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
18th Oct 2010, 10:03
permalink Post: 586
Quote:
|
11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea. Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca? |
Quote:
| 12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem). |
27 left and right
09 right
Landing 27 L & R----- 09 L & R---- 23 and 05 [ but not in the later years]
Now I cannot remember if you could take off on 23
Last edited by Brit312; 18th Oct 2010 at 12:43 .
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
27th Oct 2010, 22:33
permalink Post: 616
Mike-Bracknell
It is not nonsense, and you are quite at liberty to post here. Wow, that's still quite a question though Mike. There are two TECHNICAL issues that overshadow all others, namely airframe corrosion and hydraulic system deterioration. Unfortunately none of the BA aircraft were stored inside from the outset, so we have a real issue here as far as corrosion goes, plus all the hydraulic systems were drained, resulting in seal drying out and probable moisture ingress into the 3 systems. But given sufficient funds (and assuming you find an organisation to take over design responsibility from Airbus;
ironic when you consider that without Concorde there would almost certainly have been no such organisation
) there is still no technical reason why the problems (and there are dozens of other problems to consider) could not be overcome, the money side of things is another matter
Looking first at the French fleet, the main candidate for restoration to flight status would be F-BTSD at Le Bourget. Not only has this aircraft been lovingly cared for and stored INSIDE, but the aircraft has had several systems (including the Green hydraulic system) powered and reservoirs not drained.
The British story is less clear; G-BOAA in East Fortune was effectively killed when the wings were cut off for transportation, so that one is out of the question. G-BOAB, the last and only Concorde at LHR has been left to rot outside, in fact holes were even drill in the fuselage to drain water, so this one is a no no too. G-BOAC at Manchester, now the oldest surviving production aircraft was initially stored outside, but now resides in a purpose built exhibition 'hangar'. Now she COULD be a potential candidate for consideration; when I last saw her just over a year ago she was absolutely pristine; a testament to the team that have been caring for her there. G-BOAD, stored next to the USS Intrepid in New York, we can probably forget, due to having been exposed to 7 years worth of salt water corrosion from the Hudson River. (Also, while she was temporarily stored in New Jersey a couple of years ago, some IDIOT in a truck bent the whole nose section when he hit her. The radome was smashed (replaced with a rather clever fibreglass fabrication) and the nose straightened with a blow-torch and hammer (I am not joking!!). G-BOAE at Grantley Adams airport in Barbados has been stored under cover for much of the time; provided she has not suffered too much from the wam damp atmosphere of Barbados, well she could be a potential candiitate too. G-BOAF in Filton, well PROVIDED she is still OK after her 'removal from public view' experience could also be a potential candidate also. And finally, G-BOAG in Seattle; well she had been left outside, right next to a highway (and close to a truck stop too). She did not look too good the last time I saw her; the undercarriage barrels werer all brown and discoloured and the paintwork was completely dull and matte. (She had a new paint job not too long before retirement too). So out of the 'BA Seven', I PERSONALLY would go for G-BOAF, G-BOAC or G-BOAG.
As I have said often here before, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that what you, Mike, suggest will ever happen, but in spite of what others might say, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. My own gut feeling is a resounding 'no', but I could be wrong, . (And NO ONE would be happier than I if I am wrong; I was with the BA aircraft through construction, flight testing and the entire service life with BA).
As for the cost? It really is a case of 'how long is a piece of string', but for 2 aircraft we could be looking in excess of $100 or more, who knows?
But as the Everly Brothers used to sing 'All I have to do is dream.'
Keep posting Mike.
Dude
.
Quote:
| IF funding were secured to get 1 Concorde from each fleet into the air again, which one out of each fleet would be the easiest to return to service, given what has gone on since retirement? Also, a subpoint, does anyone have any finger-in-the-air figures as to how much cost it would take and whether there's any fundamental issues that would need to be sorted aside from the airworthiness certificate etc. |
Looking first at the French fleet, the main candidate for restoration to flight status would be F-BTSD at Le Bourget. Not only has this aircraft been lovingly cared for and stored INSIDE, but the aircraft has had several systems (including the Green hydraulic system) powered and reservoirs not drained.
