Posts about: "JFK" [Posts: 82 Pages: 5]

Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.

Biggles78
Sorry Biggles78, I'd forgotten to answer your CofG query, so here we go: CofG was a really critical parameter on Concorde, being a delta, with no tailplane made it more so at take off speeds, and as we've previously said, was how we trimmed the aircraft for supersonic flight. CG was expressed as a percentage of the aerodynamic chord line. To get indication of CG you needed to know the mass of fuel in each tank; easy, from the FQI system. You needed to know the moment arm of each tank, (fixed of course). You then needed the zero fuel weight (ZFW) and zero fuel CG (ZFCG); these were manually input into the CG computers by the F/E, from load control data. The final parameter you needed was total fuel weight, again easy from the FQI system.
The 'normal' T/O CG was 53.5%, but in order to increase fuel weight (and hence range) an extra 'bump' was enabled to allow a max T/O CG of 54%. (CG was indicated on a linear gauge, with forward and aft limit 'bugs' either side of the needle. These bugs would move as a function of Mach and at the lower end of the speed range, A/C weight also). As the A/C accelerated, the limit bugs would move rearwards (with of course the rearward shifting centre of pressure) and so the fuel would be moved from the two front trim tanks 9 & 10 to the rear tank. 11. Once tank 11 reached it's preset limit (around 10 tonnes), the remainder of the 'front' fuel would automatically over-spill into tanks 5 & 7. (Once the fuel panel was set up, the whole process was controlled with a single switch). At Mach 2, the CG would be around 59%, the whole rearwards shift being in the order of 6'. As we said before, the 'final' CG could be tweaked to give us a 1/2 degree down elevon, for minimum drag.
I really hope this helps Biggles78.

Guys, back to the Airbus thing; My friend ChristiaanJ gave some really accurate insights, (he always does) but there is another legacy that carries on the this day; some of the audio warning tones were COPIED from Concorde into Airbus. (For example, the A/P disconnect audio is identical). I think this is great, and gives 'our' aircraft a lasting everyday legacy.

As far as the fly by wire goes, Concorde had a relatively simple analog system, with little or no envelope protection (Except at extreme angles if attack). As has been previously poted before, production series test aircraft 201, F-WTSB, pioneered the use of a sidestick within a new digital fly by wire Controlled Conviguration Vehicle sytem, with envelope protection and attitude rate feedback. (This evolved into the superb system known and loved by the Airbus community). It is a really bizaar twist of fate that the Concorde FBW system has more mechanical similarities to the system used in the B777 than Airbus. (Mechanically similar at the front end, with an electric backdrive system moving the column in A/P mode; Concorde being backdriven by a hydraulic relay jack).
As a final piece of irony; the Primary Flight Control Computers on the B777 are designed and built by GEC Marconi Avionics in Rochester Kent, now BAe Systems. This is the same plant where Elliot (becoming Marconi and finally GEC Marconi Avionics) developed and built the UK half of the AFCS computers. Isn't this aviation world strange?
Galaxy Flyer
Your inputs here are great, and I'm sure appreciated by all. (I assume from your name that you were a C5A pilot. While I was in the RAF on C-130's, our Lockheed rep' used to supply us all with company magazines, that were full of stuff on this new (it was then) giant of the sky. I fell in love with it there and then).
Anyway, back to Conc': The decel' positions were carefully worked out and adhered to; the aim was to be subsonic to within (I think) 50 nm of the east coast. I'll wait for one of my Concorde pilot friends to confirm that here, but i think I'm correct. I do have a fond memory of one flight out of JFK; we were temporarily 'held' by Boston ATC to Mach 1.6 (and at around FL440) because of an Air France Concorde heading for JFK. We saw this guy above us, at around FL580 on a near reciprical , doing Mach 2, screaming straight over the top of us. We were excited by this amazing spectacle, and so were the AF crew over the VHF ('you never boomed us, did we boom you?'). But the most excited person of all was this guy in Boston ATC. ('I've never seen anything like it guys, your two blips whistled over each other on my my screen like crazy').
Stliton
As far as the F/D noise levels were concerned, once the nose and visor were raised, it was as if someone had switched off the noise . The main source of noise up there was just the equipment cooling, and that was not bad either. It was, in my view, little noisier up than most subsonics. (But not the 744, where you are so far away from all the racket ).
Ozgrade3
You're making us blush here; thanks for your comments, I think we are just trying to share some of our experiences (and 'bit's we've picked up over the years).
From my perspective, I did write some stuff used by our pilots, AF even got a copy or two I think.

