2010 at 18:54 . Reason: Ad a question mark
22nd Aug 2010, 03:45
permalink Post: 60
Nick Thomas
... My other query concerns the FE. I understand that he set take off power etc...
Actually the F/E didn’t set T/O power, but did set most of the other power settings.
Broadly speaking, taxy-out to gear up, and gear down to engine shut down, the handling pilot operated the throttles. At other times, it was (almost) always the F/E.
Bear in mind that several of the routine engine power changes were effected through controls other than the throttles. For instance, selection of the re-heats, engine control schedules, engine ratings and intake lanes were all switch selections.
... I also understand that he also checked the pilots inputs into the INS system...
Correct, using INS3.
...So was he/she also a qualified pilot?..
No, they were professional flight engineers, who held a Flight Engineers Licence; they were not pilots biding their time before moving to the right hand seat.
I believe one or two may have held a PPL, but that was purely incidental, not a requirement.
All of the Concorde FEs had spent years on the VC10, B707, DC10, L10-11 or B747 fleets before coming to Concorde.
Biggles78
...Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent was the flight...
Cruise climb, yes. Cruise descent, no.
...and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing?..
Correct, any level flight in the “cruise”, was just coincidence, probably caused by the outside air temperature increasing very gradually. Typically, she drifted up at around 30 to 50 fpm, but, if encountering warmer air, she would start to drift back down, in order to maintain M2.0.
... As you have said, fuel flow was reduced the higher you got. I think it was 5T per powerplant at FL500 down to 4.1T at FL600...
Rather optimistic figures for FL500 I’d have said! 6,000kg/hr/engine would have been nearer the mark!
...I am curious to see how much less fuel would have been used at the higher FLs considering it was reduced by 900Kg/hr for just 10K feet...
The reason the fuel flows dropped so much at the higher altitudes was that the aircraft had to be a lot lighter before she would get up there. It was her lighter weight that was the primary reason for the reduced fuel flows, not the higher altitude.
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but in her cruise climb, Concorde was flown at her optimum speed (M2.00) with (constant) optimum power set (max cruise power) and so (assuming a constant OAT above the tropopause) the only thing which affected her cruising altitude was her weight.
So, in theory at least, in cruise climb, she was always at her optimum altitude.
Any variation from that optimum altitude, such as a premature climb to higher altitudes, would have cost fuel, not saved it.
... How much of the descent was carried out while supersonic...
At the decel point, the cruise climb ceased and she was flown level at constant altitude. The F/E partially throttled back the engines and she stayed in level flight until her speed reduced to 350kts IAS, typically M1.5.
This took about 50nm, and most of the passengers would have sworn that they were already descending.
She then descended at 350kts IAS, meaning the Mach number would reduce constantly. On a straight in approach to JFK, with no subsonic cruise section, she would become subsonic descending through (around) FL350.
For a straight in approach, in zero wind, on a standard day, from FL600 to touchdown, typical figures would be something like a track distance of around 200nm, flying time of 22 minutes and 3,500kg of fuel.
Into LHR, she had to be subsonic much further away from her destination, and then had a subsonic cruise section on airways, so a slightly different procedure was used, and approaching FL410 she was slowed still further, becoming subsonic around FL400.
Anonymous
In response to your PM, earlier posters were correct in what they posted, however the manual reversion they refer to is a reversion from electrical to mechanical signalling to the flying controls.
There was no way to operate the flying controls manually in the absence of hydraulic power.
... My other query concerns the FE. I understand that he set take off power etc...
Actually the F/E didn’t set T/O power, but did set most of the other power settings.
Broadly speaking, taxy-out to gear up, and gear down to engine shut down, the handling pilot operated the throttles. At other times, it was (almost) always the F/E.
Bear in mind that several of the routine engine power changes were effected through controls other than the throttles. For instance, selection of the re-heats, engine control schedules, engine ratings and intake lanes were all switch selections.
... I also understand that he also checked the pilots inputs into the INS system...
Correct, using INS3.
...So was he/she also a qualified pilot?..
No, they were professional flight engineers, who held a Flight Engineers Licence; they were not pilots biding their time before moving to the right hand seat.
I believe one or two may have held a PPL, but that was purely incidental, not a requirement.
All of the Concorde FEs had spent years on the VC10, B707, DC10, L10-11 or B747 fleets before coming to Concorde.
Biggles78
...Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent was the flight...
Cruise climb, yes. Cruise descent, no.
...and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing?..
Correct, any level flight in the “cruise”, was just coincidence, probably caused by the outside air temperature increasing very gradually. Typically, she drifted up at around 30 to 50 fpm, but, if encountering warmer air, she would start to drift back down, in order to maintain M2.0.
... As you have said, fuel flow was reduced the higher you got. I think it was 5T per powerplant at FL500 down to 4.1T at FL600...
Rather optimistic figures for FL500 I’d have said! 6,000kg/hr/engine would have been nearer the mark!
...I am curious to see how much less fuel would have been used at the higher FLs considering it was reduced by 900Kg/hr for just 10K feet...
The reason the fuel flows dropped so much at the higher altitudes was that the aircraft had to be a lot lighter before she would get up there. It was her lighter weight that was the primary reason for the reduced fuel flows, not the higher altitude.
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but in her cruise climb, Concorde was flown at her optimum speed (M2.00) with (constant) optimum power set (max cruise power) and so (assuming a constant OAT above the tropopause) the only thing which affected her cruising altitude was her weight.
So, in theory at least, in cruise climb, she was always at her optimum altitude.
Any variation from that optimum altitude, such as a premature climb to higher altitudes, would have cost fuel, not saved it.
... How much of the descent was carried out while supersonic...
At the decel point, the cruise climb ceased and she was flown level at constant altitude. The F/E partially throttled back the engines and she stayed in level flight until her speed reduced to 350kts IAS, typically M1.5.
