22nd Aug 2010, 01:47
permalink Post: 56
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).
Quote:
| Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent was the flight and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing? |
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
Quote:
| 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? |
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).
Quote:
| 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? |
29th Aug 2010, 21:47
permalink Post: 153
twochai
It is wonderful that you have such fond flying memories of Concorde;in the pre-911 days there was a fairly liberal open door policy for flight deck visits (Although all passengers were made to feel really special, it is so great that the guys had you up front for so long on that flight. You just never lose those sort of memories, I know).
The Radiation Meter was an interesting addition to Concorde's collection of avionics kit. It was primarily designed to detect solar proton, as well as neutron radiation, (the detector element lived behind the fwd r/h wardrobe as I remember and was a total pain in the 'you know where' to get at). The indicator displayed the dose rate in millirems/hour, with amber and red triggers, triggering a master alarm. (The amber was a mere caution, whereas the red was a warning. I can't quite remember any figures, but a descent was required with a genuine red warning. I think I'm correct in saying that no such descent was ever required, at least in the UK). There was a huge amount of concern initially about crews long term exposure to radiation, after all there is a fairly linear relationship between solar radiation and altitude. In reality however Concorde crews received far less radiation than subsonic crews; although the dose rates may have been higher, the sector times were a fraction of a lot of the subsonic routes. (Even a subsonic LHR-JFK is WELL over twice the sector length). Nuisance ambers were not uncommon, a certain 'facility' in Berkshire would often register as the aircraft over-flew, as well as MANY years ago, Three Mile Island itself. I remember that there were long term plans to replace the radiation meter with a portable 'carry on' device that was being trialled. (Spares for the detector were becoming very difficult to obtain).
Dude
It is wonderful that you have such fond flying memories of Concorde;in the pre-911 days there was a fairly liberal open door policy for flight deck visits (Although all passengers were made to feel really special, it is so great that the guys had you up front for so long on that flight. You just never lose those sort of memories, I know).
Quote:
| On descent over the U.K. and passing through 10K' abeam Southampton, as I remember it we got a yellow 'Radiation' caution |
Dude
2nd Sep 2010, 19:44
permalink Post: 191
Hydraulic failures
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.
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.
2nd Sep 2010, 23:55
permalink Post: 192
Hi canuck slf, Your incident was not the hydraulic contamination one, I'll describe that one in a minute or so below.
As far as your adventure goes, in the early days of Concorde operation there was an on-going issue of hydraulic seal failures. This led to the sort of thing that you described, where a major seal failure would occur, resulting in the loss of a main system. The standby Yellow system would be switched in to replace the failed one, and depending on the nature of the initial failure, could leak out of the same failed seal. (There were a couple of 'common areas', they were the intake spill door jack, and the Powered Flying Control Units; failures here could result in a double system fail). Your incident was almost certainly due to one of these cases. In the early 1990's the original Neoprene hydraulic seals were replaced with a new Viton GLT seal; this material had far superior age shrinking characteristics to Neoprene, and more or less cured the problem overnight. Eventually all the seals in each aircraft were replaced, and apart from a very few isolated cases, dual system losses were eliminated forever. Air France suffered a similar proportion of failures, however as their flying hours were a fraction of BA's, the effects were not as immediately apparent.
As far as far as the hydraulic contamination story goes, this happened in 1980 but involved one aircraft only, G-BOAG, but in it's original registration of G-BFKW. (having previously been on loan from British Aerospace, where it flew originally as a 'white tail' under this registration). The fragile nature of Concorde hydraulic fluid was not fully understood at this time, and as you say, a hydraulic drum dispenser had inadvertently been left exposed to the atmosphere, and had subsequently suffered water contamination, and this contaminated fluid had found it's way into G-BOAG. Now this hydraulic fluid, CHEVRON M2V has only two vices: One is that is extremely expensive, and the second is that it is highly susceptible to water contamination, EXTEMELY SO. If my memory serves me correctly, the maximum allowable level of water in the fluid is about 8ppm. (parts per million) and the fluid that was analysed after G-BOAG's problems was at about 30 ppm. The water deposits in the fluid gave the equivalent effect of 'rusting up' of critical hydraulic components. I was investigating an air intake control defect the previous day to the incident, but like everybody else had no idea that the real issue here was one of major systems contamination. We were all convinced that we had nailed the problem, only to find that the aircraft turned back on it's subsequent LHR-JFK sector with more serious problems, not only affecting the air intakes, but the artificial feel system also. It was now that we realised that there had to be a hydraulics problem here, and after fluid analysis, the awful truth was discovered. After this event, and the fragilities of M2V fluid were better understood, a strict regime of housekeeping was put in place in terms of fluid storage, and no such incidents with BA ever occurring again. The aircraft itself did not fly again for nine months, all components that were affected were removed from the aircraft and completely stripped and overhauled. Also all of the system hydraulic lines had to be completely purged, until there were no further traces of any contamination. After the aircraft was finally rectified, she successfully again returned to service with her new 'BA' registration of G-BOAG. However the following year, during a C Check, it was decided that due to spares shortages, and the closure of the LHR-BAH-SIN route, there just was not being enough work for seven aircraft, and therefore G-BOAG would be withdrawn from service. (In terms of spares, BA at the time for instance only had six sets of aircraft galleys, as aircraft went in for C checks the galley was 'robbed' to service the aircraft coming out of it's own C check). The aircraft was parked in a remote hangar, and was only visited when a component had to be 'robbed' for another Concorde, and the aircraft soon fell into