Biggles78
You are right on the button. Under NORMAL circumstances, Concorde never flew supersonically in level flight. You would always follow the Vmo bug on the ASI during the supersonic climb. (The ASI pointer actually nudged into the bug; it was a beautiful design). Initially this would be at a constant Vc of 400 kts, the 400 KT segment then went off towards 530 KTS as you climbed. You then 'stuck' to 530 knots until a fraction over 50,000', when 530 KTS became Mach 2. You would then continue the climb at between Mach 2 and around Mach 2.02, depending on the temperature of the day. (the colder the temperature, the faster you tended to fly). There was an extremely complex AFCS mode for the supersonic climb, that I promise to cover in anaother post.
So yes, on the whole, TOC did equal TOD.
The 'subsonic climb' wasn't quite as you thought; you'd normally subsonic climb to FL280, staying there (at Mach 0.95) until the acceleration point. Mach 0.95 was 'subsonic cruise'. But you were on the right track.
Oh, and NOPE, they never boomed us either
Nick Thomas
Keeping the powerplants as separate as possible was a major design headache, but generally they were just that; there was a titanium centre wall between the two engines and a really substantial heatshield above the engine also, to protect the wing above. To give you an idea how all this worked in practice, in 1980 G-BOAF, flying at Mach 2 between JFK and LHR had a major failure of one of the engines, caused by a defective material ingot used in the forging of one of the 1st stage LP compressor blades; which was subsequently shed. (The analysis done by Rolls Royce ensured that no such incident ever happened again in the life of Concorde). The resulting mayhem terminated in a large amount of engine debris flying around, and a titanium fire burning in the engine bay also. The aircraft however decelerated and landed at Shannon safely. On inspection, although there was extensive damage found in the engine bay, the adjacent engine was completely unmarked, protected by the titanium centre wall, and more importantly, when the heat shield werer removed, the wing was found to be completely undamaged!
The only problem you ever had with the dual nacelle arrangement was if you had an engine surge above Mach 1.6 (These were relatively rare, but could happen with an engine or intake control system malfuntion). If one engine surged, the other would surge in sympathy, because of the shock system being expelled from one intake severely distorting the airflow into it's neighbour. These surges were loud, quite scary (to the crew that is, most passengers never noticed much), but in themselves did no damage at all. Delicate movement of the throttles (employed during the subsequent surge drill) would invariably restore peace and harmony again to all. (The intake on Concorde was self-starting, so no manual movement of the intake variable surfaces should be needed in this event). After this was over, normal flying was resumed again As I said before, these events were relatively rare, but when they did occur, they would be dealt with smartly and professionally; the engine and intake structure being undamaged. (Post surge inspetion checks were always carried out on the ground after an event, on both engine and intake, but nothing much was EVER found).
The reduction of fuel flow as you climbed was quite interesting. Although the throttles would be 'at the wall' (dry power remember), the electronic control system was constantly winding fuel off as a function of Static Air Temperature, as well as falling Total Pressure. The system was always 'tweaking' as you climbed, and you only used as much fuel as you really needed to stay at Mach 2. There were various ratings that would also be manually selected at various phases of flight; each rating change 'detuned' the engine slightly, so yes, you did not run the engine when flying fast at anywhere near the levels you did at lower speeds/altitudes. The engine final ratings were changed from 'Climb' to 'Cruise' manually at FL 500, just as you hit Mach 2).