This took about 50nm, and most of the passengers would have sworn that they were already descending.
She then descended at 350kts IAS, meaning the Mach number would reduce constantly. On a straight in approach to JFK, with no subsonic cruise section, she would become subsonic descending through (around) FL350.
For a straight in approach, in zero wind, on a standard day, from FL600 to touchdown, typical figures would be something like a track distance of around 200nm, flying time of 22 minutes and 3,500kg of fuel.
Into LHR, she had to be subsonic much further away from her destination, and then had a subsonic cruise section on airways, so a slightly different procedure was used, and approaching FL410 she was slowed still further, becoming subsonic around FL400.
Anonymous
In response to your PM, earlier posters were correct in what they posted, however the manual reversion they refer to is a reversion from electrical to mechanical signalling to the flying controls.
There was no way to operate the flying controls manually in the absence of hydraulic power.
23rd Aug 2010, 14:16
permalink Post: 82
Approach handling was an interesting exercise - being so far down the back of the drag curve (over 100kts below best L/D) very accurate thrust handling was required.
The autothrottle was always used for approach if servicable, except for a two-engined approach, and was absolutely excellent. There were two, operating in parallel, and if the speed was more than a couple of knots out for more than a few seconds it was unusual. In IAS ACQ mode there was an active input from the INS which tracked grounspeed and so enabled anticipatory throttle movements during wind changes - if an autoland runway was available the preferred method of dealing with an approach likely to experience windshear was to carry out an autoland. (I think I speak for everyone, though, if I express a preference for the just going somewhere else option).
In Supercruise one autothrottle only was rearmed if the associated autopilot was engaged - it wasn't active but was available to cater for sudden drops in temperature which could cause unpleasant sudden high rates of climb if the temp shear was sufficient.
The rest of the flight - basically manual thrust, usually with the throttles fully forward.
Maybe one day we'll start making aeroplanes with such sophisticated systems again...........there's still lots that hasn't been hinted at on this thread
The autothrottle was always used for approach if servicable, except for a two-engined approach, and was absolutely excellent. There were two, operating in parallel, and if the speed was more than a couple of knots out for more than a few seconds it was unusual. In IAS ACQ mode there was an active input from the INS which tracked grounspeed and so enabled anticipatory throttle movements during wind changes - if an autoland runway was available the preferred method of dealing with an approach likely to experience windshear was to carry out an autoland. (I think I speak for everyone, though, if I express a preference for the just going somewhere else option).
In Supercruise one autothrottle only was rearmed if the associated autopilot was engaged - it wasn't active but was available to cater for sudden drops in temperature which could cause unpleasant sudden high rates of climb if the temp shear was sufficient.
The rest of the flight - basically manual thrust, usually with the throttles fully forward.
Maybe one day we'll start making aeroplanes with such sophisticated systems again...........there's still lots that hasn't been hinted at on this thread
25th Aug 2010, 12:34
permalink Post: 109
stilton
...In your superb photograph ... thank you ... both RMI'S shown seem to be showing a heading of 230 while the heading on the HSI shows 220 with the annunciation TRUE above the HSI...I am thinking that the RMI's are showing magnetic headings ?...
Correct. The RMIs show 230\xb0(M) and the HSI shows 220\xb0(T).
...were you operating on TRUE headings in this case as it seems...
Yes.
The HSI had earlier been selected to show TRUE data, by moving the RAD/INS switch (out of picture) to INS. This changed the data inputs to the HSI from Magnetic to True, but did not affect the data input to the RMI compass cards. The data input to the RMIs was always magnetic, supplied by one of two compass systems; normally #2 compass system fed the Captain\x92s RMI card.
The red/black flags visible in the VOR RMI indicate that both the VOR stations selected are out of range.
The flags visible on the HSI indicate:
... what was the reason for this ?...
When flying long legs over areas of the world with few/no radio facilities, aircraft generally navigate from one Lat/Long waypoint to the next Lat/Long waypoint by using their INS systems, rather than tracking from radio beacon to radio beacon. The North Atlantic Track system is good example of this, as is this route down to BGI. Because there is no useful magnetic/radio information to display in such areas, True (INS) information is usually displayed, which brings with it two main advantages.
Firstly, you get to monitor how well the autopilot is doing, because the beam bar in the HSI should always be centralised if the aircraft is on track.
Secondly, as the aircraft changes course over a waypoint, you get the chance to check the Initial True Track it then takes up corresponds to the ITT pre-calculated on your flight plan. This is an important check (called the \x93Waypoint Change Drill\x94) in BA, that you have not mis-programmed the INS waypoints!
This procedure, of navigating in True, is by no means a Concorde procedure, all long range BA aircraft utilise it, and it is in common use in most airlines and aircraft flying long range routes around the World.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
...In your superb photograph ... thank you ... both RMI'S shown seem to be showing a heading of 230 while the heading on the HSI shows 220 with the annunciation TRUE above the HSI...I am thinking that the RMI's are showing magnetic headings ?...
Correct. The RMIs show 230\xb0(M) and the HSI shows 220\xb0(T).
...were you operating on TRUE headings in this case as it seems...
Yes.
The HSI had earlier been selected to show TRUE data, by moving the RAD/INS switch (out of picture) to INS. This changed the data inputs to the HSI from Magnetic to True, but did not affect the data input to the RMI compass cards. The data input to the RMIs was always magnetic, supplied by one of two compass systems; normally #2 compass system fed the Captain\x92s RMI card.
The red/black flags visible in the VOR RMI indicate that both the VOR stations selected are out of range.