disrepair, was filthy externally and became a really sad sight. Many people (not myself I might add) were adamant that G-BOAG would never fly again. However, in 1984 things had really started to improve for Concorde, with the charter business increasing and the LHR-JFK route in particular becoming a staggering success. It was decided that OAG would be returned to an airworthy condition. In 1985, with a fresh new interior, and with the new BA colour scheme, she was finally returned to service; and remained as one of the mainstays of the fleet right up to the end of Concorde services in October 2003. She now resides at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle. (I have particularly fond memories of G-BOAG; in a previous post I mentioned flying through an electrical storm in late 1991 over Saudi Arabia, while returning from BKK-BAH to LHR. What I forgot to mention was the spectacle of DOZENS of fierce fires burning on the ground, towards our starboard horizon. These were Sadams oil fires, still burning in Kuwait. It made a sombre contrast to the amazing electrical spectacle right in front of us).
As far as low speed flying control activity was concerned, this was a combination of the fairly flexible outer wing sections, being buffeted by low speed turbulence (the wing tip tanks 5A & 7A also being empty), as well as some autostab inputs. This was perfectly normal, and part of the design our aircraft. However the development aircraft had even more flexible outer wing sections, which used to almost straighten up in high speed flight. However due to fatigue concerns, external lateral stiffeners were added to the underside of the wings during production of the airline aircraft. (these can be easily seen from underneath the wings, just outboard of the nacelles). Unfortunately these external stiffeners also resulted in over a one tonne fuel penalty to the production aircraft, due to increased weight, as well as higher drag in a critical part of the wing aerodynamic surface.
Dude
As far as your adventure goes, in the early days of Concorde operation there was an on-going issue of hydraulic seal failures. This led to the sort of thing that you described, where a major seal failure would occur, resulting in the loss of a main system. The standby Yellow system would be switched in to replace the failed one, and depending on the nature of the initial failure, could leak out of the same failed seal. (There were a couple of 'common areas', they were the intake spill door jack, and the Powered Flying Control Units; failures here could result in a double system fail). Your incident was almost certainly due to one of these cases. In the early 1990's the original Neoprene hydraulic seals were replaced with a new Viton GLT seal; this material had far superior age shrinking characteristics to Neoprene, and more or less cured the problem overnight. Eventually all the seals in each aircraft were replaced, and apart from a very few isolated cases, dual system losses were eliminated forever. Air France suffered a similar proportion of failures, however as their flying hours were a fraction of BA's, the effects were not as immediately apparent.
As far as far as the hydraulic contamination story goes, this happened in 1980 but involved one aircraft only, G-BOAG, but in it's original registration of G-BFKW. (having previously been on loan from British Aerospace, where it flew originally as a 'white tail' under this registration). The fragile nature of Concorde hydraulic fluid was not fully understood at this time, and as you say, a hydraulic drum dispenser had inadvertently been left exposed to the atmosphere, and had subsequently suffered water contamination, and this contaminated fluid had found it's way into G-BOAG. Now this hydraulic fluid, CHEVRON M2V has only two vices: One is that is extremely expensive, and the second is that it is highly susceptible to water contamination, EXTEMELY SO. If my memory serves me correctly, the maximum allowable level of water in the fluid is about 8ppm. (parts per million) and the fluid that was analysed after G-BOAG's problems was at about 30 ppm. The water deposits in the fluid gave the equivalent effect of 'rusting up' of critical hydraulic components. I was investigating an air intake control defect the previous day to the incident, but like everybody else had no idea that the real issue here was one of major systems contamination. We were all convinced that we had nailed the problem, only to find that the aircraft turned back on it's subsequent LHR-JFK sector with more serious problems, not only affecting the air intakes, but the artificial feel system also. It was now that we realised that there had to be a hydraulics problem here, and after fluid analysis, the awful truth was discovered. After this event, and the fragilities of M2V fluid were better understood, a strict regime of housekeeping was put in place in terms of fluid storage, and no such incidents with BA ever occurring again. The aircraft itself did not fly again for nine months, all components that were affected were removed from the aircraft and completely stripped and overhauled. Also all of the system hydraulic lines had to be completely purged, until there were no further traces of any contamination. After the aircraft was finally rectified, she successfully again returned to service with her new 'BA' registration of G-BOAG. However the following year, during a C Check, it was decided that due to spares shortages, and the closure of the LHR-BAH-SIN route, there just was not being enough work for seven aircraft, and therefore G-BOAG would be withdrawn from service. (In terms of spares, BA at the time for instance only had six sets of aircraft galleys, as aircraft went in for C checks the galley was 'robbed' to service the aircraft coming out of it's own C check). The aircraft was parked in a remote hangar, and was only visited when a component had to be 'robbed' for another Concorde, and the aircraft soon fell into disrepair, was filthy externally and became a really sad sight. Many people (not myself I might add) were adamant that G-BOAG would never fly again. However, in 1984 things had really started to improve for Concorde, with the charter business increasing and the LHR-JFK route in particular becoming a staggering success. It was decided that OAG would be returned to an airworthy condition. In 1985, with a fresh new interior, and with the new BA colour scheme, she was finally returned to service; and remained as one of the mainstays of the fleet right up to the end of Concorde services in October 2003. She now resides at the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle. (I have particularly fond memories of G-BOAG; in a previous post I mentioned flying through an electrical storm in late 1991 over Saudi Arabia, while returning from BKK-BAH to LHR. What I forgot to mention was the spectacle of DOZENS of fierce fires burning on the ground, towards our starboard horizon. These were Sadams oil fires, still burning in Kuwait. It made a sombre contrast to the amazing electrical spectacle right in front of us).