M2Dude

Yes, 4,000 hours in Lockheed's contribution to wide-body cargo planes. The marvel in all of these planes from the '60s that they were designed by men who began their engineering careers during WW II, used slide rules and tested nearly everything in the sky. I asked a Lockheed engineer (a Canadian from the Avro Arrow program which throw off a number of engineers to the US) how many guys did the actual design work--his answer was something like 300. With GE engines, the Galaxy is finally reaching its potential. A proper plane--it has a Flight Engineer.

My one contact with the Concorde was when I flew a US corporate jet in the mid-80s for a British-American company (industrial gases, you can guess the rest) whose MD was an American who worked in London. During the summer, like clockwork, he worked in London on the Friday mornings, take the mid-day Concorde to JFK. Customs would meet him AT THE GATE, clear him and turn him over to us for the short flight to Martha's Vineyard. His wife could recognize the plane, meet us at the airport at noon for lunch. On Monday, the return trip would unfurl in reverse. NOT one bit of that story can happen today, I cannot imagine US Border officials doing such a thing.

I did hear that a Concorde did once need a engine change in Dulles.

One more question, could the Concorde lose pressurization, descend to some low level (FL180 or below, perhaps FL100) and make it to scheduled destination or would a divert to Shannon or Gander be required? What was a low level cruise speed?

I was recently at Duxford and did tour the Concorde there, amazing how small the cabin was--DC-9-like.

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.

Fascinating thread!

I think (along with the other PAX that day) that I can claim to have been faster on Concorde than anyone else.

Despite many trips, I only flew on BOAB once (sad I know) and there was obviously a malfunction of some sort as the speed (on the Marilake display), instead of stopping in the normal range of 1260-1320 mph continued steadily climbing to 1990 mph.

This was the second "fault" as we had previously begun the flight from JFK with a low speed RTO due to one of the computers disagreeing with the other 2 on takeoff. Despite the slow speed we still had to wait 10 mins for the brakes to cool.

I have it all on Video! (The RTO and the Speed anomaly)

Biggles78
The tailwheel design really was the one exception in poor design terms, but I'm sure that if the aircraft was doing what she should be doing right now, (you know routinely flying across the Atlantic and beyond, instead of languishing in museums), modifications would have finally put this particular malady to bed). In design terms, the rest of the aircraft was nothing short of a flying work of art, a masterpiece. Having said that though, personally I would rather that four rather than three hydraulic systems had been used. Originally there were four systems in the design, but the RED system was deleted, as it was felt to be superfluous. My own view is that this particular decision was total poppycock. Oh, and Green, Blue and Yellow hydraulic systems was something else that Airbus copied from Concorde.... although we ourselves pinched that idea off of the Comet ).
As far as the hydraulic expansion joints go, I will scour around and see if I can find a diagram for you. Try and picture two titanium (or stainless) tubes, on inside the other, with a sealed chamber being formed at the join. Inside this chamber were multiple lands fitted with special viton GLT seals. They did work incredibly well, although occasionally one of the seals gave out, and things got wet, VERY WET.
As far as the 4000 PSI hydraulic system, as EXWOK quite rightly pointed out, the loading on the flying control surfaces were immense throughout the whole flight envelope. (Picture alone just the T/O from JFK RWY 31L, where the aircraft is tightly turning and the gear retracting, all at the same time). As well as the flying controls and landing gear, you also had the droop nose to consider, four variable engine intakes as well as a couple of hydraulically operated fuel pumps. Oh, and in emergencies, a hydraulically driven 40 KVA generator too. The reason that 4000 PSI was chosen was that if a large amount of hydraulic 'work' was to be done, the only way to keep the size of jacks and actuators to a reasonable size/weight was to increase the system pressure by 25% from the normal 3000 PSI. (On the A380 they've gone a step further and gone for 5000 PSI, saving them over a tonne on the weight of the aircraft).
Concorde used a special hydraulic fluid, Chevron M2V. This is a mineral based fluid, as opposed to the ester based Skydrol, used by the subsonics. The reason that we went for a different fluid was a simple one; Skydrol is rubbish at the high temperatures that Concorde operated at, no good at all in fact, so we needed something better and in M2V we found the PERFECT fluid. As an aside, unlike Skydrol, that attacks paintwork, certain rubber seals, skin, EYES etc., M2V is completely harmless, wash your hair in it. (I did, several times when we had leaks. Thinking about it, maybe THAT is why my hair is such a diminished asset

