21st Aug 2010, 15:57
permalink Post: 47
First, I must apologise to Stilton for hi-jacking his thread. I had inadvertantly asked a question in the wrong thread and have only just realised it, so sorry Stilton. The good part of this is all this delicious Concorde info that were are privileged to be receiving from M2dude and ChristiaanJ is all in the one thread. Unless anyone has any objections maybe the Forum Moderator could merged the other 2 threads into this one.
Thank you for the CoG answer. 6 feet sounds like an awful lot but then I am only able to compare it to the littlies that I fly. The ability to use the trim tanks to only have to use a \xbd\xb0 of elevon must have made a substantial impact on performance and the resulting reduced fuel consumption. To think it was all computer controlled at the time when the PC didn't even exist.
M2, you have said that the fuel system was a work of elegance and the above desciption give me a small insight into this. I know that I am just going to have to find books written about this lady to find out more. I have been lazy when asking about item that I could Google but there was a method behind my laziness. When you and Christiaan share your knowledge there is always a personal anecdote or insight that will never be found in any books that I may be able to find. Gentlemen, for this THANKS seem so insufficient.
The TOC=TOD had me thinking and I believe insomnia may have assisted with some understanding (otherwise the stupid sign for me comes out again
). Gee I hope I have this even partly right. I assume that when accelerating to Mach 2, that it was done while climbing. I was initially stuck with the compression factor of Mach 1 and without thinking the same would happen at Mach 2 (A C Kermode was the hardest book I have read that I didn't understand
). Therefore with that in mind I was stuck trying to figure TOC=TOD. Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent
was
the flight and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing?
I had also forgotten to take into account the speed factor, DUH!! Subsonic climbs, what 35 - 45 mins to FL4xx and then it is in level cruise for the next 6 hours before TOD. The lady took what, about 3.5 hours, and the extra 20,000 feet it had to climb and descend ate up or into any level cruise it had (or didn't have). Am I on the right track or am I making an ass out of me and me.
I was in the jump seat of a B767 on a trans Tasman crossing, CAVOK, when about 2,000 feet lower a dot followed by a straight white cloud approached and passed by. I found that impressive so the 2 supersonics passing at the speed of an SR71 must have been spectacular. Shame radar track isn't available on You Tube. Oh yes, did they boom you?
As you have said, fuel flow was reduced the higher you got. I think it was 5T per powerplant at FL500 down to 4.1T at FL600. Was there any figures for higher the Levels? I am curious to see how much less fuel would have been used at the higher FLs considering it was reduced by 900Kg/hr for just 10K feet. Very interesting what you said about when the temps were ISA+. I would never have thought such a small temperature change could have effected such a signifigant performance result. It also sounds odd, as you said, the faster you go the less fuel you use.
Last greedy question for this post. How much of the descent was carried out while supersonic and how did this affect the fuel flow?
Thank you for the CoG answer. 6 feet sounds like an awful lot but then I am only able to compare it to the littlies that I fly. The ability to use the trim tanks to only have to use a \xbd\xb0 of elevon must have made a substantial impact on performance and the resulting reduced fuel consumption. To think it was all computer controlled at the time when the PC didn't even exist.
M2, you have said that the fuel system was a work of elegance and the above desciption give me a small insight into this. I know that I am just going to have to find books written about this lady to find out more. I have been lazy when asking about item that I could Google but there was a method behind my laziness. When you and Christiaan share your knowledge there is always a personal anecdote or insight that will never be found in any books that I may be able to find. Gentlemen, for this THANKS seem so insufficient.
The TOC=TOD had me thinking and I believe insomnia may have assisted with some understanding (otherwise the stupid sign for me comes out again
). Gee I hope I have this even partly right. I assume that when accelerating to Mach 2, that it was done while climbing. I was initially stuck with the compression factor of Mach 1 and without thinking the same would happen at Mach 2 (A C Kermode was the hardest book I have read that I didn't understand
). Therefore with that in mind I was stuck trying to figure TOC=TOD. Am I right or even slightly so in thinking that cruise climb and cruise descent
was
the flight and there was minimal actual level cruise in the "pond" crossing?
I had also forgotten to take into account the speed factor, DUH!! Subsonic climbs, what 35 - 45 mins to FL4xx and then it is in level cruise for the next 6 hours before TOD. The lady took what, about 3.5 hours, and the extra 20,000 feet it had to climb and descend ate up or into any level cruise it had (or didn't have). Am I on the right track or am I making an ass out of me and me.
I was in the jump seat of a B767 on a trans Tasman crossing, CAVOK, when about 2,000 feet lower a dot followed by a straight white cloud approached and passed by. I found that impressive so the 2 supersonics passing at the speed of an SR71 must have been spectacular. Shame radar track isn't available on You Tube. Oh yes, did they boom you?
As you have said, fuel flow was reduced the higher you got. I think it was 5T per powerplant at FL500 down to 4.1T at FL600. Was there any figures for higher the Levels? I am curious to see how much less fuel would have been used at the higher FLs considering it was reduced by 900Kg/hr for just 10K feet. Very interesting what you said about when the temps were ISA+. I would never have thought such a small temperature change could have effected such a signifigant performance result. It also sounds odd, as you said, the faster you go the less fuel you use.
Last greedy question for this post. How much of the descent was carried out while supersonic and how did this affect the fuel flow?
21st Aug 2010, 21:26
permalink Post: 54
M2dude,
Re your story about the Boston ATC comments about the "crossover".
"That reminds me...."