As far as low speed flying control activity was concerned, this was a combination of the fairly flexible outer wing sections, being buffeted by low speed turbulence (the wing tip tanks 5A & 7A also being empty), as well as some autostab inputs. This was perfectly normal, and part of the design our aircraft. However the development aircraft had even more flexible outer wing sections, which used to almost straighten up in high speed flight. However due to fatigue concerns, external lateral stiffeners were added to the underside of the wings during production of the airline aircraft. (these can be easily seen from underneath the wings, just outboard of the nacelles). Unfortunately these external stiffeners also resulted in over a one tonne fuel penalty to the production aircraft, due to increased weight, as well as higher drag in a critical part of the wing aerodynamic surface.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 3rd Sep 2010 at 00:07 .
8th Sep 2010, 06:52
permalink Post: 268
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
YouTube - uvs040403 002 3
14th Sep 2010, 16:32
permalink Post: 354
YOU are the best!
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!
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!
14th Sep 2010, 18:20
permalink Post: 357
Galaxy flyer
Absolutely correct the T-heads often went up past us at 60000ft, which is quite scarey when you think of the energy required to do that. Makes you as part of mankind seem somewhat insignificant.
Avoiding them as another problemas the Malacca Straits is quite narrow, well it is for Concorde trying hard not to boom the land on either side, but as I remember it there were two good points
The T-storms seemed to be normally over the land either side, but more important we would start to slow down shortly after entering the Malacca Straits and once subsonic we were in the same ball park as other aircraft , avoid them at all cost, and we could then fly over land without upsetting people
--------------------------------------------------------------
bio161
No the crews flew just the one trans Atlantic sector and then got off for a rest. Well you could not have us boys working too hard now .
In fact it was just possible for the crews to do a return trip and indeed when there were crew problems this was indeed done.
Morning flight
The Concorde report time was 1.5 before departure and a turn around at JFK would have been about 1.5 hours so when all added up it could have just been done. However any delay to either service could result in the home bound flight being late or indeed cancelled due to flight time limitations. This the company deemed to be unacceptable risk on an aircraft which was sold as saving time.
In fact as the morning flight was on approach to JFK,the morning flight back to LHR was already taking off. For the crew to now wait for the late departure back to London would put them way over FTLimitations
That did not mean the crews only did one sector a day
LHR-IAD-MIA was a days work as was the return.
On some of the charter flights it was often a multi sector day such as
Sydney--Brisbane --Guam --Beijing
I was only doing the PR on that trip so I have not got the times but it did seem a long day's work
Absolutely correct the T-heads often went up past us at 60000ft, which is quite scarey when you think of the energy required to do that. Makes you as part of mankind seem somewhat insignificant.
Avoiding them as another problemas the Malacca Straits is quite narrow, well it is for Concorde trying hard not to boom the land on either side, but as I remember it there were two good points
The T-storms seemed to be normally over the land either side, but more important we would start to slow down shortly after entering the Malacca Straits and once subsonic we were in the same ball park as other aircraft , avoid them at all cost, and we could then fly over land without upsetting people
--------------------------------------------------------------
bio161
Quote:
| 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? |
In fact it was just possible for the crews to do a return trip and indeed when there were crew problems this was indeed done.
Morning flight
The Concorde report time was 1.5 before departure and a turn around at JFK would have been about 1.5 hours so when all added up it could have just been done. However any delay to either service could result in the home bound flight being late or indeed cancelled due to flight time limitations. This the company deemed to be unacceptable risk on an aircraft which was sold as saving time.