EXWOK
It's so great having another of my pilot friends diving in to this post, welcome welcome
I remember the Mech' Signalling part of the air tests, my lunch has just finished coming back up thank you. (for interest chaps and chapesses, with mechanical signalling, using just the conventional control runs under the floor, there was no auto-stabilisation).

The artificialfeel system worked incredibly well I thought, I always found it curious that the peak load law in the computer was at the transonic rather that the supersonic speed range. It was explained to me long ago that this was because the controls really are at their most sensitive here, but at high Mach numbers are partially 'stalled out', due to shockwave movements along the surfaces, and were therefore less effective. (For this reason I was told, the inner elevons were so critical for supersonic control, being the most effective of all elevons at high speed).

To all , I forgot to mention in my previous post regarding the engine failure in G-BOAF in 1980; I remember an FAA surveyor, who was taking a look at the carnage within the engine bay, saying that in his opinion, no other aircraft in the world could have survived the intensity of the titanium fire that ensued. Analysis showed that the fire was successfully extinguished, possibly at the first shot of the fire bottle. This was a testament to the way that the Concorde engine bay could be completely 'locked down' when the fire handle was pulled, as well as to the way that the whole engine installation was technically encased in armour plate. To put all this in context, acording to Rolls Royce a titanium fire, once it takes hold, can destroy the compressor of a jet engine in four seconds.


Dude

There were questions about the JFK 31L take-off.

I think this is it....

YouTube - Concorde British Airways take-off

CJ

PS The YouTube legend says last t/o from Heathrow, obviously wrong.

Sorry, haven't worked out how to embed videos. Stunning departure!

YouTube - Concorde: Last Takeoff From JFK Airport With Live Commentary

Coffin Dodger ,
Thanks for your link to the video of the last JFK takeoff, with the full comentary.

CJ

stilton
Really a question for my pilot friends, BUT.. I do recall that several years ago an RAF Tornado F3 requested permission to try a practice intercept on a JFK bound aircraft coming up to the accel' point... ATC relayed the request to the crew who had no objections, provided tha the rules of the air were obeyed, the ATC conversation went something like this.... 'OK, the Tornado is 15 miles astern of you.'. (at this point the burners are lit for the transonic acceleration).. ' he's 14 miles astern of you... 15..16....17...20... you can gues the rest, the F3 gave up in embarassment.

Dude

It IS a nice one....
There's a longer one with more of the story, but this is the essence.

TESGO is the designation of one of the waypoints on the Concorde route from CDG to JFK, shortly beyond the point where Concorde goe ssupersonic on its way over the Atlantic.
At the occasion of one of the last Air France CDG-JFK flights, a small group of French enthusiasts hired a boat to get a record of the overflight and the sonic bang, and they succeeded beyond expectations.

There can't be many Concorde friends, who haven't already seen this clip....

CJ

I rode Concorde two or three times and what a ride it was!

On one occasion I had booked to travel BA 'J' class from Washington to Delhi on a regular business trip. Out of DCA to JFK they booked me on the 'Concorde shuttle' (a Dash 8 of US Airways, believe it or not) to connect with a 744 to LHR and another connection on to Delhi. At DCA check in the agent mumbled something about a catering problem out of JFK, but I took no particular notice. On arrival at Kennedy an agent with a name placard diverted me to the Concorde gate, a nice surprise indeed, even for a BA Gold Card holder.

