13th Aug 2010, 09:45
permalink Post: 2
Hi Stilton, that is a question that we all used to ask ourselves; not having an APU was a major pain in the butt for the fleet, particularly at charter destinations, where air start trucks, GPU's and air conditioning trucks would all have to be pre-arranged.
One problem with 'Conc' was always one of weight, (for every extra pound you carried, another pound of fuel was required) so any APU installation would have to have been light, and worth the extra weight. But the main problem was one of 'where to put the darned thing. The only suitable space available for an APU was in the tailcone, aft of the tail wheel. Now a ready supply of fuel would have been available either from the aft trim tank, #11, or from one of the two trim galleries. (For stability reasons, tank 11 was invariably left empty during ground transits). The real crunch however, was how to arrange pneumatic services from an APU: Tank 11 was directly forward of the tailcone, so this would have meant either ducting the pneumatics THROUGH the fuel tank (not a particularly good idea
) or externally around the fuselage, which would have been 'draggy' to say the least.
You could still have had an APU powering hydraulics, and in essence electrics too (the emergency generator was powered from the Green System), but without pneumatics for engine starting and air conditioning, it would really have been a waste of weight. Still, it really is a shame that there was no APU.
Historically, there were 'sort of' aux power units fitted to development aircraft: The prototypes had two GTS's (Gas Turbine Starters), one in each nacelle pair, that could start the engines without an air start truck, but these never saw the light of day in later aircraft. The most unusual unit of all was the MEPU (Monogol Emergency Power Unit), located in the tail cone. This was manufactured by Sundstrand, and was fitted to all of the development aircraft. (A derivation of a unit fitted to the X-15!!). The idea was that if you had a four-engined flameout at Mach 2, this thing would fire up, power Green and Yellow hydraulics (plus the emergency generator, again from the Green system), and give you power and control down to a safe relight altitude. The MEPU was powered by Hydrazine rocket fuel (unbelievably unstable) and I seem to remember that the thing would run for about 8 minutes. There was no way that this monstrosity would ever be acceptable on a commercial aircraft, and so a conventional RAT was developed by Dowty for the production aircraft. (Also, the windmilling engines would give you full electrics down to Mach 1.1, and Hydraulics down to about Mach 0.7, so the thing had little practical use when supersonic anyway).
I hope this extended blurb helps answer your query Stilton.
One problem with 'Conc' was always one of weight, (for every extra pound you carried, another pound of fuel was required) so any APU installation would have to have been light, and worth the extra weight. But the main problem was one of 'where to put the darned thing. The only suitable space available for an APU was in the tailcone, aft of the tail wheel. Now a ready supply of fuel would have been available either from the aft trim tank, #11, or from one of the two trim galleries. (For stability reasons, tank 11 was invariably left empty during ground transits). The real crunch however, was how to arrange pneumatic services from an APU: Tank 11 was directly forward of the tailcone, so this would have meant either ducting the pneumatics THROUGH the fuel tank (not a particularly good idea
) or externally around the fuselage, which would have been 'draggy' to say the least.
You could still have had an APU powering hydraulics, and in essence electrics too (the emergency generator was powered from the Green System), but without pneumatics for engine starting and air conditioning, it would really have been a waste of weight. Still, it really is a shame that there was no APU.
Historically, there were 'sort of' aux power units fitted to development aircraft: The prototypes had two GTS's (Gas Turbine Starters), one in each nacelle pair, that could start the engines without an air start truck, but these never saw the light of day in later aircraft. The most unusual unit of all was the MEPU (Monogol Emergency Power Unit), located in the tail cone. This was manufactured by Sundstrand, and was fitted to all of the development aircraft. (A derivation of a unit fitted to the X-15!!). The idea was that if you had a four-engined flameout at Mach 2, this thing would fire up, power Green and Yellow hydraulics (plus the emergency generator, again from the Green system), and give you power and control down to a safe relight altitude. The MEPU was powered by Hydrazine rocket fuel (unbelievably unstable) and I seem to remember that the thing would run for about 8 minutes. There was no way that this monstrosity would ever be acceptable on a commercial aircraft, and so a conventional RAT was developed by Dowty for the production aircraft. (Also, the windmilling engines would give you full electrics down to Mach 1.1, and Hydraulics down to about Mach 0.7, so the thing had little practical use when supersonic anyway).