In fact as the morning flight was on approach to JFK,the morning flight back to LHR was already taking off. For the crew to now wait for the late departure back to London would put them way over FTLimitations
That did not mean the crews only did one sector a day
LHR-IAD-MIA was a days work as was the return.
On some of the charter flights it was often a multi sector day such as
Sydney--Brisbane --Guam --Beijing
I was only doing the PR on that trip so I have not got the times but it did seem a long day's work
14th Sep 2010, 18:30
permalink Post: 358
Also, regarding the practicalities of flying LHR-JFK-LHR, one has to remember that there were two airframes involved - the first return flight having nightstopped JFK. So the early JFK-LHR service was just taxying out as the morning LHR-JFK landed.
It was possible to operate the early JFK-LHR (BA002) and then turn round at LHR to operate the late LHR-JFK (BA003) and this was done occasionally, generally at short notice to cover illness or crew shortages.
I only did it once and you certainly knew you'd done it afterwards....
It was possible to operate the early JFK-LHR (BA002) and then turn round at LHR to operate the late LHR-JFK (BA003) and this was done occasionally, generally at short notice to cover illness or crew shortages.
I only did it once and you certainly knew you'd done it afterwards....
18th Sep 2010, 22:55
permalink Post: 389
I worked as a contractor for BA in 1999/2000 and was lucky enough to have the desk in the very south-east corner of the 10th floor of TBC. With a south runway 09 departure, the LHR-JFK Concorde service would be about level with the 10th floor as she came by TBC (building speed before increasing her rate of climb presumably). Everyone, everyday would stop what we were doing and watch her climb out.
For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!
Love this thread!
For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!
Love this thread!
21st Sep 2010, 10:34
permalink Post: 438
Nick - the only thing I can remember about cabin seats is that the a/c was certified to carry (I think) 125 passengers. But with JFK departures often load-limited as they were, I think 100 was a sensible decision. Some clever arrangements meant it looked bigger and airier than it was. Most passenger feedback seemed to indicate the cabin layout was good enough - not First Class, but then you only had to sit there for 3.5 hours...
2nd Oct 2010, 04:44
permalink Post: 507
Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification?
Regarding LHR JFK routes.
What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it.
At FL500-600 what sort of wind was usually encountered. So high above the tropopause I would think very little.
Flying magazine from the US did a spread on the concorde many years ago. Theye stated that the wind component was such a little percentage of TAS that the block times rarely differed by more then 10 mins. True or false.
They also said that the type rating course was so hard that only the top performers (pilots) were selected for the training and even then there was a 50% washout rate. True or false.
Does anyone still have a complete set of ground school notes?
Regarding LHR JFK routes.
What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it.
At FL500-600 what sort of wind was usually encountered. So high above the tropopause I would think very little.
Flying magazine from the US did a spread on the concorde many years ago. Theye stated that the wind component was such a little percentage of TAS that the block times rarely differed by more then 10 mins. True or false.
They also said that the type rating course was so hard that only the top performers (pilots) were selected for the training and even then there was a 50% washout rate. True or false.
Does anyone still have a complete set of ground school notes?
2nd Oct 2010, 08:45
permalink Post: 508
CRON
I can only speak here from the Concorde ground engineering school that I attended over a total of 13 weeks at Filton in 1980 and 1981; the pilot/flight engineer questions there were I'm sure FAR nastier (and also more operationally specific); we did get to share simulator time though, which was really useful. Like the aircrews, we stayed up in a hotel in Bristol during the week. (I personally had only left BAC, as it was then, for BA at Heathrow in late July 1977, so I was returning to familiar pastures). The exam format would be several dozen multi-choice questions per week/phase; a typical question would go something like:
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Hi again Nick, one really for the likes of BRIT312, EXWOK etc, but there was, as was mentioned before, an emergency forward transfer switch in the roof panel above the pilots (F/O's side if I remember correctly). When placed to the emergency poition two electric and two hydraulic fuel pumps for the rear trim tank #11 would start up automatically, as well as the forward tank inlet valves being opened also.
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
The BA simulator that resided at Filton has been re-located to Brooklands Museum, and has been re-activated, but without motion and I'm not sure about full visuals either. I've not seen it myself yet, but I'm told that things have progressed really well with the operation. Obviously it is no longer certified as an active simulator; I'm not sure about the situation in France, perhaps my friend ChristiaanJ can answer that one.
I seem to remember typical loads for LHR-JFK being around 93-96 tonnes, depending on the passenger load and en-route conditions. Full tanks, depending on the SG was around 96 Tonnes. High fuel temperatures in the summer were a major pain; restricting maximum onload due to the low SG.
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Quote:
| If I may ask - and folk can recall - what would a sample question look like from these exams? |
The Inner Elevon Light, plus 'PFC' red Master Warning is triggered by:
a) The Green Flying ControlComparator
b) The Blue Flying Control Comparator
c) Either Comparator
The correct answer is (b).