The flags visible on the HSI indicate:
- TRUE.......True compass data (not magnetic) is being displayed. (TRUE/MAG)
- INS..........An INS (not a VOR) is supplying Nav data to this HSI. (INS/RAD)
- 1............#1 INS (not #2) is supplying Nav data to this HSI. (1/2)
- HDG.........The steering index shows selected heading (not track). (HDG/TRK)
- LIN...........The beam bar is displaying linear (not angular) displacement. (LIN/ANG)
... what was the reason for this ?...
When flying long legs over areas of the world with few/no radio facilities, aircraft generally navigate from one Lat/Long waypoint to the next Lat/Long waypoint by using their INS systems, rather than tracking from radio beacon to radio beacon. The North Atlantic Track system is good example of this, as is this route down to BGI. Because there is no useful magnetic/radio information to display in such areas, True (INS) information is usually displayed, which brings with it two main advantages.
Firstly, you get to monitor how well the autopilot is doing, because the beam bar in the HSI should always be centralised if the aircraft is on track.
Secondly, as the aircraft changes course over a waypoint, you get the chance to check the Initial True Track it then takes up corresponds to the ITT pre-calculated on your flight plan. This is an important check (called the \x93Waypoint Change Drill\x94) in BA, that you have not mis-programmed the INS waypoints!
This procedure, of navigating in True, is by no means a Concorde procedure, all long range BA aircraft utilise it, and it is in common use in most airlines and aircraft flying long range routes around the World.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Last edited by Bellerophon; 25th Aug 2010 at 22:01 .
25th Aug 2010, 22:17
permalink Post: 122
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
Any magnetic core memory in any of those systems?
|
The prototypes used a SAGEM/Ferranti system, replaced by a Litton system on the preprods, then Delco on the production aircraft.
There may have been magnetic core in the prototype INS.
As to the AICS (air intakes) and AFCS (automatic flight control), the answer is a definite NO. The AICUs used PROMs (fuse type, not EPROM) and the AFCS was entirely analog.
Some of the systems were even more 'antique'...
The ADC (air data computer) for instance was still largely electro-mechanical.
And those nifty NAV and COMM frequency selectors, that always stand out on cockpit pictures... no electronics at all, just a set of wafer switches, and about thirty wires linking them to the transmitters/receivers.
CJ
26th Aug 2010, 00:07
permalink Post: 124
Brit312
It's so great to have a Flight Engineer's input into this fascinating thread. Your write up on the complexities of managing the fuel system was something else; the best such description I've ever read. I'm still wetting myself with your story about the E/O coming out of the loo with his trolleys around his ankles after a surge. (Not you I hope
).
The original air intake that was in use for the first few years of airline operation was as you know far more prone to surging than the later modified intake with the thinned and lowered bottom lip, which was far more stable and forgiving. Not only was the 'new' intake more stable, a new leading edge fitted to the rear ramp as part of the same modification, at a stroke cured the very serious ramp vibration issue, that was causing intake structural problems at lower supersonic Mach numbers. The most impressive change of all was a fuel saving of around 1.5 Tonnes per Atlantic crossing, with even bigger improvements in cooler temperatures. A major software change obviously accompanied this modification.
ChristiaanJ
YEP! I remember now, the ADC/DAC board definitely WAS one of the candidates that were modified.
I think you will find the tale about AICUs being removed after museum delivery flights was more urban myth. The only units that I can remember being removed or relocated were the ground power protection unit, the TCAS processors and the radar transceivers. (BA had retrofitted their aircraft with a superb Bendix system a few years earlier, and the same units (with windshear detection re-enabled) are used on other aircraft types).
As far as ferrite cores are concerned, asked by DozyWannabe , the original Delco C1VAC INS fitted to the BA Concorde aircraft did utilise ferrite cores. These were replaced with CMOS EPROMs when a modification was carried out in the early 90's, in which a navigation database was fitted to the units. The fuel consumed and total fuel remaining indicators definitely used a ferrite core memory. These electronic displays used an internal memory in case of power interrupts. As far as AFCS goes, can you check your records? Although, as you say, a completely analog system (with the exception of the ITEM test computers) I seem to remember that the Safety Flight Control Computer used a ferrite core for the flying control strain gauge null memory. I could be wrong here, but I can't remember any other NVM in use at the time.
Galaxy Flyer
I'll leave it to one of my pilot (or F/E) friends to answer this one it that's OK.
Dude
It's so great to have a Flight Engineer's input into this fascinating thread. Your write up on the complexities of managing the fuel system was something else; the best such description I've ever read. I'm still wetting myself with your story about the E/O coming out of the loo with his trolleys around his ankles after a surge. (Not you I hope
).
The original air intake that was in use for the first few years of airline operation was as you know far more prone to surging than the later modified intake with the thinned and lowered bottom lip, which was far more stable and forgiving. Not only was the 'new' intake more stable, a new leading edge fitted to the rear ramp as part of the same modification, at a stroke cured the very serious ramp vibration issue, that was causing intake structural problems at lower supersonic Mach numbers. The most impressive change of all was a fuel saving of around 1.5 Tonnes per Atlantic crossing, with even bigger improvements in cooler temperatures. A major software change obviously accompanied this modification.
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
| The one I know about is the ADC/DAC board (analog-digital and digital-analog converter board). The supply of either ADCs or DACs ran out literaly worldwide, and the board had to be redesigned, requalified and recertified with more recent components, and a new batch manufactured. The cost, for the replacement of that board alone, came to about 3 million euros |
YEP! I remember now, the ADC/DAC board definitely WAS one of the candidates that were modified.
I think you will find the tale about AICUs being removed after museum delivery flights was more urban myth. The only units that I can remember being removed or relocated were the ground power protection unit, the TCAS processors and the radar transceivers. (BA had retrofitted their aircraft with a superb Bendix system a few years earlier, and the same units (with windshear detection re-enabled) are used on other aircraft types).