The British story is less clear; G-BOAA in East Fortune was effectively killed when the wings were cut off for transportation, so that one is out of the question. G-BOAB, the last and only Concorde at LHR has been left to rot outside, in fact holes were even drill in the fuselage to drain water, so this one is a no no too. G-BOAC at Manchester, now the oldest surviving production aircraft was initially stored outside, but now resides in a purpose built exhibition 'hangar'. Now she COULD be a potential candidate for consideration; when I last saw her just over a year ago she was absolutely pristine; a testament to the team that have been caring for her there. G-BOAD, stored next to the USS Intrepid in New York, we can probably forget, due to having been exposed to 7 years worth of salt water corrosion from the Hudson River. (Also, while she was temporarily stored in New Jersey a couple of years ago, some IDIOT in a truck bent the whole nose section when he hit her. The radome was smashed (replaced with a rather clever fibreglass fabrication) and the nose straightened with a blow-torch and hammer (I am not joking!!). G-BOAE at Grantley Adams airport in Barbados has been stored under cover for much of the time; provided she has not suffered too much from the wam damp atmosphere of Barbados, well she could be a potential candiitate too. G-BOAF in Filton, well PROVIDED she is still OK after her 'removal from public view' experience could also be a potential candidate also. And finally, G-BOAG in Seattle; well she had been left outside, right next to a highway (and close to a truck stop too). She did not look too good the last time I saw her; the undercarriage barrels werer all brown and discoloured and the paintwork was completely dull and matte. (She had a new paint job not too long before retirement too). So out of the 'BA Seven', I PERSONALLY would go for G-BOAF, G-BOAC or G-BOAG.
As I have said often here before, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that what you, Mike, suggest will ever happen, but in spite of what others might say, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. My own gut feeling is a resounding 'no', but I could be wrong, . (And NO ONE would be happier than I if I am wrong; I was with the BA aircraft through construction, flight testing and the entire service life with BA).
As for the cost? It really is a case of 'how long is a piece of string', but for 2 aircraft we could be looking in excess of $100 or more, who knows?
But as the Everly Brothers used to sing 'All I have to do is dream.'
Keep posting Mike.
Dude
.
2nd Nov 2010, 13:18
permalink Post: 653
Thanks for this amazing thread
Hi All, just wanted to say thank you to everyone that has posted in this thread. I am just humble SLF with a little bit of gliding experience who never had the privilige of flying on Concorde and only ever saw her flying once (in the seventies I saw her take off from Heathrow when she was painted in BA and SIA colours... I was very young!) Thank you all for sharing your passion with us all and keeping this thread so gripping.
I did once meet a Concorde Pilot, it was in about 2003 shortly after the end of her service had been announced. It was on a motorboat somewhere in the solent (Bembridge on the isle of Wight springs to mind) and he politely listened to me rabbit on about my gliding experience and my hopes to get an NPPL one day (Still haven't managed!) I knew that he was a pilot and when I asked what he flew he just quietly said, "Concorde". I nearly fell of my perch. Anyway a couple of minutes later I acidentally spilled a glass of wine down his trousers and I have never forgotten it - my wife tells me it was deliberate because i was jealous! It wasn't I promise. Anyway, sorry for waffling on, but if that pilot is one of the contributors here - I really am sorry about spilling that drink!
Thanks again for an amazing thread
D
I did once meet a Concorde Pilot, it was in about 2003 shortly after the end of her service had been announced. It was on a motorboat somewhere in the solent (Bembridge on the isle of Wight springs to mind) and he politely listened to me rabbit on about my gliding experience and my hopes to get an NPPL one day (Still haven't managed!) I knew that he was a pilot and when I asked what he flew he just quietly said, "Concorde". I nearly fell of my perch. Anyway a couple of minutes later I acidentally spilled a glass of wine down his trousers and I have never forgotten it - my wife tells me it was deliberate because i was jealous! It wasn't I promise. Anyway, sorry for waffling on, but if that pilot is one of the contributors here - I really am sorry about spilling that drink!
Thanks again for an amazing thread
D
3rd Nov 2010, 04:28
permalink Post: 661
Fuel: Conc vs 737
For those who wanted to know what the difference in fuel burn between a 737 and Concorde LHR-MAN........I don't know! (Never had the pleasure of flying the 737).
My best guess - at least 200% more. Probably higher.
A comparison:
Typical Concorde taxying fuel burn: 6500kgs/hr
Typical 777-200 cruising fuel burn: 6500kgs/hr
Of course, as we've already discussed earlier, the magic thing about Concorde was that once you'd got to Mach2 its efficiency was outrageously good - better miles per gallon than a 747. An option not available, however, between LHR and MAN.
Edited to add: a slow taxy out at LHR would almost definitely consume more fuel than the 737 would burn for the sector.
My best guess - at least 200% more. Probably higher.
A comparison:
Typical Concorde taxying fuel burn: 6500kgs/hr
Typical 777-200 cruising fuel burn: 6500kgs/hr
Of course, as we've already discussed earlier, the magic thing about Concorde was that once you'd got to Mach2 its efficiency was outrageously good - better miles per gallon than a 747. An option not available, however, between LHR and MAN.
Edited to add: a slow taxy out at LHR would almost definitely consume more fuel than the 737 would burn for the sector.
4th Nov 2010, 08:58
permalink Post: 662
Fuel comparison
No experience on 737, nor, sadly, on Concorde but do recall an occasion when travelling from Compass Centre on northside of LHR to T4 on the south side in the BA001 crew's van when we got to comparing fuel figures.