I hope this extended blurb helps answer your query Stilton.
13th Aug 2010, 16:07
permalink Post: 3
Yes,
M2dude
, but how long could you remain above M1.1 with a four-engine flameout while drifting down? I presume you would driftdown above M0.7. BTW, the RAT on the F-16 is hydrazine powered as was the ME 162 rocket interceptor.
13th Aug 2010, 18:53
permalink Post: 4
Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.
13th Aug 2010, 22:14
permalink Post: 5
M2dude
Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct?
What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS.
Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud.
Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct?
What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS.
Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud.
14th Aug 2010, 23:15
permalink Post: 8
Galaxy Flyer
Thanks very much for your comments. It's true, that while supersonic, a windmilling Olympus engine would have sufficient N2 to keep all servics on line. (The hydraulic systems on Concorde also operated at 4000 PSI). The RAT itself was 'said' to be good down to approach speeds, fortunately we never had to find out if that was true. (Although the thing was tested routinely using a hydraulic rig to drive it and check the variable pitch speed control). Thr RAT was in fact located and stowed in the fwd part of the R/H inboard elevon Powered Flying Control Unit Fairing. It was an absolute work of art by Dowty, to make the device fit into such a small space.
Yep, an ash cloud would be particularly bad news, particularly at FL600
Stlton
You are most welcome, thank you for posting this topic also. These forums are a wonderful way for all of us out there in the aviation world to share and learn interesting information from each other.
TURIN
I remember reading By the Rivers of Babylon many MANY years ago. The terrorists, I seem to remember, had a bomb fitted inside Tank 11 (the rear trim tank) during construction 'before it was welded shut'. Not sure if the author had researched how aircraft were built, but still I guess it sold a copy or two. (Well at least you and I read it).
Thanks very much for your comments. It's true, that while supersonic, a windmilling Olympus engine would have sufficient N2 to keep all servics on line. (The hydraulic systems on Concorde also operated at 4000 PSI). The RAT itself was 'said' to be good down to approach speeds, fortunately we never had to find out if that was true. (Although the thing was tested routinely using a hydraulic rig to drive it and check the variable pitch speed control). Thr RAT was in fact located and stowed in the fwd part of the R/H inboard elevon Powered Flying Control Unit Fairing. It was an absolute work of art by Dowty, to make the device fit into such a small space.
Yep, an ash cloud would be particularly bad news, particularly at FL600
Stlton
You are most welcome, thank you for posting this topic also. These forums are a wonderful way for all of us out there in the aviation world to share and learn interesting information from each other.
TURIN
I remember reading By the Rivers of Babylon many MANY years ago. The terrorists, I seem to remember, had a bomb fitted inside Tank 11 (the rear trim tank) during construction 'before it was welded shut'. Not sure if the author had researched how aircraft were built, but still I guess it sold a copy or two. (Well at least you and I read it).
15th Aug 2010, 15:22
permalink Post: 9
Quote:
| Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. |
7th Sep 2010, 10:02
permalink Post: 254
for atakacs:
Quote:
| Makes me wonder... In the event of a complete loss of thrust at Mach 2 (say fuel contamination) would the deceleration be significant ? If so I guess the fuel redistribution / pumping to maintain acceptable CG would become interesting... |
The drag incurred flying supersonic was once described to me as like flying through wood, not air. The only times I ever closed all 4 throttles at M2 was dealing with surges (see earlier posts on the subject). While not quite like flying into teak, the decel was very impressive - it more than once resulted in a member of cabin crew appearing in the flt deck in a semi-seated position, grimly trying to stop a fully loaded galley cart.......