As far as ferrite cores are concerned, asked by DozyWannabe , the original Delco C1VAC INS fitted to the BA Concorde aircraft did utilise ferrite cores. These were replaced with CMOS EPROMs when a modification was carried out in the early 90's, in which a navigation database was fitted to the units. The fuel consumed and total fuel remaining indicators definitely used a ferrite core memory. These electronic displays used an internal memory in case of power interrupts. As far as AFCS goes, can you check your records? Although, as you say, a completely analog system (with the exception of the ITEM test computers) I seem to remember that the Safety Flight Control Computer used a ferrite core for the flying control strain gauge null memory. I could be wrong here, but I can't remember any other NVM in use at the time.
Galaxy Flyer
I'll leave it to one of my pilot (or F/E) friends to answer this one it that's OK.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 26th Aug 2010 at 00:20 .
26th Aug 2010, 01:04
permalink Post: 125
Thank you very much for that information guys. I guess I was trying to work out how the processing work was done, and I suppose from the answers given that other than the INS, it must have been worked out directly on the hardware in realtime. Obviously this was in the decades before von Neumann architecture became ubiquitous, which is why I find the subject so fascinating being a computer scientist (of sorts) myself!
This thread is officially awesome.
This thread is officially awesome.
27th Aug 2010, 22:25
permalink Post: 146
Brit312
Your memory is not fading; the ONLY disadvantage with carbon brakes is their susceptabilty to over-torque damage. For this reason 'max power on brakes wasalways verboten. I seem to remember that the development A/C with steel brakes could be 'wound up' on the brakes. But the improved braking performance, not to mention a 1,200lb weight saving of carbon made this a small price to pay.
The 3/4 tab; that takes me back, it was officially called the 'Reheat Capability Indicator', definately not the most sophisticated part of the Concorde flight deck. (I seem to remember that before the 'RCI
' was fitted, an INS CDU Waypoint thumbwheel was used as a 3 or 4 reminder).
Oh and ChristiaanJ; I always loved that clip.
Dude
Your memory is not fading; the ONLY disadvantage with carbon brakes is their susceptabilty to over-torque damage. For this reason 'max power on brakes wasalways verboten. I seem to remember that the development A/C with steel brakes could be 'wound up' on the brakes. But the improved braking performance, not to mention a 1,200lb weight saving of carbon made this a small price to pay.
The 3/4 tab; that takes me back, it was officially called the 'Reheat Capability Indicator', definately not the most sophisticated part of the Concorde flight deck. (I seem to remember that before the 'RCI
' was fitted, an INS CDU Waypoint thumbwheel was used as a 3 or 4 reminder).
Oh and ChristiaanJ; I always loved that clip.
Dude
29th Aug 2010, 18:57
permalink Post: 151
I know that other planes such as the 747 had INS; so in a way this question is not specifically related to Concorde. With the radio navigation update was the lat and long of appropiate radio beacons hard wired into the system and then based on the assumed position the nearest beacons would automatically be tuned or did the pilots enter the lat and long of the beacons that they would then manually tune?
I guess there were three INS units to allow for drift etc and it would be easier to spot if one unit was less accurate than the other two. So when radio updating was not possible ie over the atlantic was it possible for the automatics to weigh against one rouge reading
Finally as Concordes ground speed was over double that of other aeroplanes was there any need to take this into account when designing and building the INS system(other than the speed display that would have to show an extra digit)?
Thanks
Nick
I guess there were three INS units to allow for drift etc and it would be easier to spot if one unit was less accurate than the other two. So when radio updating was not possible ie over the atlantic was it possible for the automatics to weigh against one rouge reading
Finally as Concordes ground speed was over double that of other aeroplanes was there any need to take this into account when designing and building the INS system(other than the speed display that would have to show an extra digit)?
Thanks
Nick
Last edited by Nick Thomas; 29th Aug 2010 at 19:00 . Reason: punctuation
29th Aug 2010, 19:51
permalink Post: 152
Hi Nick,
On 707s in early 70s I can only remember 2 INS sets on the centre console. (Where was the third?) They were independent of each other, but we could load up to 9 new way points into both sets simultaneously using the "REMOTE" buttons. There was no automatic radio position updating.
The best we could do was press the "HOLD" button when we were over a VOR, compare the displayed position with the published, and update the position if it was in significantly in error. (In practice we hardly ever did it because determining the overhead position was always a bit iffy). All radio Nav aids had to be manually tuned. Navigation was done using Heading select, whilst comparing Cross Track Error and Desired Track, Dist to Go etc.
Later, with the introduction of FMS (on L1011) we had 3 INS, Tripple MIX, Radio position updating using DME/DME, ETA prediction etc. PFM.
Since INS was developed initially for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Guidance and the Apollo Space programme, I don't think Mach 2 or less was a problem.
I've enjoyed reading this Concorde thread more than anything else that's been posted. Please tell how the Nav displays evolved during their service.
Regards, RRR
On 707s in early 70s I can only remember 2 INS sets on the centre console. (Where was the third?) They were independent of each other, but we could load up to 9 new way points into both sets simultaneously using the "REMOTE" buttons. There was no automatic radio position updating.
The best we could do was press the "HOLD" button when we were over a VOR, compare the displayed position with the published, and update the position if it was in significantly in error. (In practice we hardly ever did it because determining the overhead position was always a bit iffy). All radio Nav aids had to be manually tuned. Navigation was done using Heading select, whilst comparing Cross Track Error and Desired Track, Dist to Go etc.
Later, with the introduction of FMS (on L1011) we had 3 INS, Tripple MIX, Radio position updating using DME/DME, ETA prediction etc. PFM.
Since INS was developed initially for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Guidance and the Apollo Space programme, I don't think Mach 2 or less was a problem.
I've enjoyed reading this Concorde thread more than anything else that's been posted. Please tell how the Nav displays evolved during their service.
Regards, RRR
29th Aug 2010, 22:26
permalink Post: 154
Nick Thomas
You really do have a great selection of queries Nick
.