On boarding Concorde, I gave my business card to the purser, asking that she pass it forward. A few minutes later as the door was closing she came back to pass along an invitation from the skipper to join them in the cockpit. During the short delay for start clearance, the captain briefed me on the Canarsie 31L departure I was about to watch from the jump seat behind. "3-2-1 GO" as the aircraft lept forward, V1/Vr/V2, 100', roll left 30 degrees to track towards Canarsie, 1' 30" (or something similar, some details are long forgotten now) power back for 500'/minute ROC to 3,000', then accelerate to 250K as the heading continued around for the outbound course and the ocean crossing. A true aerial ballet.

For the balance of the climb I plied the guys with questions and received courteous and detailed answers to every one, along with a 'freebie' - some hilarious repartee between the BALPA captain and the management F/O type, with occasional interjections by the Engineer. I stayed through the supersonic acceleration until I thought I'd worn out my welcome at cruise climb, returning to my seat in the mid cabin area for lunch. They invited me back for the descent and approach, which was very well appreciated.

On descent over the U.K. and passing through 10K' abeam Southampton, as I remember it we got a yellow 'Radiation' caution light (normally to warn of higher than normal levels of radiation in the tropoause from sun spot activity, I believe), which caused me to ask WTHWT? The slightly bored F/O said, as he cancelled the light, "Oh, its 'just' a nuclear power plant down there, we get this all the time"! (And for all these years I had swallowed the PR line from the nuclear industry that they were squeaky clean, unlike those of us in the aircraft manufacturing business??)

The approach and landing at LHR was fascinating to watch, without the frenetic activity of the departure. No flaps and no configuration change after gear down, virtually no flare, perhaps even a little nose down pitch as I observed (was that true??) the handling pilot just let it float into ground effect for a gentle touch down, snappily into reverse and heavy, but not maximum braking. It looked easy, of course.

The F/E was a key part of the entire operation and I find it hard to believe that a Concorde "B" would have eliminated his position, no matter how automated the systems might have become. The whole flight was very, very professionally handled with that air of apparent casualness that comes only from a very disciplined team operating at the peak of performance. A true joy to watch.

I guess I was just a minor part of the vaunted 'halo' effect that BA marketing always claimed for Concorde - its ability to pull additional traffic to its worldwide services in a very competitive business climate. But it sure worked for me! And all because of a catering misadventure, or was that just an excuse??

However, the thing that has always truly amazed me about Concorde is that this machine was created by two companies, two countries, with two languages, two systems of measure and two very different cultures in a period before the invention of Computer Aided Design and on-line communications! What a marvellous thing that mankind created. My hat off to you all.

Thank you, John, that was some flight!

TC

I had the pleasure of one trip as SLF on Concorde LHR - JFK (1978/9? grey cells depleting) which involved a return to LHR after dumping fuel due to hydraulic failure of two systems. No complaints from me, two take offs and landings for the price of one plus two hours of additional catering at LHR while the aircraft was fixed. Big run on asprins by the time we approached JFK!
However on the second departure the AC also suffered loss of hydraulic systems and I understood that it arrived at JFK on one system. After a storm delay at JFK I departed on AA listening to the ATC on the IFE with the Concorde following. Yet again the Concorde requested fuel dump and return due to hydraulic failures. The previous days I believe the Concorde had also experienced hydraulic failures and at one point BA cancelled some flights. AF were not experiencing the same problems and I read several years later that the problem was attributed to minute quantities of water being introduced into the system by a repenishing tanker being parked outside, wheras AF stored their tanker inside. The water then generated steam when the system ran with consequent seal failures.

Is the above cause correct, or was there more to the story?

Apart from all the normal Concorde observations, I also noticed that when trolling around over Bristol dumping fuel at a relatively high AoA the rear outboard surfaces, I was seated at the rear, vibrated at an alarming aplititude and frequency. Would this be caused by aerodynamic buffet or rapid auto pilot control inputs?