As for four-engine flameouts - perish the thought. The checklists, like many, depended on flight phase;
Above M1.2 it was expected that windmilling would provide adequate eletric and hydraulic power so the c/list aimed to start a fuel txfr forward, use the spare hydraulic system to drive half the PFCUs, ensure a fuel supply to the engs and ensure cooling to equipment.
Below M1.2 the RAT would be deployed, it was less likely that the standard means of fuel txfr would work so valves were overridden and the hydraulic fuel pumps brought into use, and the Mach fell further the PFCUs were put on half-body use only, using the stby hydraulic system.
You weren't far from the ground, in time, at this stage so it was a good time to get an engine relit!
Given the Olympus' auto-relight capability a four engine loss was going to be caused by something fairly drastic.
19th Sep 2010, 22:57
permalink Post: 410
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
atakacs
I have always been of the possibly not substantiated opinion that all was done to make sure she would never fly again.
|
Opinions and remarks like yours really belong on forums like "SCG" or the comments columns of tabloids....
But I'll try to answer you.
The aircraft were "decommissioned".
That means that they were fully prepared as public museum exhibits, rather than being "mothballed", ready to be put back into service.
The purpose was not to make sure they would never fly again, it was to make sure they were safe for the public to visit.
That included draining all fuel, hydraulic liquid, etc.
That meant removing all pyrotechnics, like those in the RAT.
That implied venting and/or removing all high-pressure vessels, such as the emergency slides, fire bottles, oxygen systems, nitrogen tanks.
In the case of the BA aircraft, it also meant removing the electric ground power connections, to avoid incompetent amateurs trying to put ground power back on the aircraft, and start a fire.
Most of these things could have been rectified quite easily. But there was no intent to ever fly any of these aircraft again, so there was no effort made to "mothball" the aircraft, which would have been done quite differently, such as inerting some of the systems, dropping all of the engines, etc. and, far more importantly, keep a maintenance structure in place, not allow public access to any of the aircraft, etc.
Once Airbus relinquished the Type Certificate, that was the end.
Quote:
| ...it would have been possible to nicely package all remaining spares and technical documentation |
You clearly have no idea what that would have been involved.
Just the spares alone... most of them are "lifed", and would regularly need to be either retested and requalified, or would have to be binned and replaced.
Quote:
| .. not mentioning the reckless butchering of many airframes. |
CJ
30th Sep 2010, 15:03
permalink Post: 500
I copied this off M2dude's post a couple of days ago, and tried to answer it all offline without cheating by looking up the answers elsewhere.
1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde?
LOL... 13.
I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13.
Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank.
And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft.
2) How many seats were there?
Good question.
As Nick asked, which seats?
Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified.
Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit.
Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven?
Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos!
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts.
But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time.....
It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope.
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg.
IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up.
Brain not completely addled, then.
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
FL600, as certified.
6) How many wheels on the aircraft?
Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back
7) How many flying control modes were there?
Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS?
Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used.
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft).
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system?
It was after "my time"...
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources.
There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine.
Then there were two DC batteries.
And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post.
Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical.
Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!
CJ
1) How many fuel tanks were there on Concorde?
LOL... 13.
I suppose that, for the same reason there was no row 13 in the cabin, somebody decided to name two of the tanks "5A" and "7A", rather than call the tail trim tank (named no.11) number 13.
Yes, I forgot the scavenge tank.
And since it was "BA Concordes only" I didn't want to add the hydrazine tank on the two preprod and the two certification aircraft.
2) How many seats were there?
Good question.
As Nick asked, which seats?
Nominally there were 100 pax seats in the cabin, although originally up to 127 were certified.
Five (three plus two jump seats) in the cockpit.
Cabin seats for the cabin crew.... I honestly don't know. Seven?
Wrong twice... six cabin crew seats, AND I forgot to count the loos!
3) At what approximate altitude and KNOTS EAS was Mach 2 achieved?
Roughly, FL500 and 530 kts.
But not being a pilot I had to check an instant on my flight envelope crib sheet, which I have at hand all the time.....
It seemed pointless to be TOO precise, because that assumed ISA and creeping exactly up the right edge of the envelope.
