17th Aug 2010, 14:33
permalink Post: 17
M2dude,
Nice set of photos of "The Thing" here :
MEPU at MAE at le Bourget .
This one is at the Air and Space Museum at Le Bourget, near Paris. My guess is that is was a spare, since the manufacturing date is 1973. 'SA flew in January '73 and 'SB in December '73.
IIRC, Delta Golf arrived at Brooklands with the MEPU still in place; I might have a photo.
As to the installation, we're obviously thinking along the same lines....
However, there were already several conduits through tank 11, such as hydraulics for the tail wheel, various electrics, and the 'backbone' fuel manifolds, that ended at the fuel jettison port in the tailcone.
A couple of fairly substantial air ducts would only have displaced a few hundred kgs of fuel at the most, out of the more than 10,000 kgs in tank 11.
And yes, of course, the whole point of the APU would be to have independent ground start and ground airco available, so clearly an APU would have been bigger and heavier than the MEPU (which was only just over 80 lbs), plus the problem of the air intake and bigger exhaust.
I'd have to get the drawings out to see how easy or difficult it would have been to fit one in the available space.
Since the tailcone was BAC, and both 214 and 216 were built at Filton, I wonder if anybody there still remembers?
Nice set of photos of "The Thing" here :
MEPU at MAE at le Bourget .
This one is at the Air and Space Museum at Le Bourget, near Paris. My guess is that is was a spare, since the manufacturing date is 1973. 'SA flew in January '73 and 'SB in December '73.
IIRC, Delta Golf arrived at Brooklands with the MEPU still in place; I might have a photo.
As to the installation, we're obviously thinking along the same lines....
However, there were already several conduits through tank 11, such as hydraulics for the tail wheel, various electrics, and the 'backbone' fuel manifolds, that ended at the fuel jettison port in the tailcone.
A couple of fairly substantial air ducts would only have displaced a few hundred kgs of fuel at the most, out of the more than 10,000 kgs in tank 11.
And yes, of course, the whole point of the APU would be to have independent ground start and ground airco available, so clearly an APU would have been bigger and heavier than the MEPU (which was only just over 80 lbs), plus the problem of the air intake and bigger exhaust.
I'd have to get the drawings out to see how easy or difficult it would have been to fit one in the available space.
Since the tailcone was BAC, and both 214 and 216 were built at Filton, I wonder if anybody there still remembers?
18th Aug 2010, 21:24
permalink Post: 20
M2dude,
Re the MEPU at the Le Bourget museum...
The story I just got was that it was taken off F-WTSA or F-WTSB at Roissy for a fault and replaced (both 'SA and 'SB operated out of Roissy around '74 / '75 for things like route proving, etc.).
It got left on a shelf in a store, and was only discovered again in 2003 during the "big clean-out" and was saved 'in extremis' by somebody who recognised it for what it was, stopped it from being 'binned' and took it over to the museum.
Initially of couse it was. It was not until the return to subsonic, towards the end of the flight, that the contents of the n\xb0 11 trim tank were moved forward again to the other tanks.
So yes, you're right, essentially all of it was "useable" fuel, it did not serve only for the trim.
Don't we all....
Jock Lowe seems to have stated there is a photo.... and we all still wonder if there is some footage taken from the Lear Jet during the filming of "Airport 79". But none is publicly known to exist ... we just know it's been done!
Re the MEPU at the Le Bourget museum...
The story I just got was that it was taken off F-WTSA or F-WTSB at Roissy for a fault and replaced (both 'SA and 'SB operated out of Roissy around '74 / '75 for things like route proving, etc.).
It got left on a shelf in a store, and was only discovered again in 2003 during the "big clean-out" and was saved 'in extremis' by somebody who recognised it for what it was, stopped it from being 'binned' and took it over to the museum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Biggles78
10,000kg in a trim tank? No, I am really not that stupid to think it was all used for trim
|
So yes, you're right, essentially all of it was "useable" fuel, it did not serve only for the trim.
Quote:
| Also wish someone had recorded her being rolled (like the B707 when being displayed). |
Jock Lowe seems to have stated there is a photo.... and we all still wonder if there is some footage taken from the Lear Jet during the filming of "Airport 79". But none is publicly known to exist ... we just know it's been done!
19th Aug 2010, 14:37
permalink Post: 28
Biggles78,
To complement M2dude's notes re nose and visor:
There were basically four 'positions':
Nose and visor up (supersonic),
Nose up, visor down only (subsonic climd and descent),
Nose down 5\xb0, visor down (take-off and initial climb),
Nose down 12.5\xb0, visor down (approach and landing).