Although Concorde was wired for full area navigation, with autotuning nav radio selectors, this was never fully implemented, and the autotuning selectors replaced with fairly conventional units at entry into service. (Although on route proving trials, G-BOAC did fly with the autotuning selectors).
HOWEVER, a really neat 'next best thing' system evolved: Originally the INS's had an optical card reader for inputting waypoints etc. (when 'island dodging' flying supersonic over the Mediterranean, to avoid booming the populous, it was said to be almost impossible to add waypoints quick enough manually). This card reader was really quite poor; when you inserted the card it was a lottery whether it came out of the reader in one piece, or even at all. Eventually a fairly sophisticated system was developed, and the card readers done away with altogether, and a navigation database was added to the INS units. This database would be updated a couple of times a year, and had to be loaded into each of the three units separately, USING A CASSETTE TAPE!!! All the 'normal' collection Concorde of routes were stored in the database, although the INS core memory could still only handle 9 waypoints at a time. (A light flashed when it was time to 'turn the page' and with a simple push of a button the next bank of waypoints were automatically uploaded into INS core memory. DME co-ordinates were also stored, along with the co-sited VOR frequency that had to be manually dialled for that station; ideally the left and right INSs would use two differing DMEs for best accuracy, and INS3 would use the mean. (Another simple button push would nominate and select the DME to be used by the INS). So, when flying within range of a VOR, the INS position would be refined with the co-sited DME slant range, but when flying oceanic, the 3 INSs would 'triple mix' their inertial positions to give a mean position. A 'rogue' INSs position would be rejected by the other two however, so as not to be sent to the moon because of a bad unit.
Rudderrudderrat
Nowhere near as sophisticated as the FMS system on the Tristar as you can see, but it seemed to work absolutely beautifully. (And when the system was DME updating, we even got an indication from an RNAV light, originally fitted for Area Navigation.
Actally there was a problem of sorts, above 900 KTS G/S, the original DELCO INS would generate an error (after all, WHO would ever want to travell at more than 900 KTS; something must be wrong here
?). A special 'supersonic mode' had to be enabled by the way of pin programming in the INS rack, which inhibited this warning.
Really glad you are enjoying the ravings of us supersonic nutters.
Dude
You really do have a great selection of queries Nick
.
Quote:
| With the radio navigation update was the lat and long of appropiate radio beacons hard wired into the system and then based on the assumed position the nearest beacons would automatically be tuned or did the pilots enter the lat and long of the beacons that they would then manually tune? |
HOWEVER, a really neat 'next best thing' system evolved: Originally the INS's had an optical card reader for inputting waypoints etc. (when 'island dodging' flying supersonic over the Mediterranean, to avoid booming the populous, it was said to be almost impossible to add waypoints quick enough manually). This card reader was really quite poor; when you inserted the card it was a lottery whether it came out of the reader in one piece, or even at all. Eventually a fairly sophisticated system was developed, and the card readers done away with altogether, and a navigation database was added to the INS units. This database would be updated a couple of times a year, and had to be loaded into each of the three units separately, USING A CASSETTE TAPE!!! All the 'normal' collection Concorde of routes were stored in the database, although the INS core memory could still only handle 9 waypoints at a time. (A light flashed when it was time to 'turn the page' and with a simple push of a button the next bank of waypoints were automatically uploaded into INS core memory. DME co-ordinates were also stored, along with the co-sited VOR frequency that had to be manually dialled for that station; ideally the left and right INSs would use two differing DMEs for best accuracy, and INS3 would use the mean. (Another simple button push would nominate and select the DME to be used by the INS). So, when flying within range of a VOR, the INS position would be refined with the co-sited DME slant range, but when flying oceanic, the 3 INSs would 'triple mix' their inertial positions to give a mean position. A 'rogue' INSs position would be rejected by the other two however, so as not to be sent to the moon because of a bad unit.
Rudderrudderrat
Nowhere near as sophisticated as the FMS system on the Tristar as you can see, but it seemed to work absolutely beautifully. (And when the system was DME updating, we even got an indication from an RNAV light, originally fitted for Area Navigation.
Quote:
| Since INS was developed initially for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Guidance and the Apollo Space programme, I don't think Mach 2 or less was a problem. |
?). A special 'supersonic mode' had to be enabled by the way of pin programming in the INS rack, which inhibited this warning.
Really glad you are enjoying the ravings of us supersonic nutters.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 30th Aug 2010 at 05:12 .
30th Aug 2010, 04:27
permalink Post: 156
Nick Thomas
SLF keep the rest of us in business, your input is so very welcome here. Nick, the 'French Bike Bell' is exactly what it was, as the electric pitch trim wheen ran up or down a striker would impact this tiny bell and make the sound that you describe. 'Pitch Trim' sounds like a strange term, after all the aircraft had no trim tabs or tailplane as we all know. What varying the pitch trim used to do was to alter the neutral setting of the artificial feel unit, the control column following this neautral datum.
ZX81, takes me back here. The tape loading that was used on the INS took around 45 minutes per navigation unit, that's two and a quarter hours total for the system. (There was no cross-loading). If Concorde had remained in service, new legislation meant that a more accurate primary navigation system would have been required. One of the systems under consideration was a Litton 82 l@ser INS with GPS refinement. (As well as DME updating also).
Dude
SLF keep the rest of us in business, your input is so very welcome here. Nick, the 'French Bike Bell' is exactly what it was, as the electric pitch trim wheen ran up or down a striker would impact this tiny bell and make the sound that you describe. 'Pitch Trim' sounds like a strange term, after all the aircraft had no trim tabs or tailplane as we all know. What varying the pitch trim used to do was to alter the neutral setting of the artificial feel unit, the control column following this neautral datum.