4) Only one BA Concorde had three different registrations, what was it?
Without looking it up, no idea. My guess is G-BOAF, with a white-tail reg, a "British" reg, and a pseudo-American reg.
IIRC, G-BOAG never had a pseudo-American reg, but I'm not sure without looking it up.
Brain not completely addled, then.
5) What was the maximum permitted altitude in passenger service?
FL600, as certified.
6) How many wheels on the aircraft?
Twelve, if you count the two Spitfire wheels at the back
7) How many flying control modes were there?
Four. Blue, green, mechanical and ... what did we call it? Control jam, CWS?
Ah, thanks, Emergency Flight Control. I always considered it as a separate mode, even if it was virtually never used.
8) How many positions of nose droop were there?
Four. 0\xb0, 5\xb0, 12.5\xb0 and 17.5\xb0 (the latter only on the prototypes, and purely mechanically, after removing a stop, on the other aircraft).
9) What was the first microprocessor application on the aircraft?
No idea... you (M2dude) mentioned a Plessey data acquisition system?
It was after "my time"...
10) How many main electrical sources were there?
Again, not sure... You're presumably are talking about primary sources.
There was an AC constant-drive generator on each engine.
Then there were two DC batteries.
And IIRC there was an AC generator running off the RAT hydraulic generator when pillar came to post.
Reading M2dude's answer, I suppose the emergency generator just ran off the hydraulics, not specifically off the RAT. Far more logical.
Nice one, M2dude!
And certainly not all trivia!
CJ
21st Nov 2010, 15:37
permalink Post: 751
Mr Vortex
An ejection was recommended because it was possible, not that was necessarily impossible to land a Draken dead stick. F-16s have done a number of them, I witnessed one at KTPA. There was a video of the HUD view of one at NAS Glenview, IL.
To your question, it would depend on distance to go to the airport, glide ratio (high but probably not terribly worse than any conventional airliner) and most importantly the capability of the RAT providing hydraulic power.
M2dude , any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?
GF
An ejection was recommended because it was possible, not that was necessarily impossible to land a Draken dead stick. F-16s have done a number of them, I witnessed one at KTPA. There was a video of the HUD view of one at NAS Glenview, IL.
To your question, it would depend on distance to go to the airport, glide ratio (high but probably not terribly worse than any conventional airliner) and most importantly the capability of the RAT providing hydraulic power.
M2dude , any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?
GF
21st Nov 2010, 18:21
permalink Post: 753
QUOTE]I'm wonder if all 4 Olympus 593 all died in flight and unable to restart. Is it
possible to be able to land at the nearest airport[/QUOTE]
As CristiaanJ says , it depends on how far the nearest airfield was away, but given that there was one close enough then yes in theory it was possible.
On Concorde there were two checklist to cater for a four engine failure that assumes the engine have flamed out but not seized thus the system can be fed by windmilling engines. The two drills are
4 ENGINE FAILURE ABOVE MACH 1.2
4 ENGINE FAILURE BELOW MACH 1.2
When above M1.2 the windmilling speed of the engines should keep the engine generators on line and you should have good hyd pressure also.
Therefore the main point of the drill at this speed is to try and relight the engines, by selecting relight on all 4 engines at the same time. You normally got the chance to go through 2 and some times 3 relight sequences before the speed dropped to Mach 1.2
At mach 1.2 with no engines then the windmilling speed is reaching a point where it is not sufficent to hold the generators on line so the drill concentrates on switching as much of the systems onto essential electrics which will be supplied by the hydraulically driven emergency generator.
To help support the yellow and green hyd system below M1.2 the ram air turbine is lowered. Engine relights will continue to be attempted but as you are on essential electrics now they can only be attempted individually.
If no relights and below 10,000ft then the c/list tells you to prepare the aircraft for landing by lowering nose/visor and gear by emergency systems with speed reduced now to 270 kts. To conserve hyd pressure being mainly derived now from the RAT for the flying controls the emerg gen is switched off during the approach and approch speed is 250 kts with min landing speed
of 200kts
During this all this descent the aircraft had to be flown and navigated, radio calls made along with PA and cabin briefing and all the normall descent checklist complied with so you can imagine it was quite a busy time
This drill used to be practised on the sim ,but the crew would normally find the engines started to relight before 10,000ft so as to give the crew confidence that the drill worked.