Normally nose and visor are raised and lowered by the green hydraulic system (as is done until today on F-BTSD at Le Bourget).
In 'standby' mode, the visor was lowered by the yellow hydraulic system.
Then the nose uplocks were released by the yellow system, and the nose would free-fall to the 5\xb0 position.
Another switch allowed to hydraulically release the 5\xb0 downlocks, and the nose would free-fall again, now to the 12.5\xb0 psition.
In this 'standby' mode, the nose and visor could not be raised again.
In the best "belt, braces AND a piece of string" tradition of Concorde, if both the 'normal' and 'standby' system failed, there was a big handle on the F/O side of the central pedestal.
This released the nose uplocks manually, the nose would start to free-fall, automatically unlocking the visor, and both would then free-fall down: the nose only to the 5\xb0 position.
To complete the story... there is a 5th position: nose 17.5\xb0 down!
This was the 'nose fully down' position as designed originally and installed on 001 and 002.
It met with sharp criticism from the test pilots, because of the lack of a forward visual reference with the nose fully down. "It's like looking over the edge of a cliff", was the unanimous comment of the pilots.
So a couple of mechanical stops were added that limited the 'nose down' angle to 12.5\xb0.
But the basic design of the nose was not changed otherwise, so even on the production aircraft the nose could be lowered to 17.5\xb0, but only in the hangar, by removing the mechanical stops. It may have been done a few times, for better access to the visor and nose mechanism.
Minor anecdote... the nose and visor were up during supersonic flight, of course, but also when the aircraft were on the ground and parked outside, simply to keep the rain and dirt out.
But... the prototypes had a metal visor, with two tiny windows, and it was inconveniently dark on the ground in the cockpit with the visor up . So on the ground we always kept the visor down, unless the aircraft was parked outside for any length of time.
To complement M2dude's notes re nose and visor:
There were basically four 'positions':
Nose and visor up (supersonic),
Nose up, visor down only (subsonic climd and descent),
Nose down 5\xb0, visor down (take-off and initial climb),
Nose down 12.5\xb0, visor down (approach and landing).
Normally nose and visor are raised and lowered by the green hydraulic system (as is done until today on F-BTSD at Le Bourget).
In 'standby' mode, the visor was lowered by the yellow hydraulic system.
Then the nose uplocks were released by the yellow system, and the nose would free-fall to the 5\xb0 position.
Another switch allowed to hydraulically release the 5\xb0 downlocks, and the nose would free-fall again, now to the 12.5\xb0 psition.
In this 'standby' mode, the nose and visor could not be raised again.
In the best "belt, braces AND a piece of string" tradition of Concorde, if both the 'normal' and 'standby' system failed, there was a big handle on the F/O side of the central pedestal.
This released the nose uplocks manually, the nose would start to free-fall, automatically unlocking the visor, and both would then free-fall down: the nose only to the 5\xb0 position.
To complete the story... there is a 5th position: nose 17.5\xb0 down!
This was the 'nose fully down' position as designed originally and installed on 001 and 002.
It met with sharp criticism from the test pilots, because of the lack of a forward visual reference with the nose fully down. "It's like looking over the edge of a cliff", was the unanimous comment of the pilots.
So a couple of mechanical stops were added that limited the 'nose down' angle to 12.5\xb0.
But the basic design of the nose was not changed otherwise, so even on the production aircraft the nose could be lowered to 17.5\xb0, but only in the hangar, by removing the mechanical stops. It may have been done a few times, for better access to the visor and nose mechanism.
Minor anecdote... the nose and visor were up during supersonic flight, of course, but also when the aircraft were on the ground and parked outside, simply to keep the rain and dirt out.
But... the prototypes had a metal visor, with two tiny windows, and it was inconveniently dark on the ground in the cockpit with the visor up . So on the ground we always kept the visor down, unless the aircraft was parked outside for any length of time.
22nd Aug 2010, 22:54
permalink Post: 76
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
stilton
What happened to the Concorde at Dakar ?
|
But in brief, F-BVFD made an extremely hard landing at Dakar in November 1977, with a vertical speed in the order of 14 ft/sec (with 10 ft/sec being the formal limit).
The result was a major tailstrike, ruining the tail wheel and some of the tail structure.
The aircraft was repaired, repatriated, and put back into service, but it was the first one to be withdrawn from service when the Paris-Dakar-Rio route was closed.