Turned out that they would burn slightly more fuel getting their 100 pax from T4 to 1000' agl than we would use to get our 180 pax on the 757 all the way to Amsterdam!
Typical burn on a 757 LHR - MAN was 2200 kgs or 2000 kgs on an a/c with the much more efficient E4 engines.
Turned out that they would burn slightly more fuel getting their 100 pax from T4 to 1000' agl than we would use to get our 180 pax on the 757 all the way to Amsterdam!
Typical burn on a 757 LHR - MAN was 2200 kgs or 2000 kgs on an a/c with the much more efficient E4 engines.
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 .
7th Nov 2010, 00:09
permalink Post: 672
NW1
and
ChristiaanJ
Ahh yes, the super hi-tech 'HUD'. It was right up there with the 'eye level datum' indicator and not to forget, the reheat capabiliy indicator in terms of sophistication. (Extremely reliable though
).
As far as 3 engined ferries went; well NW1, not sure if you'd call me seasoned or just just clapped out and wrinkly, but it did happen a very few times in days of yore, mostly from SNN back to LHR. There were at least two; OAF in 1980 when she had the infamous LP1 blade fail (and Monty Burton's immortal words during the 'event' "what *** ing drill?). The second one that I can remember was OAA in 1991 when there was another far less serious compressor blade failure. In each case for the ferry flight, the broken engine was 'swaged' to prevent it windmilling and the aircraft would be flown back to the LHR garage by a management crew. There was however another required ferry measure as well as the engine swaging, this measure was to prevent the good engines going into contingency, due to the very slightly flamed out dead 'donk'. This procedure required the Engine Speed Unit to be removed from the electronics rack and a special jumper plug fitted in it's place (without the jumper fitted the start switch would never latch in. In this case also the E/O would also need to manually disengage the start switch at 25% N2). I have to admit that I never in my life ever saw this jumper plug, and in the cases that I can remember the aircraft departed SNN with the three engines at contingency. I remember that the case of OAA back in '91 most certainly was; I was flown out to SNN equiped with a pile of circuit diagrams and test boxes to investigate what we all thought was just a surge related engine shutdown. only to find a slightly more hairy state of afairs, with a very broken engine indeed. As a matter of interest, this particular failure was the only one ever in the history of Concorde in BA attributed to the engine having run for a protracted time in rotating stall. (This had happened on the previous day). A lot was learned by both BA and Rolls Royce after this event, and this failure never occured again.
Dude
Ahh yes, the super hi-tech 'HUD'. It was right up there with the 'eye level datum' indicator and not to forget, the reheat capabiliy indicator in terms of sophistication. (Extremely reliable though
).
As far as 3 engined ferries went; well NW1, not sure if you'd call me seasoned or just just clapped out and wrinkly, but it did happen a very few times in days of yore, mostly from SNN back to LHR. There were at least two; OAF in 1980 when she had the infamous LP1 blade fail (and Monty Burton's immortal words during the 'event' "what *** ing drill?). The second one that I can remember was OAA in 1991 when there was another far less serious compressor blade failure. In each case for the ferry flight, the broken engine was 'swaged' to prevent it windmilling and the aircraft would be flown back to the LHR garage by a management crew. There was however another required ferry measure as well as the engine swaging, this measure was to prevent the good engines going into contingency, due to the very slightly flamed out dead 'donk'. This procedure required the Engine Speed Unit to be removed from the electronics rack and a special jumper plug fitted in it's place (without the jumper fitted the start switch would never latch in. In this case also the E/O would also need to manually disengage the start switch at 25% N2). I have to admit that I never in my life ever saw this jumper plug, and in the cases that I can remember the aircraft departed SNN with the three engines at contingency. I remember that the case of OAA back in '91 most certainly was; I was flown out to SNN equiped with a pile of circuit diagrams and test boxes to investigate what we all thought was just a surge related engine shutdown. only to find a slightly more hairy state of afairs, with a very broken engine indeed. As a matter of interest, this particular failure was the only one ever in the history of Concorde in BA attributed to the engine having run for a protracted time in rotating stall. (This had happened on the previous day). A lot was learned by both BA and Rolls Royce after this event, and this failure never occured again.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 7th Nov 2010 at 01:34 .
19th Nov 2010, 13:27
permalink Post: 737
In my best 'Comic Book Guy' accent - Best Thread Ever......
We've heard from Engineers, Pilots, Designers, 'Ambassadors'.... How about ATC??? Are there any out there with their memories?? Was life slightly different when "No Speed Restriction" was offered and Concorde hit 400 kts+ instead of the mere mortals at +/- 300 kts?? Anything unusual in their handling on the way into LHR/JFK/IAD/BGI etc for sequencing?? Any general anecdotes to recollect?? Heathrow Director, are you out there? Your name sort of gives you away.....
