Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Last Index Page
DozyWannabe 18th Oct 2013, 22:40 permalink Post: 1737 |
Quote:
Quote:
CONCORDE SST : CONCORDE B
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 18th Oct 2013 at 23:02 . |
||||
bertpig 10th Dec 2013, 11:44 permalink Post: 1766 |
Superb aircraft, superb thread
I would like to know how susceptible both the clever intakes and the Olympus engines were to damage from bird ingestion, and if it ever happened in flight. I assume the answer might lie in the positioning of the ramps at takeoff and bird inhabited altitudes? Also, a theme throughout the thread has been that the two projects of the era that people wanted to work on were Apollo and Concorde. My question is; were there any companies (and particularly individuals) who were lucky enough to work in some part (large or small) on both of these marvels of engineering? I would also be very interested to hear: i) From the pilots - what the "worst" (both subjectively and objectively if you like) situation or failure was that you trained for in the sim or on a real aircraft. ii) From the engineers - the "Concorde factor" aside, how was she to work on and how did her systems compare in terms of ease of maintenance to regular passenger aircraft of the day? What were the jobs/events most and least looked forward to? iii) Any more about the de-tune facility in some of the pictures posted earlier - was its sole function to hold the bird in place and quieten the engine noise, or did it serve any other purpose (e.g. did it contain any measuring instruments). Disclaimer: Not a pilot/engineer. |
||||
Slatye 13th Jan 2014, 11:19 permalink Post: 1781 |
Getting somewhat closer to the topic - does anyone know what the Tu-144 used for computing? The NASA report on the Tu-144LL says that they had a digital controls for the engines, but since those were new engines the control system was probably a good deal more modern than the original. I can't see any mention of how the intakes were controlled, or what the original engines used.
And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well? |
||||
pattern_is_full 16th Jul 2016, 17:01 permalink Post: 1944 |
According to this, 5500-6000 feet/1700 meters
Heritage Concorde IIRC from one of the previous posts here, the strong differential required also defined the normal descent/deceleration timing and distance. Power could only be reduced to 94% (N1 or N2, I forget which) or there would not be enough "bleed" air available to maintain the cabin altitude at TOD. (although I could have misinterpreted that - it may have had more to do with maintaining the oblique inlet shocks, or hydraulics, or some such.) |