In the end it was scrapped in 1994... only a section of the forward fuselage still remains in the stores of the Air and Space Museum at Le Bourget (Paris).
9th Sep 2010, 08:29
permalink Post: 291
What a fascinating read, thanks to all guys contributing to it.
The fact that the Conc still fascinates so many people after so many years is the best prove of its uniqueness. Never flown on one, but having brought clients to it I remember a time where we parked right under the nose of an AF example at CDG with our tiny Cheyenne. The Pax was lead from our airplane up the stairs and off they went. (1989ish, I was a wet as a fish F/O then) Queing in Heathrow a few years later I couldn't hear my KingAirs engines for quite a while when the guys opened up and fired the cans. Fond memories and still the most graceful airplane I saw in my life.
I still use the opportunity to see the 2 examples at the museum at Le Bourget when there. Having seen a documentary on the first flights in Toulouse and Filton I had a trip to Filton a few days later and sitting in the air field ops Landrover was sort of a time travel.
We had the pleasure to have ex FE\xb4s and an ex Capt. as trainers at FlightSafety in Farnborough. Very nice blokes and I should add, very capable and knowledgable guys. One can see why they were on the sharp end.
Sorry that I cant ask a good question right now, just had to get my thanks off my chest!
The fact that the Conc still fascinates so many people after so many years is the best prove of its uniqueness. Never flown on one, but having brought clients to it I remember a time where we parked right under the nose of an AF example at CDG with our tiny Cheyenne. The Pax was lead from our airplane up the stairs and off they went. (1989ish, I was a wet as a fish F/O then) Queing in Heathrow a few years later I couldn't hear my KingAirs engines for quite a while when the guys opened up and fired the cans. Fond memories and still the most graceful airplane I saw in my life.
I still use the opportunity to see the 2 examples at the museum at Le Bourget when there. Having seen a documentary on the first flights in Toulouse and Filton I had a trip to Filton a few days later and sitting in the air field ops Landrover was sort of a time travel.
We had the pleasure to have ex FE\xb4s and an ex Capt. as trainers at FlightSafety in Farnborough. Very nice blokes and I should add, very capable and knowledgable guys. One can see why they were on the sharp end.
Sorry that I cant ask a good question right now, just had to get my thanks off my chest!
16th Sep 2010, 20:50
permalink Post: 379
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
bizdev
However, whenever Concorde turned up, my overriding memory was of my colleage who was obsessed with 'keeping her warm" - at all costs.
|
They still don't like being too warm or too cold, to this day....
In the French Le Bourget Air and Space Museum, Sierra Delta (F-BTSD) has to live in a big hall, without any heating or air conditioning.
He (yes, "he", French Concordes are "he"s unlike their British sisters) is the one that is still 'alive' to some extent, and that will still greet you by lowering and raising his nose if you're there at the right time.
And he too will tell you unequivocally, even today, whe it's simply too hot or too cold to 'perform'.
Luckily, his human friend, who's been taking care of him since he arrived at the museum, understands him very well.... I know there are some "sympathetic brain waves" there.....
CJ
28th Sep 2010, 22:58
permalink Post: 492
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Cron
My question concerns lighting. Not many decent pictures showing landing lights etc being used in anger.
Concorde appears to have a much reduced frontal area for the housing of such lighting. |
Nevertheless there were three separate sets of landing/taxi lights there.
Quoting from the manual:
Two main landing lamps, one mounted in each wing root leading
edge, have retractable/extensible mountings and when not in
use are retracted in the lamp housing.
Two land/taxi lamps, similar to the main landing lamps, are attached to the
nose landing gear bay doors. The land/taxi lamps extend to
an intermediate position for landing, upon which they
automatically extend to the full position for taxiing, thus
changing the beam angle to compensate for the attitude change.
Two taxi/turn-off lamps, one mounted on each side of the
forward fuselage, provide ground illumination to identify
runway turn-off points.
These are the 'main' lights in the wing leading edge (600W each).
These are the lights in the nosewheel doors ("only" 450W each).
Quote:
| There is also the question of lenses having to withstand supersonic flow. |
The heat was less of a problem, actually.
The lights themselves were high-power sealed-beam units, the main units were 6 00W each, and the ones in the nosewheel doors were 450W ... nothing like your car headlights.
As a matter of fact, on the ground you were not suppossed to turn them on any more than 5 minutes in any 10 minutes.... they got a lot hotter when switched on, than they did in supersonic flight.