Keep it up everybody!!
PS - Was there ANYTHING on the Charger(ski) that was better or more advanced??
We've heard from Engineers, Pilots, Designers, 'Ambassadors'.... How about ATC??? Are there any out there with their memories?? Was life slightly different when "No Speed Restriction" was offered and Concorde hit 400 kts+ instead of the mere mortals at +/- 300 kts?? Anything unusual in their handling on the way into LHR/JFK/IAD/BGI etc for sequencing?? Any general anecdotes to recollect?? Heathrow Director, are you out there? Your name sort of gives you away.....
Keep it up everybody!!
PS - Was there ANYTHING on the Charger(ski) that was better or more advanced??
20th Nov 2010, 02:16
permalink Post: 744
M2 Dude
Back in August of 1997 I had the privilege of a ride in G-BOAC out of CYYZ on a flight to now where ie east of JFK up to FL550 Mach 2.0 etc.
It was back in a gentler day with a visit to the flight deck and I can still remember it all is if it was yesterday. As you can tell by web name I am industry and I really appreciated the short time I had in the Flight Deck. Unfortuneatly I was one of 99 that day so I did not get a chance to ask all the questions but the fuel system and fuel pump mini lecture from the flight engineer was stunning.
Please accept my sincere thank you and to Christian as well.
Like the Avro Arrow the TSR-2 the Concorde will live long in our minds.
One last comment many years ago we were number 2 on 09R in LHR and Concorde takes off in front of us. We were in an L-1011 that day and it shook as if a metal saw was trying to cut us in two. The Flight Service Director came running in white as a ghost and his first words were "What the #@&*" was that.........................
Please keep writing your story and if I ever run across you on the other side of the "pond" the bitter is on me
Back in August of 1997 I had the privilege of a ride in G-BOAC out of CYYZ on a flight to now where ie east of JFK up to FL550 Mach 2.0 etc.
It was back in a gentler day with a visit to the flight deck and I can still remember it all is if it was yesterday. As you can tell by web name I am industry and I really appreciated the short time I had in the Flight Deck. Unfortuneatly I was one of 99 that day so I did not get a chance to ask all the questions but the fuel system and fuel pump mini lecture from the flight engineer was stunning.
Please accept my sincere thank you and to Christian as well.
Like the Avro Arrow the TSR-2 the Concorde will live long in our minds.
One last comment many years ago we were number 2 on 09R in LHR and Concorde takes off in front of us. We were in an L-1011 that day and it shook as if a metal saw was trying to cut us in two. The Flight Service Director came running in white as a ghost and his first words were "What the #@&*" was that.........................
Please keep writing your story and if I ever run across you on the other side of the "pond" the bitter is on me
21st Nov 2010, 02:07
permalink Post: 748
In 2000 I was on my way to Helsinki in a Finnair A321 at Heathrow taxying out towards 28R when looking out of the windows we realised that a Concorde was passing to the left of us. Just at that moment the ceiling screens folded down and the forward facing camera powered up, showing us the whole of the Concorde as it turned onto the runway and spooled up. The whole of the fuselage of our 'bus was rattling away, and then as the noise decreased we were cleared to line up ourselves and the screens showed rapidly receding reheat flames through a cloud of exhaust smoke. Despite being cleared to take off immediately, we were naturally left well behind, I could just see the Concorde climbing out to the west as we turned north and then east to head off across to the North Sea.
No prizes for guessing which flight I would have preferred to be on....
No prizes for guessing which flight I would have preferred to be on....
21st Nov 2010, 12:06
permalink Post: 750
Many thanks to Dude, Christiaan and all the others for a wonderful thread.
Yesterday, being in New York, I headed off to the Intrepid museum on the Hudson to see BOAD - I spent ages wandering around marvelling at this beautiful machine, people must have thought I was crazy ignoring the other exhibits!
Unfortunately, never had the chance to fly in Concorde, but did go out to see 002 when she flew into Melbourne in 1972 (I can still remember the experience in fine detail, even now - I must sort through my photos one day, I'm sure there are shots there somewhere).
Only other times I saw her were on the ground in Heathrow - always a highlight of my London visits!
Yesterday, being in New York, I headed off to the Intrepid museum on the Hudson to see BOAD - I spent ages wandering around marvelling at this beautiful machine, people must have thought I was crazy ignoring the other exhibits!
Unfortunately, never had the chance to fly in Concorde, but did go out to see 002 when she flew into Melbourne in 1972 (I can still remember the experience in fine detail, even now - I must sort through my photos one day, I'm sure there are shots there somewhere).
Only other times I saw her were on the ground in Heathrow - always a highlight of my London visits!
7th Dec 2010, 15:03
permalink Post: 839
Ok, I've got another question! I was watching "Concorde: The Comeback" on discovery turbo channel last night (just couldn't help myself!).