ZX81, takes me back here. The tape loading that was used on the INS took around 45 minutes per navigation unit, that's two and a quarter hours total for the system. (There was no cross-loading). If Concorde had remained in service, new legislation meant that a more accurate primary navigation system would have been required. One of the systems under consideration was a Litton 82 l@ser INS with GPS refinement. (As well as DME updating also).
Dude
3rd Sep 2010, 19:58
permalink Post: 202
ChristiaanJ
During AUTOLAND a flare manoeuvre was instigated by the Pitch Computer at 50' radio, where a fairly simple flare law was invoked. I seem to remember that the law , which used a combination of radio rate (from the RadAlt) and vertical acceleration (from the INS) gave you a commanded height rate of 10'/second at 50', exponentially reducing to 1.7'/second at point of main wheel touch down.
The autoland on Concorde was both extremely accurate and reliable, and an awful lot of guys said they hated using it 'because it can land the aircraft
better than I can'; their words NOT mine. (Personally I never bought that one, the guys were just modest as far as I was concerned
). This in my opinion is an absolute testament to the AFCS designers; ChristiaanJ and his colleagues at SFENA and GEC Marconi.
To give the complete final approach story; as the aircraft tracked the glideslope in LAND mode, the autopilot G/S deviation, like most aircraft, was geared as an inverse function of radio altitude, and at 75' radio this deviation was flushed down the loo altogether, leaving the A/P to hold radio rate for just a few feet. At 50' the flare was instigated, and at around 35' DECRAB was commanded, where the yaw channel would use a rudder input alone to 'kick off drift' and align the aircraft with the runway centreline. (Concorde did not employ a fwd slip manoeuvre in crosswind conditions, being a slender delta). The 'final' command was at 15' radio, when the autothrottle smartly retarded the throttles. (The Pitch Computer flare law of course continuing to control decent rate all the way down). On touchdown the autopilot would be manually disengaged and the nose gently (usually
) lowered to the ground. (Concorde was only designed and certified as a CAT 3A system, so there was no automatic rollout guidance. However there was a runway guidance symbol on the ADI, which used a combination of Localiser deviation and lateral acceleration, to give you runway rollout track).
Now the flare law was tested every autoland, at G/S capture, and failure of this test resulted in the loss of LAND 3 status on the landing display panel. The most common defect of all with the Concorde autoland was in fact failure of the flare test, when at G/S capture, the previously illuminated LAND 3 indication would drop all of it's own to LAND 2. A simple changeover of autopilot paddle switches would nail the offending Pitch Computer, which would then be replaced before the next trip.
Dude
Quote:
| During landing, Concorde isn't flared at all, it is flown onto the ground at a constant pitch attitude. |
The autoland on Concorde was both extremely accurate and reliable, and an awful lot of guys said they hated using it 'because it can land the aircraft
better than I can'; their words NOT mine. (Personally I never bought that one, the guys were just modest as far as I was concerned
). This in my opinion is an absolute testament to the AFCS designers; ChristiaanJ and his colleagues at SFENA and GEC Marconi.
To give the complete final approach story; as the aircraft tracked the glideslope in LAND mode, the autopilot G/S deviation, like most aircraft, was geared as an inverse function of radio altitude, and at 75' radio this deviation was flushed down the loo altogether, leaving the A/P to hold radio rate for just a few feet. At 50' the flare was instigated, and at around 35' DECRAB was commanded, where the yaw channel would use a rudder input alone to 'kick off drift' and align the aircraft with the runway centreline. (Concorde did not employ a fwd slip manoeuvre in crosswind conditions, being a slender delta). The 'final' command was at 15' radio, when the autothrottle smartly retarded the throttles. (The Pitch Computer flare law of course continuing to control decent rate all the way down). On touchdown the autopilot would be manually disengaged and the nose gently (usually
) lowered to the ground. (Concorde was only designed and certified as a CAT 3A system, so there was no automatic rollout guidance. However there was a runway guidance symbol on the ADI, which used a combination of Localiser deviation and lateral acceleration, to give you runway rollout track).
Now the flare law was tested every autoland, at G/S capture, and failure of this test resulted in the loss of LAND 3 status on the landing display panel. The most common defect of all with the Concorde autoland was in fact failure of the flare test, when at G/S capture, the previously illuminated LAND 3 indication would drop all of it's own to LAND 2. A simple changeover of autopilot paddle switches would nail the offending Pitch Computer, which would then be replaced before the next trip.
Dude
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
7th Sep 2010, 07:29
permalink Post: 246
ChristiaanJ
It was one of the strange little differences between the BA and Air France aircraft that the French had a small digital TAS indicator (on the lower F/O's instrument panel) and BA had none.
As you rightly say, as an indicator TAS is not that much use to you, BUT TAS is vital for calculating wind speed/direction within an INS/IRS system, hence that is why any air data computer gives a TAS output to the INS or IRS.
Nothing dumb about the question (I wonder if you are even capable of such a thing ChristiaanJ
). Yes, the distance window on the HSI related to the next INS waypoint.
Dude
Quote:
| ....... 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.. |
As you rightly say, as an indicator TAS is not that much use to you, BUT TAS is vital for calculating wind speed/direction within an INS/IRS system, hence that is why any air data computer gives a TAS output to the INS or IRS.
Quote:
| dumb question from a techie... the 373 miles is presumably just the distance to the next INS waypoint? |
). Yes, the distance window on the HSI related to the next INS waypoint.
Dude
7th Sep 2010, 07:45
permalink Post: 248
Stilton
Hi again my friend. There were a few; BA used a Delco Carousel 4AC INS, where AF used a Litton system. BA updated the radar to a Bendix sytem, where I believe that AF retained the original RCA fit. (The RCA radar was awfully unreliable (rubbish actually, and very expensive to fix) , although most of the guys would agree that it gave a superbly detailed picture, better for mapping than the Bendix.