However after many years of operation there was some talk about doing away eith the drill as no one could envisage it ever happening. then the BA 747 lost all 4 engines in the volcanic ash cloud and all such talk stopped
possible to be able to land at the nearest airport[/QUOTE]
As CristiaanJ says , it depends on how far the nearest airfield was away, but given that there was one close enough then yes in theory it was possible.
On Concorde there were two checklist to cater for a four engine failure that assumes the engine have flamed out but not seized thus the system can be fed by windmilling engines. The two drills are
4 ENGINE FAILURE ABOVE MACH 1.2
4 ENGINE FAILURE BELOW MACH 1.2
When above M1.2 the windmilling speed of the engines should keep the engine generators on line and you should have good hyd pressure also.
Therefore the main point of the drill at this speed is to try and relight the engines, by selecting relight on all 4 engines at the same time. You normally got the chance to go through 2 and some times 3 relight sequences before the speed dropped to Mach 1.2
At mach 1.2 with no engines then the windmilling speed is reaching a point where it is not sufficent to hold the generators on line so the drill concentrates on switching as much of the systems onto essential electrics which will be supplied by the hydraulically driven emergency generator.
To help support the yellow and green hyd system below M1.2 the ram air turbine is lowered. Engine relights will continue to be attempted but as you are on essential electrics now they can only be attempted individually.
If no relights and below 10,000ft then the c/list tells you to prepare the aircraft for landing by lowering nose/visor and gear by emergency systems with speed reduced now to 270 kts. To conserve hyd pressure being mainly derived now from the RAT for the flying controls the emerg gen is switched off during the approach and approch speed is 250 kts with min landing speed
of 200kts
During this all this descent the aircraft had to be flown and navigated, radio calls made along with PA and cabin briefing and all the normall descent checklist complied with so you can imagine it was quite a busy time
This drill used to be practised on the sim ,but the crew would normally find the engines started to relight before 10,000ft so as to give the crew confidence that the drill worked.
However after many years of operation there was some talk about doing away eith the drill as no one could envisage it ever happening. then the BA 747 lost all 4 engines in the volcanic ash cloud and all such talk stopped
21st Nov 2010, 21:37
permalink Post: 759
galaxy flyer
Well the RAT was 'advertised' to be able to maintain 4000 (ish) PSI on Green and Yellow systems down to around 200 KTS, so IN THEORY you'd be ok (ish), refering to Brit312's post. Incidently, one of the prime reasons that the engines were housed in twin nacelle pairs, rather than the original TU144 'monobloc' style was to eliminate the chance of a severe ripple surges flaming out all four engines. (But as the thing had half of the engine air passing over the massive stowed main undercarriage, they had other problems to worry about anyway).
I have to echo your point GF about carrying on asking questions, even if they may seem dumb at the time. It's all about how we all had to learn in the first place; Personally I'm happy to answer any questions at all here (the questions may not be stupid, but some of my answers...........
).
Regards to all
Dude
Quote:
| any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin? |
I have to echo your point GF about carrying on asking questions, even if they may seem dumb at the time. It's all about how we all had to learn in the first place; Personally I'm happy to answer any questions at all here (the questions may not be stupid, but some of my answers...........
).
Regards to all
Dude
12th Jan 2016, 17:47
permalink Post: 1928
Concorde Question
Does anybody have an idea of who the supplier and part number for the Concorde Hydraulic Engine Driven Pumps?
I found some great information for the Concorde systems on the heritage website for the RAT and other systems,
Heritage Concorde
I appreciate any help you can provide,
Thanks,
Jason.
I found some great information for the Concorde systems on the heritage website for the RAT and other systems,
Heritage Concorde
I appreciate any help you can provide,
Thanks,
Jason.