Really interesting stuff about how they put the kevlar into the fuel tanks etc. I don't know if anyone who posts here was in that program, but if you were - everyone was looking good!! :-) It was superb to see the genuine emotion when Concorde got her certificate back and could take to the skies once again!
Ok, so my question is - BA had to use an airframe as a test for the modifications. However, the choice of airframe seemed a strange one to me, BOAF - which I previously thought to be one of the youngest and best airframe they had (m2dude you explained that BOAF and BOAG weighed less than the previous models). So, why would BA use one of their best airframes, rather than use perhaps the most worn out of their fleet?
All in all though - great program, and lovely shots/video of the Lady, and all who cared for her, from the guys at the top running the business side to the poor guys climbing into the fuel tanks! In all honesty, I'd prefer to be doing the fuel tank side stuff myself, rather than the business side of it! Maybe the pilots had the best of all worlds! ;-)
Cheers for all the insight & information once more!
(Edit: In this program pretty much at the start, all 7 BA concordes are shown lined up in formation on the ground at (I presume) Heathrow). Just seeing them all together, all looking stunning.... breathtaking.
Really interesting stuff about how they put the kevlar into the fuel tanks etc. I don't know if anyone who posts here was in that program, but if you were - everyone was looking good!! :-) It was superb to see the genuine emotion when Concorde got her certificate back and could take to the skies once again!
Ok, so my question is - BA had to use an airframe as a test for the modifications. However, the choice of airframe seemed a strange one to me, BOAF - which I previously thought to be one of the youngest and best airframe they had (m2dude you explained that BOAF and BOAG weighed less than the previous models). So, why would BA use one of their best airframes, rather than use perhaps the most worn out of their fleet?
All in all though - great program, and lovely shots/video of the Lady, and all who cared for her, from the guys at the top running the business side to the poor guys climbing into the fuel tanks! In all honesty, I'd prefer to be doing the fuel tank side stuff myself, rather than the business side of it! Maybe the pilots had the best of all worlds! ;-)
Cheers for all the insight & information once more!
(Edit: In this program pretty much at the start, all 7 BA concordes are shown lined up in formation on the ground at (I presume) Heathrow). Just seeing them all together, all looking stunning.... breathtaking.
Last edited by DavvaP; 7th Dec 2010 at 15:32 . Reason: added bit about all 7 concordes at heathrow
11th Dec 2010, 22:17
permalink Post: 856
Them darn intakes
Hi Guys, quite a few little points here, so here's my angle(s):
Pedalz
Ooo yes. The biggest problems we ever had associated with the ramps themselves were wear in the seals at the sides of the forward ramp. Even a few thou' over the maximum allowable side gap was enough to make the intake unstable and susceptible to surging. (It is quite interesting that the rear ramp side gaps were not in the least bit critical, and if Concorde intake development had continued, the rear ramps were going to be deleted altogether). Other failure factors were control unit malfuntions, rapid sensor drift; all of these causing either ramp/spill door drift or runaway. Primary nozzle misbehaviour could also result in intake surges. Having said all that, the monitoring of the intake system was truly superb, and surface runaways, themselves quite rare, would usually be picked up by the control system monitors causing either a lane switch or if that did not work, a total 'red light' failure with the surfaces frozen. No surge was treated as 'just one of those things', and much midnight oil was burned and hair pulled out (so that's what happened to mine
) to try and find the cause of the surge.
My friend EXWOK perfectly answered the intake hydraulics allocations.
EXWOK was right on the ball here as usual, in fact above Mach 1.6 an interactive surge was more or less guaranteed. The cause of interactive surge had nothing to do with the wing leading edge position, but to the radially generated distortion field coming out of the FRONT of the surging intake, severely distorting the adjascent intakes airflow. It mattered not if the originating surge was an inboard or an outboard intake, the other guy would always go also, above Mach 1.6.
You might want to take a look at 'When Intakes Go Wrong Part 1:
Concorde engine intake "Thrust"
and Parts 2 & 3:
Concorde engine intake "Thrust"
Not to mention Part 3:
dixi188
I can never recall this particular event happening with BA , certainly not as a result of a ramp failure. Although in the near 28 years of operation we had quite a few SNN diversions, none that I can ever recall were as the result of a ramp structural failure. The two major SNN diversions that I can recall were G-BOAF in the early 80s when an LP1 blade failed and resulted in a totally wrecked engine (although a completely contained failure) and G-BOAA in 1991, with another wrecked engine due to running in rotating stall. (Both of these events were covered previously in our thread). ChristiaanJ has mentioned quite rightly the event with A/C 001 spitting a ramp out, and Air France had a ramp failure going into JFK. (Covered previously in our thread, due to certain 'human foul ups'). I am not sure, but I think that
this
one in JFK DID require a double engine change in JFK. (Usually from SNN a BA aircraft would be 3 engine ferried back to LHR).