Another flying controls question I can remember is:
Outer Elevon Neutralisation is triggered at:
a)Vmo + 10 KTS
b)Vmo + 15 KTS
c)Vmo + 25 KTS
The correct answer here is (c).
The pass mark in these exams was 75%, with penalty marking applied for any wrong answers. I always found the worst part was the fact that the exams were on a Friday afternoon after lunch
Nick Thomas
Quote:
| So I have been wondering if there were any special procedures for managing the CofG in a rapid descent especially as there could also be many other factors needing the crews attention? |
From what you said about the 'lady' being ahead of her time, I would certainly agree with you here; in my view she was generations ahead of everything else.
nomorecatering
Quote:
| Are there any concorde simulators that are still working and retain their certification? |
Quote:
| Regarding LHR JFK routes. What was the avarage fuel load and how close to full tanks was it. |
As far as ground school notes, mine are all out on long term loan (MUST get them back). The ground school are totally priceless and I am sure that there are many complete sets lying around in atticks/bedrooms/garages/loos etc.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 2nd Oct 2010 at 13:40 .
15th Oct 2010, 22:25
permalink Post: 574
Ze Concorde Quiz Mk 2 (Or is it Mach 2?).
As requested here is the second in the diabolical series of Concorde quizes. If you were never personally involved withe the aircraft you can leave out the really stinky questions if you want. Most answers can be found either in this thread, by looking at the many panel photos around or as usual by asking Mr Google
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
8) How many wheel brakes?
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Answers in 7 days, if further guidence (or clues) required then feel free to IM me.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 16th Oct 2010 at 08:00 . Reason: Addition of missing question... I am sooo nasty.
16th Oct 2010, 14:47
permalink Post: 577
questions
Humble SLF here, hope it is ok to have a stab at the questions, mods please feel free to delete if necessary.
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22, 20 that flew and 2 test frames
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
New York, Washington, Miami, Barbados, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore, no British registered aircraft ever operated to or form Dallas, should not forget BAs most popular destination of all time-London
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
0930-Local
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
193 & 195 respectiveley
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump ).
Pass
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
101, G-AXDN
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
pass
8) How many wheel brakes?
8
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
1.3
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Not sure here, best guess -green was part of the take-off moniter -red failure-blue reverse
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Prestwick, shannon, and one in France
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
28L , 28R, 27L, 27R, 9L, 9R 10L 10R, 23
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Fed-ex
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
214? G-BFKW
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22, 20 that flew and 2 test frames
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
New York, Washington, Miami, Barbados, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore, no British registered aircraft ever operated to or form Dallas, should not forget BAs most popular destination of all time-London
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
0930-Local
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
193 & 195 respectiveley
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump ).
Pass
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
101, G-AXDN
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
pass
8) How many wheel brakes?
8
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
1.3
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Not sure here, best guess -green was part of the take-off moniter -red failure-blue reverse
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Prestwick, shannon, and one in France
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
28L , 28R, 27L, 27R, 9L, 9R 10L 10R, 23
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Fed-ex
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
214? G-BFKW
16th Oct 2010, 21:12
permalink Post: 579
1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
Filton.
27 L/R, 09 R.
22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).
2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.
3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
No idea.
4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).
No idea.
5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump
).
).
13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2
6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?
BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.
7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
I'm guessing 14.
I'm guessing 14.
8) How many wheel brakes?
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
8. 1 per wheel, 4 total on each main gear.
9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
Mach 1.3.
Mach 1.3.
10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
Blue = Reverse
Amber = Reheat failure
Green = Good to go
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
Filton.
12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
27 L/R, 09 R.
13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
Braniff.
Braniff.
14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Concorde? Just a guess.
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 16th Oct 2010 at 21:38 .
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
22nd Oct 2010, 09:26
permalink Post: 597
Ze Concorde Quiz Mk 2 (Or is it Mach 2?).... Ze Answers
OK guys, here are the answers. If you disagree about any of them then fire away, the old memory certainly 'aint perfect.
As many of you have guessed, there were 22: The 14 production airframes, the 2 production series development aircraft (201 & 202), the 2 pre-production airframes (101 & 102) and the 2 prototypes 001 & 002. PLUS, the major fatigue test specimen at the RAE Farnborough and the static test specimen at CEAT in Toulouse. The CEAT tests actually tested the wing to destruction; I seem to remember it was something like a 200% overload before the wing failed at the root. And great but rather sad pictures
VOLUME
, never seen these before.
OK, from MY memory
, we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
11:15
The BA193 and BA 195.