BA used quite a sophisticated Plessey integrated flight data system, where the AF recording system was a little simpler.
There were various other minor differences, but I think that's just about it.
Dude
Hi again my friend. There were a few; BA used a Delco Carousel 4AC INS, where AF used a Litton system. BA updated the radar to a Bendix sytem, where I believe that AF retained the original RCA fit. (The RCA radar was awfully unreliable (rubbish actually, and very expensive to fix) , although most of the guys would agree that it gave a superbly detailed picture, better for mapping than the Bendix.
BA used quite a sophisticated Plessey integrated flight data system, where the AF recording system was a little simpler.
There were various other minor differences, but I think that's just about it.
Dude
9th Sep 2010, 07:51
permalink Post: 289
Alpine Flyer
And a darned good airplane too
One for my 'winged' friends really, but with BA it was an issue of seniority, with a long waiting list for selection. As far as I recall there were only ever a couple of cases when a captain left the fleet for another aircraft, most would very happily fly Concorde until retirement at 55. The senior first officers generally had to (reluctantly) change fleets when they got their commands, however there was as far as I remember two exceptions here, where an SFO was able to 'jump seats' to captain. SEOs would stay on Concorde until retirement. (In all the years that I can remember there was only one case of an
SEO
switching fleets from Concorde). A pilot friend once put it to me that if your passion in life was as a flyer of aeroplanes, then there was really nowhere to go after Concorde.
Oh yes, Concorde had a 'real' full flight flight regime autothrottle. The autothrottle actuator would drive all four levers together via individual isolation clutches and the computer used the sum of all four lever angles. In the unlikely event of an engine being shut down in flight, the A/T could still be used. There was an isolation switch on the roof panel that would enable the affected engine's thrust lever to be isolated and closed to idle, the computer using the sigmals from the other three engines, demanding a now higher lever angle to compensate for the failed engine.
The prototypes I recall had a DECCA moving map, but with the availability of INS (and the decline and finally shutting down of the DECCA chains) made the system a waste of time (not to mention space).
Dude
Quote:
| Well, the deHavilland Dash 7 has one, and I will take exception to anyone denying it airliner status. |
Quote:
| Is it true that Concorde was always flown by the highest seniority BA captains, copilots and flight engineers? Would Concorde usually be the last rung on the ladder before retirement for Captains/FEs or was it usual to return to slower equipment after a stint on Concorde? |
Quote:
| And, sorry if I missed this, would Concorde thrust levers move during autothrottle operation? |
Quote:
| Lastly, Concorde was originally to have had a large moving map system. Any insights into why and how that got scrapped along the way? |
Dude
16th Sep 2010, 10:31
permalink Post: 372
Oh yes Roger, I do agree (and a point well made too). Concorde was very much a 1970's era electronics design (with even a little 1960s thrown in too). It was typical that as long as things were left alone and warm, they more or less were happy.
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her
).
I hope so Roger, I think we all did our best.
Dude
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her
).
Quote:
| So, while Concorde clearly 'enjoyed' doing her job, did she respond to your obviously sympathetic synapses? |
Dude
16th Sep 2010, 14:22
permalink Post: 376
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
EXWOK
... visiting SFJ or Rovaniemi, or setting off around the world, predominantly to non-BA destinations. My favourites, though, were the RTBs out of Filton - EVERYONE was either connected to Conc development or manufacture, or was related to someone who was. Fantastic atmosphere. Shame the runway wasn't a bit longer........
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
The most amazing thing about RTW charters (or earth orbiters, as I would call them) was that the aircraft often returned to London with only a very small handfull of minor defects. The thing about Concorde was the more that she flew, the happier she was, and less likely to catch a cold.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her ).
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Landlady
I haven't time right now to go into the spectacular Round-The -World aircruises, but I promise I will be back if you are still interested. I used to do some public speaking about Concorde on behalf of BA,(we were called ambassadors in those days),so I will try to dig out some catering facts and figures, which are quite interesting.
|
16th Oct 2010, 22:27
permalink Post: 580
OK, I see others have already posted answers.
I've carefully avoided looking at them, but I'll might as well plug in mine now.
My personal problem is that I was involved in the very earliest days, before the aircraft went into service, and then in the last days and afterwards...
So the questions dealing with the in-service period are totally outside my field of experience... all I can do is guess, in case I saw the answers somewhere.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
Twenty-two.
Two static-test airframes.
- One at Toulouse, for purely static tests, and tests such as vibration and flutter.
- One at Farnborough, for the long-duration thermal fatigue tests.
(A few bits and pieces of the Farnborough test specimen have survived, and can still be seen at the Brooklands museum).
Two prototypes (001 and 002)
Two pre-production aircraft (01 and 02)
Two production aircraft used for certification, that never entered service (201 - F-WTSB and 202 - G-BBDG)
Fourteen production aircraft, seven that served with British Airways, seven that served with Air France.
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
Not a clue as to the full list.
- Bahrain, obviously.
- JFK.
- IAD (not sure if that's rated as regular, or only incidental)
- Dallas (with Braniff)
- Barbados (of course, right until the end)
- Sngapore (with Singapore Airlines, and G-BOAD in Singapore Airlines colours on one side)
- Sydney (again no idea if that rated as a regular flight or only a few tries)
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
Not a clue either. Vague memory of about 10:00 am which gave you a full working day in New York.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?)..
Never flew on them, never had to deal with them.
BA174 comes to mind from the depths of my memory, in that case BA003 would have been BA176?
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump )
M2dude, I did AFCS, not the fuel system. I believe you, but without pulling out some diagrams I honestly have NO idea.
I expect each tank had at least two pumps, which gets me up to 26.
Then there were a few emergency pumps for the trim tanks, and I suppose each engine had additional pumps associated with it.
Still nowhere near the 46 I need to find.....