ChristiaanJ
Nope, you are quite right, no more French or British development aircraft ever suffered a ramp linkage failure again. The 001 ramp failure was a salutary lesson to the design team, and the intake assembly became tougher than old boots after that, nomatter WHAT you threw at it.
Due to the lateness of the hour (and me being up at 4
), that will have to do for now guys.
Best regards to all
Dude
Pedalz
Quote:
were the intake ramps in front of the engines ever known for problems? Especially during supersonic cruise where the airflow through the compressors and position of the ramps was determined by an exacting science which could turn into quite a situation if disturbed.
Which hydraulic system actuated these ramps?
|
) to try and find the cause of the surge.
My friend EXWOK perfectly answered the intake hydraulics allocations.
Quote:
| Due to the shape of the leading edge and positioning of the intakes themselves, could it be possible that disturbed airflow from a problem ramp or donk could also effect it's outboard neighbour (if I'm right in presuming that only the inboard engine surging etc. could effect the outboard and not vice versa)?[/ |
You might want to take a look at 'When Intakes Go Wrong Part 1:
Concorde engine intake "Thrust"
and Parts 2 & 3:
Concorde engine intake "Thrust"
Not to mention Part 3:
dixi188
Quote:
| A certain CFI (I think) at BA flying club, High Wycombe, who was also F/O on concorde, showed me some photographs of an engine that had eaten a piece of intake ramp. I think he said that the adjacent engine had surged and a piece of ramp went out the front and down the other engine. This resulted in a double engine failure mid atlantic. They landed in Shannon with very little fuel left. |
ChristiaanJ
Quote:
PS I have no record of any of the British development aircraft ever having lost a ramp, notwithstanding the number of deliberate engine surges they went hrough. But then maybe I wasn't told....
|
Due to the lateness of the hour (and me being up at 4
), that will have to do for now guys.
Best regards to all
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 12th Dec 2010 at 04:51 . Reason: Adding a bit and correcting another
15th Dec 2010, 23:11
permalink Post: 868
Nick Thomas
Jeepers Nick, I must have about a million, but I'd like to share a few here. (Some of them I have prattled on about before in this thread, so I apologise for any repetitions).I suppose my very FIRST Concorde image would have to be in Swindon in 1970, when I was this young RAF 'erk' at nearby RAF Lyneham; I heard this loud roar in the sky over what is now Debenhams, and looked up and saw for the very first time Concorde 002, along with her attendant Canberra chase plane.
My next memorable image was at Fairford in the summer 1974. (No longer a young RAF erk, but a still fairly young lad now working for BAC). I'd seen quite a few spectacular take-offs in my short time at BAC, but A/C 101 (G-AXDN) was being flown by a French DGAC pilot (I forget the gentleman's name I'm afraid) and did the most amazing of take-offs. It was the clearest of blue summer skies, and this guy rotated 101 and just climbed steeply into the Gloucestershire sky, and climbed and climbed until she was virtually out of view; truly memorable.
Another image that I will never forget is the view of Concorde taking off from JFK RW31L, viewed from the right side of the runway sat in a truck (I did this dozens of times and never tired of watching the spectacle). It always amazed me how ANY airliner could turn and climb that amazing fashion, and would try and keep her in view as she did an almost complete circuit around JFK. (But I found the view from the aircraft, when seated in the supernumerary seat just behind the captain even more amazing. You'd looked out of the rear L/H window and see nothing but the water of Jamaica Bay going by, very fast and VERY close).
Another GREAT image was in 1995; on a special test flight on-board G-BOAD out of LHR. I was sat on the flight deck with the three guys (just us four on the whole aeroplane) and we were positioned just aft and to the left of the BA189 Concorde service to IAD. We started the supersonic acceleration together, but as we peeled off south for our extensive test flight, the BA189 (can't remember for the life of me the registration) just seemed to streak ahead just like the Starship Enterprise, and was out of sight completely quite soon after that.
And I shall never forget the very sad view of the last ever Concorde take-off, watching from the side of Heathrow RW 27R in November 2003. OAF took off with all her usual grace, but symbolically just disappeared into the overcast, dark and gloomy sky. My own final personal image after 33 years of watching Concorde is that the aviation world, just like that November sky, is a far gloomier place without her.
Best regards
Dude
Quote:
| So my question to all you Concorde admirers is do you have a special Concorde image and if so would you be kind enough to share it with us? |
My next memorable image was at Fairford in the summer 1974. (No longer a young RAF erk, but a still fairly young lad now working for BAC). I'd seen quite a few spectacular take-offs in my short time at BAC, but A/C 101 (G-AXDN) was being flown by a French DGAC pilot (I forget the gentleman's name I'm afraid) and did the most amazing of take-offs. It was the clearest of blue summer skies, and this guy rotated 101 and just climbed steeply into the Gloucestershire sky, and climbed and climbed until she was virtually out of view; truly memorable.