OK, there were 12 engine feed pumps (3 per engine) 8 main transfer tank pumps (2 each for the transfer tanks 5, 6, 7 & 8), 4 'A' tank pumps (2 each for 5A & 7A), 8 trim-transfer tank pumps (2 electric pumps each for tanks 9, 10 & 11 PLUS 2 hydraulically driven pumps for tank 9), 4 electric engine start pumps (there was a single electric start pump per engine that delivered fuel to it's own dedicated start atomiser in the combustion chamber. The pump automatically ran when the engine HP valve was set to OPEN and would continue running for 30 seconds after the DEBOW switch was returned to the 'normal' position), 4 engine first stage pumps (a single mechanically driven pump per engine), 4 second stage pumps (a single pneumatically driven pump, sometimes termed 'the turbopump, per engine. This would cut out at around 20,000'), our scavenge tank pump (triggered automatically when there was 7 US gallons in the tank; pumping it back into tank 2. This pump was identical to an 'A' tank transfer pump), and FINALLY, a single de-air pump for tank 10. The pump would drive the fuel through a mesh, removing air bubbles from the fuel. Tank 11 used the L/H trim pump for de-air (similar principle)and would be switched on during take-off. This is why the tank 5 trim inlet valve being set to over-ride OPEN would result in the tank being highly pressurised in the case of the Gonesse disaster; the pump would obviously pressurise the L/H trim gallery and any tank on that side with an open inlet valve!!!
G-AXDN, aircraft 101. (A production wing, fuselage, droop nose and intakes, but with the short tail section and secondary nozzles of the prototypes.
Ready ChristiaanJ? There were 18....Yes, the single SFENA standby horizon, 9 INS gyros (one per X,Y and Z platform in each of the 3 INUs), 8 autostab' rate gyros (one per axis for each of the 2 autostab' computers PLUS a monitor gyro for the pitch axis). The radar by the way used attitude signals from the INS.
9. One per main wheel plus the single 'in flight braking' nose wheel brake.
Mach 0.7!!! Between this and Mach 1.26 the intake surfaces were positioned as a function of engine N1 if the engine was shut down for any reason. (Otherwise of course the intake surfaces were fully up). You needed a sub idle N1 of 57% and below for all this to happen, and it was to assist relight performance and reduce buffet. Between Mach 1.26 and 1.32 the ramps were driven down slightly to about 5%, full supersonic scheduling itself commencing at Mach 1.32.
Already brilliantly answered by Brit312 (as well as the FSLabs diagram). Yep, Geen GO, T/O monitor armed, fuel flow and P7 at or above datum, A/C on ground, reverse not selected and CON light not on. Amber CON (Reheat selected and not detected, N1 OK or reverse selected and primary nozzle (Aj) not at minimum. Blue REV; steady buckets at reverse, flashing buckets in transit.
Fairford, followed by Brize Norton, and then a host of airfields from Prestwick and Shannon to Chateauroux.
OK, probably no surprises now:
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
It was FedEx, they planned to operate two stripped out aircraft, leased from BA, between Shannon and JFK as high value parcel carriers. The idea was that parcels would be flown in from all over Europe by small FedEx feeder aircraft and the parcels transferred to Concorde which would then speed on to JFK in around 2 1/2 hours. It never happened because of a combination of economics appraisal by FedEx and BA deciding that it could would not release the aircraft anyway.
A/C 101, G-AXDN first flew on 17th December 1971 with FIXED INTAKES!! (101 was going to be the launch vehicle for the new digital intake control system, but the 'boxes' were still being designed). This placed an operating limit of Mach 1.5 on the aircraft, limiting her ability with such a restricted flight envelope. She returned to Filton in late 1972 for installation of the system, as well as the new Olympus 593-602 engine. (The engine, very similar to the production Mk 610 version, used a quite revolutionary annular combustion chamber, and eliminated at a stroke the thick smoke exhaust that had up to then been Concorde's unwanted visual signiture). The aircraft flew more or less smokeless on 15 March 1973, achieving Mach 2 soon afterwards. As ChristiaanJ pointed out, the British prototype 002 had a similar gap, actually significantly higher, of 19 months. (The French aircraft 001 had an even longer gap of some 20 months).
I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all
Dude
Quote:
| 1) How many Concorde airframes were built? |
Quote:
| 2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc. |
, we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
Quote:
| 3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either). |
Quote:
| 4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?). |
Quote:
|
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
).
|
Quote:
| 6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape? |
Quote:
| 7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft? |
Quote:
| 8) How many wheel brakes? |
Quote:
| 9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled? |
Quote:
| 10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify? |
Quote:
| 11) At what airfield were the first BA crew base training details held? |
Quote:
| 12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem). |
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
Quote:
| 13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's? |
Quote:
| 14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight? |
I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 22nd Oct 2010 at 11:21 . Reason: oops, misssed out question 2
5th Nov 2010, 11:56
permalink Post: 663
I have to admit that some of the subsonic fuel burn figures for Concorde were truly eye watering, and without massive engine and airframe modifications there was precious little in service that could be done to improve things. Paradoxically improvements to the
supersonic
efficiency of the powerplant were easier to implement, and several modifications were implemented, tried or proposed to improve fuel burn:
Way back in the late 1970's we did a major modification to the intakes that increased capture area by 2.5% and gave us typically a 1.6% improvement in trans-Atlantic fuel burn, and although this was our biggest performance improvement modification, there were more:
The famous elevon and rudder trailing edge extension modifications (that due to poor design, produced in later life the water ingress induced honeycomb failures) together with the re-profiled fin leading edge modification, I never saw the performance gains quantified (anyone have any ideas?).