Quote:
| And also the angle of attack on landing (hope I have the right terminology there) seemingly pointing any lighting into the sky. |
What happened was that the main landing lamps in the wing roots were angled such, that they pointed straight ahead at the right angle to "hit" the runway during the landing itself.
Once the aircraft touched down, the land/taxi lights in the nose gear door extended further and lit a wider expanse of the runway ahead (see the earlier quote from the manual).
And then the third set of lights in the nose helped you to find the turn-off to the taxiway.
One nice little detail.... on F-BTSD, the Concorde at the French Le Bourget museum, those lights still work, and on G-BBDG, the Concorde at the Brooklands museum that was saved from the scrapheap, they brought those lights back to life, too.
CJ
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 28th Sep 2010 at 23:14 . Reason: Addng pics and typo
1st Oct 2010, 21:33
permalink Post: 505
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
landlady
October 1st 1969 - Concorde's first supersonic flight.
Happy Birthday to a lovely lady, provider of wonderful memories. |
I've always felt their 'Birthday' was their very first flight.... when from a huge collection of bits and pieces of aluminium and steel and titanium and plastic and electronics and whatever.... they each became an 'individual' of their own right, doing what all of us had worked so long and hard for her/him to achieve. They flew!
So today, to me, is a day to wish 001 "Happy Anniversary ".
And I hope somebody today at Le Bourget sneaked in a bottle of champagne to share that anniversary with him.
CJ
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
.
10th Nov 2010, 15:43
permalink Post: 694
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Biggles78
All due respect but this is the CONCORDE thread and it would be really nice if it could stay as such.
|
Quote:
LandLady said in a post many moons ago that there was a pool of some 240 "Concorde Ambassadors" (sorry but CC and FAs don't sound right for this aeroplane) for Her. What was the numbers of Captains, First Officers and the all important Flight Engineers (sucking up to M2 with that one
)
|
Quote:
I looked at the photos posted by a thoughtful member in an earlier post and wonder how former crew felt looking at them. The photos give the impression that you could kick the tyres and light the fires and they would be once again gracing the skies. Obviously they are unairworthy BUT the photos project a different image.
|
As an example, F-BVFC at Toulouse, which was the last one to remain at least taxyable, now has some patches of corrosion starting to show, when you know where to look. Not to mention the nasty smell of damp and mould in the cockpit which bodes no good for what's going on underneath the floor.
And even F-BTSD, kept "live" to some extent at Le Bourget, leaks some hydraulic fluid (like all Concordes did on the ground), so it's easy to imagine the dried-out hydraulic and fuel seals on the other museum aircraft.
And yes, that's kitty litter...
The composite material of the floor and the hydraulic fluid don't agree too well.
Quote:
| Final one for this post. If She was still flying, do you still think that BA (sorry but going to ignore AF on this one) would have sufficient patronage to keep Her as a going and profitable concern? |
CJ
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 14th Nov 2010 at 11:32 . Reason: typo
30th Dec 2010, 14:00
permalink Post: 1050
Bell Inn Charter
Quote:
|
Peronally, I still remember vaguely there's a tale of the customers of a country pub somewhere in England actually chartering a Concorde for a "round-the-bay" flight, but I've never been able to find the full story.
CJ |
A little bit of further digging on this trip has revealed ..
"Brian Calvert was a pilot on the very first commercial Concorde flight, and a regular at The Bell Inn. Ian Macaulay asked whether it would be possible to take a trip on it and Brian made it possible to arrange. As a result, on 19th September 1978 one hundred people paid \xa3100 each to make the first ever chartered flight in the supersonic airliner."
I wonder how many drinks it took them to convince Brian Calvert it would be a good idea
There is also a reference to Concorde in the Aldworth Millennium Tapestry that was made in 1999 showing. Aldworth Millennium Tapestry
I am very lucky to live only 30 miles from G-BOAC and have made several visits including doing the technical tours - although nothing like the detail that I have learnt from yourselves
In response to Christiaan's question about how the technical tours were done in comparision to F-BTSD at Le Bourget, unfortunatley it only looks like lighting power is supplied to the A/C - no hydraulics seem to be 'left intact' and working which is a huge shame.
For me it only shows that 'she' (or 'he'
) is a very special entity that did prove to be so much more than just a 'machine'. Even though she isn't flying, you still catch yourself standing in awe each time you see her. at first I wasn't sure about AC's new 'hangar', but apart from keeping her dry, I must admit it does add atmosphere to the occasion.