Another image that I will never forget is the view of Concorde taking off from JFK RW31L, viewed from the right side of the runway sat in a truck (I did this dozens of times and never tired of watching the spectacle). It always amazed me how ANY airliner could turn and climb that amazing fashion, and would try and keep her in view as she did an almost complete circuit around JFK. (But I found the view from the aircraft, when seated in the supernumerary seat just behind the captain even more amazing. You'd looked out of the rear L/H window and see nothing but the water of Jamaica Bay going by, very fast and VERY close).
Another GREAT image was in 1995; on a special test flight on-board G-BOAD out of LHR. I was sat on the flight deck with the three guys (just us four on the whole aeroplane) and we were positioned just aft and to the left of the BA189 Concorde service to IAD. We started the supersonic acceleration together, but as we peeled off south for our extensive test flight, the BA189 (can't remember for the life of me the registration) just seemed to streak ahead just like the Starship Enterprise, and was out of sight completely quite soon after that.
And I shall never forget the very sad view of the last ever Concorde take-off, watching from the side of Heathrow RW 27R in November 2003. OAF took off with all her usual grace, but symbolically just disappeared into the overcast, dark and gloomy sky. My own final personal image after 33 years of watching Concorde is that the aviation world, just like that November sky, is a far gloomier place without her.
Best regards
Dude
18th Dec 2010, 22:48
permalink Post: 879
Great thread, its taken some time to read through
The anecdotes from landlady , m2dude and the others are great
My main recollections are after coming back from Detroit to LHR, sitting on the National Express bus at dusk as Concorde took off from the runway parallel to the road, the whole bus shaking and watching the 4 engines glowing blue as she took off - brilliant. Sadly after that the next experience was passing 4 of them parked up after the AF disaster
As an Engineer I love things that push the envelope and limits - Concorde is one of those
Having just returned from Chicago on a 767, as capable as it is, I know what I would prefer to be riding in
I sadly doubt that we will see these flying again but I really would like to see effort in the next supersonic airliner rather than A380's and the like
The anecdotes from landlady , m2dude and the others are great
My main recollections are after coming back from Detroit to LHR, sitting on the National Express bus at dusk as Concorde took off from the runway parallel to the road, the whole bus shaking and watching the 4 engines glowing blue as she took off - brilliant. Sadly after that the next experience was passing 4 of them parked up after the AF disaster
As an Engineer I love things that push the envelope and limits - Concorde is one of those
Having just returned from Chicago on a 767, as capable as it is, I know what I would prefer to be riding in
I sadly doubt that we will see these flying again but I really would like to see effort in the next supersonic airliner rather than A380's and the like
22nd Dec 2010, 18:24
permalink Post: 949
High Level Incremental Fuel (HLI)
Hi,
Can someone please explain to me the purpose of High Level Incremental Fuel (HLI)?
Was it just a case of squeezing a bit more fuel in all the tanks above their normal refuelling levels to increase the fuel load for maximum range, possibly something like LHR - BGI with unfavourable weather conditions?
How often was it used and were there any special operating procedures in place when it was used?
Many thanks,
Steve.
Can someone please explain to me the purpose of High Level Incremental Fuel (HLI)?
Was it just a case of squeezing a bit more fuel in all the tanks above their normal refuelling levels to increase the fuel load for maximum range, possibly something like LHR - BGI with unfavourable weather conditions?
How often was it used and were there any special operating procedures in place when it was used?
Many thanks,
Steve.
15th Jan 2011, 10:59
permalink Post: 1100
A Journey Back In Time !!
OK, here is a photo that I took at Fairford in November 1976. I'd just had my very first Concorde flight on a brand new G-BOAD, and took this flight deck photo in the hangar later that afternoon (the doors are open hence the late afternoon Cotswold sky. The point of this rather poor (sorry guys, I was young for goodness sake) photo is to look at just how subtly different the 1976 flight deck WAS.
The first thing I know EXWOK and BELLEROPHON will (maybe) notice is that originally OAD had a 'normal colour' electroluminescent light plate on the visor indication panel. (If I remember rightly (it was a million years ago chaps) when this one 'stopped lighting' we could not get a replacement and had to rob 202 (G-BBDG) at Filton; this one being the same black development aircraft colour that OAD has to this day.
The OTHER first thing that you may notice is the Triple Temperature Indicator on the captains dash panel. (The first officer had his in in similar position). These got moved around (twice in the end) when TCAS was installed in the mid-90's. It was amazing just how much equipment got moved around over the years, in order to 'shoe-horn in' various bits of extra equimpent.