Can anyone here remember the riblet trial? In the mid 1990's Airbus supplied 'stick on' plastic riblets, applied to various areas on the under-side of the wing on G-BOAG. These riblets had very fine undulations moulded into the surface; the idea being that as the air flowed through and around the riblet patches, boundary layer turbulence, and hence induced drag would be reduced. Now, the performance gains (if any) were never quantified, mainly because the riblet patches either peeled off or the surface deteriorated with the continuous thermal cycle. (I was over in JFK when the aircraft first arrived after having the riblets fitted, and as the crew were trying to proudly show me these amazing aerodynamic devices, they were sadly embarassed, as several had dissapeared in the course of a single flight).
There was one modification, proposed by Rolls Royce in the late 1990's that did have quite a lot of potential; this was to increase the engine N1 by around 1.5%. This would have had the effect of increasing engine mass flow and therefore reducing the drag inducing spill of supersonic air over the lower lip of the intake. Depending on the temperature, the performance gains were in the order of a 1.5% improvement in fuel burn at ISA Plus upper atmosphere temperatures ('normal' LHR-JFK) to none at all at significant ISA Minus temperatures (LHR -BGI). The modifacation had been trialed on G-BBDG before her retirement in the early eighties, and was proven in terms of performance enhancement and engine stability. In order to keep TET at the pre-modification level, there was a small increase in N2 commanded also. (The higher N1 required an increase in primary nozzle area, reducing TET). The main reason for the modification not being implemented was one of cost; The Ultra Electronics Engine Control Units were analog units, and the modification was a simple replacement of two resistors per unit. However because ultimate mass flow limitation was also controll by the digital AICU (built by British Aerospace Guided Weapons Division) the cost of getting a software update for this exremely 'mature' unit was found to be prohibitive.
A certain 'brainy' SEO and myself were working on a modification to improve fuel burn on ISA minus sectors. The idea was to force the autopilot, in Max Cruise at low temperatures only , to fly the aircraft close to Mmo, rather than at Max Cruise speed of Mach 2 - 2.02; this would have given us gains of up to 1%, depending on the temperature. The basic electronics involved for the modification were relatively straightforward, but it was never pursued due to the complexity of dealing with temperature shears and the cost of certification.
Dude
Way back in the late 1970's we did a major modification to the intakes that increased capture area by 2.5% and gave us typically a 1.6% improvement in trans-Atlantic fuel burn, and although this was our biggest performance improvement modification, there were more:
The famous elevon and rudder trailing edge extension modifications (that due to poor design, produced in later life the water ingress induced honeycomb failures) together with the re-profiled fin leading edge modification, I never saw the performance gains quantified (anyone have any ideas?).
Can anyone here remember the riblet trial? In the mid 1990's Airbus supplied 'stick on' plastic riblets, applied to various areas on the under-side of the wing on G-BOAG. These riblets had very fine undulations moulded into the surface; the idea being that as the air flowed through and around the riblet patches, boundary layer turbulence, and hence induced drag would be reduced. Now, the performance gains (if any) were never quantified, mainly because the riblet patches either peeled off or the surface deteriorated with the continuous thermal cycle. (I was over in JFK when the aircraft first arrived after having the riblets fitted, and as the crew were trying to proudly show me these amazing aerodynamic devices, they were sadly embarassed, as several had dissapeared in the course of a single flight).
There was one modification, proposed by Rolls Royce in the late 1990's that did have quite a lot of potential; this was to increase the engine N1 by around 1.5%. This would have had the effect of increasing engine mass flow and therefore reducing the drag inducing spill of supersonic air over the lower lip of the intake. Depending on the temperature, the performance gains were in the order of a 1.5% improvement in fuel burn at ISA Plus upper atmosphere temperatures ('normal' LHR-JFK) to none at all at significant ISA Minus temperatures (LHR -BGI). The modifacation had been trialed on G-BBDG before her retirement in the early eighties, and was proven in terms of performance enhancement and engine stability. In order to keep TET at the pre-modification level, there was a small increase in N2 commanded also. (The higher N1 required an increase in primary nozzle area, reducing TET). The main reason for the modification not being implemented was one of cost; The Ultra Electronics Engine Control Units were analog units, and the modification was a simple replacement of two resistors per unit. However because ultimate mass flow limitation was also controll by the digital AICU (built by British Aerospace Guided Weapons Division) the cost of getting a software update for this exremely 'mature' unit was found to be prohibitive.