Cheers
Andy
2nd Jan 2011, 21:17
permalink Post: 1068
CliveL
,
DozyWannabee
,
It's always fun doing a bit of 'aero-archaeology'.... isn't it?
You're both right.
At the roll-out, 01 was already marked "AEROSPATIALE", and the tracking camera 'target' was already painted on the right-hand side (but not on the left!).
So the earlier photo in question is definitely 002.
I recently re-scanned my ancient 'Filton' photos... only black-and-white, but maybe worth adding them to the 'records'.
G-AXDN being moved out of the hangar.
Interestingly, no tracking camera target on the left-hand side.... it must have been added very soon after, because I have a photo from a few weeks later, where it's in place on both sides.
Roll-out or not, G-AXDN still wasn't quite finished... three of the four engine nozzles/thrust reversers are still missing and replaced provisionally by 'space frames'.
This one again confirms the "AEROSPATIALE" marking. Also, somebody hadn't gotten round to painting the tail cone yet....
CJ
Oh, and a PS....
Another 'kinky' photo, this one of 001 when still outside the Le Bourget museum.
(Photo from the ConcordeSST.com site).
It's always fun doing a bit of 'aero-archaeology'.... isn't it?
You're both right.
At the roll-out, 01 was already marked "AEROSPATIALE", and the tracking camera 'target' was already painted on the right-hand side (but not on the left!).
So the earlier photo in question is definitely 002.
I recently re-scanned my ancient 'Filton' photos... only black-and-white, but maybe worth adding them to the 'records'.
G-AXDN being moved out of the hangar.
Interestingly, no tracking camera target on the left-hand side.... it must have been added very soon after, because I have a photo from a few weeks later, where it's in place on both sides.
Roll-out or not, G-AXDN still wasn't quite finished... three of the four engine nozzles/thrust reversers are still missing and replaced provisionally by 'space frames'.
This one again confirms the "AEROSPATIALE" marking. Also, somebody hadn't gotten round to painting the tail cone yet....
CJ
Oh, and a PS....
Another 'kinky' photo, this one of 001 when still outside the Le Bourget museum.
(Photo from the ConcordeSST.com site).
1st Sep 2012, 18:18
permalink Post: 1671
The late XV105
Dunno about the source of your info on this but it may have got a bit garbled in the telling.
With a plain slender delta on the approach the trailing edge control surfaces will be slightly up and as speed is reduced this angle will increase slightly. If you want to raise the nose in the flare then even more stick back will be needed. This gives - if you like - a wing with a negative flap angle and so rather less lift needing a higher speed than you miught wish.
If you add some canards to give a big nose up force then to trim the aircraft the trailing edge surfaces will all be down a bit - giving a flapped delta with considerable benefit in terms of reduced approach speed.
The Tu144 with canards was able to land on the display runway at Le Bourget and take the second turn off right to the aircraft park - a quite remarkable demonstration of its modest speed on finals.
Quote:
| Yes, the Tupolev canards were a novel feature, but I understand they were only necessary in the first place because of lower speed control issues as a result of more basic aerodynamics. |
With a plain slender delta on the approach the trailing edge control surfaces will be slightly up and as speed is reduced this angle will increase slightly. If you want to raise the nose in the flare then even more stick back will be needed. This gives - if you like - a wing with a negative flap angle and so rather less lift needing a higher speed than you miught wish.
If you add some canards to give a big nose up force then to trim the aircraft the trailing edge surfaces will all be down a bit - giving a flapped delta with considerable benefit in terms of reduced approach speed.
The Tu144 with canards was able to land on the display runway at Le Bourget and take the second turn off right to the aircraft park - a quite remarkable demonstration of its modest speed on finals.
22nd Oct 2013, 16:57
permalink Post: 1744
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
Trackdiamond
...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?
|
As for the Concorde nacelle/engine arrangement - it didn't really have that large an impact on the F-BTSC accident - because even if the nacelles weren't grouped, the hot gases from the burning fuel would still have had a negative impact on the airflow to the adjacent engine. If I recall correctly, the investigators calculated the way the damage spread through the structure and control connections and proved that even if all four engines were still producing the correct thrust, the fire would still have caused sufficient structural damage to prevent the aircraft making Le Bourget. The nacelle structure itself was proven to be strong enough to withstand an uncontained failure of the engine when it actually happened on the line.
Apropos of nothing, the separate "podded" design was proven to be no protection against damage to adjacent engines when the inboard starboard engine of El Al 1862 took out the outboard as it fell away.