6) What airframe had the only TOTALLY unique shape?
That would have been my old friend, 01 (G-AXDN), first pre-production aircraft, now at Duxford.
It was the first Concorde with the new transparent visor, but it still had the short tail that characterised the prototypes.
It was 02 (F-WTSA), the first French pre-production aircraft, that was close to the final shape of the production aircraft.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
Good question.... never counted them all. But I'll try a guess.
First a nice one, the SFENA Emergency Standby Artificial Horizon (made by the firm I worked for).
Ran off the Emergency Battery Bus via a small independent inverter.
And if that failed too, it would still run reliably for several minutes on its own inertia.
Next, the rate gyros used by the autostabilisation system ; these measured the angular rate of the aircraft along the three main axes, pitch, roll and yaw.
There were six, three each for the two autostab systems.
Now the rest....
Each IMU (inertial measurement unit, part of the inertial naviagation system) had three gyros.
With three INS on board, that would make nine.
Much as I try, I can't remember other ones, so I'll look forward to the final answer.
I can imagine the weather radar using an additional gyro for stabilisation, but I never went there.
8) How many wheel brakes?
Unless this is a trick question, I would say eight, for each of the main gear wheels.
The nose gear did not have any brakes - unless there were some small ones to stop the wheels rotating after retraction of the gear, but not used during landing.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
No idea.
Mach 1.0 or thereabouts is my personal guess only.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
I know that they each monitored the status of one of the engines, because it was too complex for the pilots to fully monitor all the parameters of all four engines in the short time between start-of-roll and V1... they had too many other things to do.
But I don't remember what each light meant, would have to look it up in the manual.
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea.
Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
No idea.
Vague memory of it being systematically the North runway for noise issues.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
No idea.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
I would expect the obvious answer to be 002.
Working up from first flight to Mach 2 was a slow and laborious process, and in the end it was 001 that both flew first, and also went to Mach 2 first.
I don't think any of the other aircraft took that long.
A I said, I tried to answer all questions "off the top of my head", without looking at any other sources.
CJ
I've carefully avoided looking at them, but I'll might as well plug in mine now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
M2dude
If you were never personally involved withe the aircraft you can leave out the really stinky questions if you want.
|
So the questions dealing with the in-service period are totally outside my field of experience... all I can do is guess, in case I saw the answers somewhere.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
Twenty-two.
Two static-test airframes.
- One at Toulouse, for purely static tests, and tests such as vibration and flutter.
- One at Farnborough, for the long-duration thermal fatigue tests.
(A few bits and pieces of the Farnborough test specimen have survived, and can still be seen at the Brooklands museum).
Two prototypes (001 and 002)
Two pre-production aircraft (01 and 02)
Two production aircraft used for certification, that never entered service (201 - F-WTSB and 202 - G-BBDG)
Fourteen production aircraft, seven that served with British Airways, seven that served with Air France.
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
Not a clue as to the full list.
- Bahrain, obviously.
- JFK.
- IAD (not sure if that's rated as regular, or only incidental)
- Dallas (with Braniff)
- Barbados (of course, right until the end)
- Sngapore (with Singapore Airlines, and G-BOAD in Singapore Airlines colours on one side)
- Sydney (again no idea if that rated as a regular flight or only a few tries)
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
Not a clue either. Vague memory of about 10:00 am which gave you a full working day in New York.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?)..
Never flew on them, never had to deal with them.
BA174 comes to mind from the depths of my memory, in that case BA003 would have been BA176?
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump )
M2dude, I did AFCS, not the fuel system. I believe you, but without pulling out some diagrams I honestly have NO idea.
I expect each tank had at least two pumps, which gets me up to 26.
Then there were a few emergency pumps for the trim tanks, and I suppose each engine had additional pumps associated with it.
Still nowhere near the 46 I need to find.....
6) What airframe had the only TOTALLY unique shape?
That would have been my old friend, 01 (G-AXDN), first pre-production aircraft, now at Duxford.
It was the first Concorde with the new transparent visor, but it still had the short tail that characterised the prototypes.
It was 02 (F-WTSA), the first French pre-production aircraft, that was close to the final shape of the production aircraft.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
Good question.... never counted them all. But I'll try a guess.
First a nice one, the SFENA Emergency Standby Artificial Horizon (made by the firm I worked for).
Ran off the Emergency Battery Bus via a small independent inverter.
And if that failed too, it would still run reliably for several minutes on its own inertia.
Next, the rate gyros used by the autostabilisation system ; these measured the angular rate of the aircraft along the three main axes, pitch, roll and yaw.
There were six, three each for the two autostab systems.
Now the rest....
Each IMU (inertial measurement unit, part of the inertial naviagation system) had three gyros.
With three INS on board, that would make nine.
Much as I try, I can't remember other ones, so I'll look forward to the final answer.
I can imagine the weather radar using an additional gyro for stabilisation, but I never went there.
8) How many wheel brakes?
Unless this is a trick question, I would say eight, for each of the main gear wheels.
The nose gear did not have any brakes - unless there were some small ones to stop the wheels rotating after retraction of the gear, but not used during landing.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
No idea.
Mach 1.0 or thereabouts is my personal guess only.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
I know that they each monitored the status of one of the engines, because it was too complex for the pilots to fully monitor all the parameters of all four engines in the short time between start-of-roll and V1... they had too many other things to do.
But I don't remember what each light meant, would have to look it up in the manual.
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea.
Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
No idea.
Vague memory of it being systematically the North runway for noise issues.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
No idea.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
I would expect the obvious answer to be 002.
Working up from first flight to Mach 2 was a slow and laborious process, and in the end it was 001 that both flew first, and also went to Mach 2 first.
I don't think any of the other aircraft took that long.
A I said, I tried to answer all questions "off the top of my head", without looking at any other sources.
CJ