Thanks in anticipation.

As per a previous post of mine, I've uploaded a takeoff and landing from JFK - LHR, including the very minor blip on roll from JFK and the 1990mph on the Marilake.


YouTube - uvs040403 002 3

I have spent the early afternoon reading this wonderful thread. Thank you to all you guys, it has brought back so much that I had forgotten.

I was a stewardess on The Beautiful Bird for a few years, and I know first-hand the love that we all had for our beloved 'Connie'.

I started my flying carreer with Freddie Laker in the early 70's, and was on the inaugral SkyTrain to JFK on July 4th 1976.

I am still flying for BA,and over the years I have been honoured to fly with some amazing crew, and like others on here, I count myself truely lucky to have been part of the Concorde Family.

Thank you again for sharing your amazing knowledge.

LL

landlady
landlady you are so welcome here, I'm sure the great people reading and contributing to this wonderful thread would love to hear any anecdotes or recollections that you might have about your experiences on our wonderful aeroplane.
Again, I'm sure I speak for all our 'family' members when I say 'welcome landlady'

Dude

landlady ,

I've only been on a Concorde flight once, and since that was the last-but-one Air France "round-the-bay", it's fairly obvious the very special party atmosphere on that flight was not quite the same a on a regular flight.

But from what I've read from other "trip reports", even a regular Concorde flight was never quite like a flight on any other aircraft.

So, welcome, and if you have any CC stories to relate... yes, please !

CJ

PS -- Can you imagine anybody doing a "trip report" about the usual eight boring hours on a 777 flight from CDG to JFK ??
And I'm sure you've often have seen the "Concorde grin" during your flights ....

ChristiaanJ

Yes, we all did our fair share of 'round the bays' which were, as you say, about 90 mins in duration and manic! It was a matter of pushing each pax into the F/D and hanging on to the bottom of thier jackets to be be able to pull them out again a minute later! Such a shame that flight deck visits are no longer allowed. It was a fabulous perk to be able to offer the pax a glimpse.
The nicest 'round the bays' were on mother's day, when along with all the mothers and grandmothers on board who had been treated to a 'flight of fantasy' by their families, those among the crew who were mothers got a special day too! (We were able to do the flight and then go back to our own celebrations at home!) (Of course, it worked for the chaps on father's day, too!)

Galaxy Flyer

We were licenced to fly three aircraft, all short-haul, as Concorde was designated a short-haul aircraft. (Although not in her early days of BOAC.) We were all specially selected to fly Concorde and had to pass the training course 100%. We were all, (250 of us), flying on Concorde, B757s and B737s. If we did an airport stand-by, they would generally keep us for the Concorde trips as there were more than enough crew to cover the other aircraft types.
We worked a six day on, three day off pattern, and usually there was the late JFK on your first and second days, any other short haul trip/nightstop on your third and fourth days, then maybe the early JFK on your last two days. However, there were special charters, (I did one round-the-world), Washington-Miami trips year-round and BGI in the winter. (Lovely to spend a week there in January!)

Those were the days!

YOU have been and will ALWAYS remain the history, a mile stone in the aviation world!

Thank you, merc\xed, danke, grazie, gracias for sharing with us your experiences on this beauty! I have never read a more interersting thread since when i read PPRuNe!

I wish it would be possible to live again those days, in which aviation was a REAL special issue sorrounded by magic!

Without being too much nostalgic again i want to deeply thank all of you sharing with us the magic of the supersonic lady!

Just one qst. Thanks to her extremely high speed Concorde was able to fly to JFK from LHR in just 3hrs and 30mins. Usually this is a normal flight from LIRF to UUDD where the flight crew, offcourse, flies as well the way back. The flight crew of concorde used to fly from LHR to JFK and then back as well or they were finishing their duty period in JFK and another crew was taking over them?

Thanks again guys!