A certain 'brainy' SEO and myself were working on a modification to improve fuel burn on ISA minus sectors. The idea was to force the autopilot, in Max Cruise at low temperatures only , to fly the aircraft close to Mmo, rather than at Max Cruise speed of Mach 2 - 2.02; this would have given us gains of up to 1%, depending on the temperature. The basic electronics involved for the modification were relatively straightforward, but it was never pursued due to the complexity of dealing with temperature shears and the cost of certification.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 5th Nov 2010 at 15:49 .
8th Nov 2010, 21:15
permalink Post: 684
coobg002
,
I'm not an aircraft designer, just an avionics engineer with an aeronautical engineering background, so my answer can only be partial...
Pity you cannot ask the question directly to "Clarence" Johnson, because he used both solutions for two of his best-known Mach 2+ designs...
The F-104 had indeed a very small, very thin, straight wing.
The SR-71 had a wing shape not totally unlike Concorde; admittedly the wing shape itself was more a delta, but the 'chines' of the forward part of the fuselage played an important role.
I would say.... every design is a compromise.
You don't start with a good-looking shape, you start with a specification.
In the case of the F-104 it was for an interceptor, something simple and fast , with a (relatively) limited range.
So you chose a big engine, you stuck a cockpit at the front, and you added the smallest straight wings that would do the job.
Not exactly ideal at low speed... the F-104 had huge "blown" flaps and even so it was still pretty "hot" during approach and landing.
As to what to do after an engine failure.... the procedure for a dead-stick landing was in the manual, but generally the "she flies like an angel, but she glides like a brick" would prevail, and you'd punch out.
In the case of the SR-71, much like Concorde, it was the 'spec' that was totally different.
Long-range supersonic cruise (hence space for fuel in the wing was prized), but also acceptable low-speed handling.
Think of the repeated air-to-air refuelling for the Blackbird, or the subsonic sectors in a typical LHR-JFK flight for Concorde.
So for anything that can still take off and land at an acceptable speed and perform well subsonically when needed, yet cruise at Mach 2 or Mach 3, the ogee/delta wing has turned out to be the best compromise.
CJ
I'm not an aircraft designer, just an avionics engineer with an aeronautical engineering background, so my answer can only be partial...
Pity you cannot ask the question directly to "Clarence" Johnson, because he used both solutions for two of his best-known Mach 2+ designs...
The F-104 had indeed a very small, very thin, straight wing.
The SR-71 had a wing shape not totally unlike Concorde; admittedly the wing shape itself was more a delta, but the 'chines' of the forward part of the fuselage played an important role.
I would say.... every design is a compromise.
You don't start with a good-looking shape, you start with a specification.
In the case of the F-104 it was for an interceptor, something simple and fast , with a (relatively) limited range.
So you chose a big engine, you stuck a cockpit at the front, and you added the smallest straight wings that would do the job.
Not exactly ideal at low speed... the F-104 had huge "blown" flaps and even so it was still pretty "hot" during approach and landing.
As to what to do after an engine failure.... the procedure for a dead-stick landing was in the manual, but generally the "she flies like an angel, but she glides like a brick" would prevail, and you'd punch out.
In the case of the SR-71, much like Concorde, it was the 'spec' that was totally different.
Long-range supersonic cruise (hence space for fuel in the wing was prized), but also acceptable low-speed handling.
Think of the repeated air-to-air refuelling for the Blackbird, or the subsonic sectors in a typical LHR-JFK flight for Concorde.
So for anything that can still take off and land at an acceptable speed and perform well subsonically when needed, yet cruise at Mach 2 or Mach 3, the ogee/delta wing has turned out to be the best compromise.
CJ
26th Nov 2010, 11:11
permalink Post: 784
EXWOK
arghhhhhh.. age is catching up me ME
You are quite correct, Alpha Gulf accrued 2000 less airframe hours than Alpha Fox, mainly due to her protracted 'holiday' between 1982 and 1985.
Totally agree with you about not letting the scarebus b****s buther OAF. OAA became a truly pitiful sight when they chopped the wings off for transportation. (You can still see the massive 'cut lines' on the wings, the effect of this effectively in my view 'killing' the aeroplane).
It's all a little personal for me too; I did my very first LHR-JFK in OAF in September 1982, returning the following day in OAA . (Hutch, Chris Norris and Chopper Bill were the operating crew..... This old fart can still remember something I guess).
Regards
Dude
Quote:
| Has AF really accrued fewer hours than AG, with her time out of service? |
You are quite correct, Alpha Gulf accrued 2000 less airframe hours than Alpha Fox, mainly due to her protracted 'holiday' between 1982 and 1985.
Totally agree with you about not letting the scarebus b****s buther OAF. OAA became a truly pitiful sight when they chopped the wings off for transportation. (You can still see the massive 'cut lines' on the wings, the effect of this effectively in my view 'killing' the aeroplane).
It's all a little personal for me too; I did my very first LHR-JFK in OAF in September 1982, returning the following day in OAA . (Hutch, Chris Norris and Chopper Bill were the operating crew..... This old fart can still remember something I guess).
Regards
Dude