The cabin altimeter here fitted just above the #1 INS CDU also got moved (to the centre consul) when the FAA 'Branniff' modifications were embodied later in the 70's. It's spot got occupied by a standy altimeter mandated by the FAA but this was removed after Branniff ceased flying Concorde; the cabin altimeter returning to it's former home. The REALLY observant will notice that there is neither an Autoland Ca3/Cat2 identifier on the AFCS panel (glued on by BA at LHR) or the famous and precision built 'Reheat Capabilty Indicator' flip down plate fitted to the centre dash panel a few years later by BA.
Also not shown here, as they were buyer furnished equipment also fitted at on delivery LHR, are the two ADEUs (Automatic Data Entry Units, or INS Card readers). These were located immediatel aft of the CDU's and were used for bulk waypoint loading ('bulk' being 9, the most that the poor old Delco INU memory could handle). These were removed in the mid 90's when the Navigation Database was fitted to Concorde INUs, and bulk loading then was achieved by simply tapping in a 2 digit code. (Hardly the elegence of FMS, but still very elegent in comparison with the ADEU's, and worked superbly). A little note about these ADEU things; You inserted this rather large optically read paper data card into the thing and the motor would suck the unsuspecting card in. As often as not the ADEU would chew the card up and spit the remnants out, without reading any data, or not even bother spitting out the remnants at all. Removing these things FINALLY when the INUs were modified was absolute joy!!
ps. When G-BOAG (then G-BFKW) was delivered in 1980 it had neither any of the Branniff mods or ADEUs fitted. (Also the INS was not wired for DME updating). This meant that obviously she could not fly IAD-DFW with Branniff but also she could not do LHR-BAH either, because of the lack ADEUs. (You could not manually insert waypoints quick enough over the 'Med', or so the guys told me. So for the first few years good old FKW/OAG just used to plod between LHR and JFK. And plod she did, superbly. She never did get the ADEUs (not necessary thank goodness when the INUs got modified) but we wired in DME updating and so she could navigate around with the best of them.
My gosh I do prattle on, sorry guys.
Best regards
Dude
PS Welcome back Landlady, hope you've recovered from your fall XXXX
The first thing I know EXWOK and BELLEROPHON will (maybe) notice is that originally OAD had a 'normal colour' electroluminescent light plate on the visor indication panel. (If I remember rightly (it was a million years ago chaps) when this one 'stopped lighting' we could not get a replacement and had to rob 202 (G-BBDG) at Filton; this one being the same black development aircraft colour that OAD has to this day.
The OTHER first thing that you may notice is the Triple Temperature Indicator on the captains dash panel. (The first officer had his in in similar position). These got moved around (twice in the end) when TCAS was installed in the mid-90's. It was amazing just how much equipment got moved around over the years, in order to 'shoe-horn in' various bits of extra equimpent.
The cabin altimeter here fitted just above the #1 INS CDU also got moved (to the centre consul) when the FAA 'Branniff' modifications were embodied later in the 70's. It's spot got occupied by a standy altimeter mandated by the FAA but this was removed after Branniff ceased flying Concorde; the cabin altimeter returning to it's former home. The REALLY observant will notice that there is neither an Autoland Ca3/Cat2 identifier on the AFCS panel (glued on by BA at LHR) or the famous and precision built 'Reheat Capabilty Indicator' flip down plate fitted to the centre dash panel a few years later by BA.
Also not shown here, as they were buyer furnished equipment also fitted at on delivery LHR, are the two ADEUs (Automatic Data Entry Units, or INS Card readers). These were located immediatel aft of the CDU's and were used for bulk waypoint loading ('bulk' being 9, the most that the poor old Delco INU memory could handle). These were removed in the mid 90's when the Navigation Database was fitted to Concorde INUs, and bulk loading then was achieved by simply tapping in a 2 digit code. (Hardly the elegence of FMS, but still very elegent in comparison with the ADEU's, and worked superbly). A little note about these ADEU things; You inserted this rather large optically read paper data card into the thing and the motor would suck the unsuspecting card in. As often as not the ADEU would chew the card up and spit the remnants out, without reading any data, or not even bother spitting out the remnants at all. Removing these things FINALLY when the INUs were modified was absolute joy!!
ps. When G-BOAG (then G-BFKW) was delivered in 1980 it had neither any of the Branniff mods or ADEUs fitted. (Also the INS was not wired for DME updating). This meant that obviously she could not fly IAD-DFW with Branniff but also she could not do LHR-BAH either, because of the lack ADEUs. (You could not manually insert waypoints quick enough over the 'Med', or so the guys told me. So for the first few years good old FKW/OAG just used to plod between LHR and JFK. And plod she did, superbly. She never did get the ADEUs (not necessary thank goodness when the INUs got modified) but we wired in DME updating and so she could navigate around with the best of them.
My gosh I do prattle on, sorry guys.
Best regards
Dude
PS Welcome back Landlady, hope you've recovered from your fall XXXX
Last edited by M2dude; 15th Jan 2011 at 11:29 .