Ancient tale.
There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading "because of traffic at your altitude".
Traffic at THEIR altitude ??
Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their flight path.
Just imagine... two guys in bonedomes and full pressure suits, in a cramped cockpit, watching something like a hundred people in shirt sleeves or summer dresses, sipping their champagne and maybe just starting on their smoked salmon hors d'oeuvres, flying at their altitude and nearly their speed....
Re your story about the Boston ATC comments about the "crossover".
"That reminds me...."
Ancient tale.
There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading "because of traffic at your altitude".
Traffic at THEIR altitude ??
Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their flight path.
Just imagine... two guys in bonedomes and full pressure suits, in a cramped cockpit, watching something like a hundred people in shirt sleeves or summer dresses, sipping their champagne and maybe just starting on their smoked salmon hors d'oeuvres, flying at their altitude and nearly their speed....
9th Sep 2010, 06:03
permalink Post: 288
SR-71 tires had a hard life
Quote:
| The Concorde tyres were obviously under enormous stress. The only other Aircraft that I can think off whose Tyres have such a hard life (on landing only of course!) are those installed on the Space Shuttle. |
Last edited by archae86; 9th Sep 2010 at 13:41 . Reason: fix "the the" typo
8th Nov 2010, 07:09
permalink Post: 681
hi im not too familiar with PPRuNe yet and im not sure if this is the right forum but does anyone know why the SR71 didnt use a straight wing instead of an ogee wing like the concorde? if it could cruise above mach 3 then one would think the wing itself would be a more supersonic design rather than transonic. Straight wings reduce shock wave drag where as swept wings delay supersonic airflow which is useless in hypersonic cruise...
8th Nov 2010, 18:20
permalink Post: 682
I'm confused. The SR-71 had a delta wing.
8th Nov 2010, 18:42
permalink Post: 683
Vinni3
,
A "delta wing" is triangular.
Look at the F-102, or the French Mirages, or the Avro Vulcan, or the Valkyrie.
Those are delta wings.
The wing of the SR-71 is much closer to the "ogee" wing of Concorde.
Edit : sorry, you're not really wrong... the wing as such is pretty well triangular.
The major difference lies in the 'chines', the flat horizontal extensions of the forward fuselage, and outboard of the engine nacelles.
Their effect is the same as that of a "double delta", and similar to that of the "ogee" wing shape of Concorde.
coobg002 ,
I'll try to give you a reasoned answer... but later. Dinner's been called!
CJ
A "delta wing" is triangular.
Look at the F-102, or the French Mirages, or the Avro Vulcan, or the Valkyrie.
Those are delta wings.
The wing of the SR-71 is much closer to the "ogee" wing of Concorde.
Edit : sorry, you're not really wrong... the wing as such is pretty well triangular.
The major difference lies in the 'chines', the flat horizontal extensions of the forward fuselage, and outboard of the engine nacelles.
Their effect is the same as that of a "double delta", and similar to that of the "ogee" wing shape of Concorde.
coobg002 ,
I'll try to give you a reasoned answer... but later. Dinner's been called!
CJ
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 8th Nov 2010 at 21:21 .
8th Nov 2010, 21:15
permalink Post: 684
coobg002
,
I'm not an aircraft designer, just an avionics engineer with an aeronautical engineering background, so my answer can only be partial...
Pity you cannot ask the question directly to "Clarence" Johnson, because he used both solutions for two of his best-known Mach 2+ designs...
The F-104 had indeed a very small, very thin, straight wing.
The SR-71 had a wing shape not totally unlike Concorde; admittedly the wing shape itself was more a delta, but the 'chines' of the forward part of the fuselage played an important role.
I would say.... every design is a compromise.
You don't start with a good-looking shape, you start with a specification.
In the case of the F-104 it was for an interceptor, something simple and fast , with a (relatively) limited range.
So you chose a big engine, you stuck a cockpit at the front, and you added the smallest straight wings that would do the job.
Not exactly ideal at low speed... the F-104 had huge "blown" flaps and even so it was still pretty "hot" during approach and landing.
As to what to do after an engine failure.... the procedure for a dead-stick landing was in the manual, but generally the "she flies like an angel, but she glides like a brick" would prevail, and you'd punch out.
In the case of the SR-71, much like Concorde, it was the 'spec' that was totally different.
Long-range supersonic cruise (hence space for fuel in the wing was prized), but also acceptable low-speed handling.
Think of the repeated air-to-air refuelling for the Blackbird, or the subsonic sectors in a typical LHR-JFK flight for Concorde.
So for anything that can still take off and land at an acceptable speed and perform well subsonically when needed, yet cruise at Mach 2 or Mach 3, the ogee/delta wing has turned out to be the best compromise.
CJ
I'm not an aircraft designer, just an avionics engineer with an aeronautical engineering background, so my answer can only be partial...
Pity you cannot ask the question directly to "Clarence" Johnson, because he used both solutions for two of his best-known Mach 2+ designs...
The F-104 had indeed a very small, very thin, straight wing.
The SR-71 had a wing shape not totally unlike Concorde; admittedly the wing shape itself was more a delta, but the 'chines' of the forward part of the fuselage played an important role.
I would say.... every design is a compromise.
You don't start with a good-looking shape, you start with a specification.
In the case of the F-104 it was for an interceptor, something simple and fast , with a (relatively) limited range.
So you chose a big engine, you stuck a cockpit at the front, and you added the smallest straight wings that would do the job.
Not exactly ideal at low speed... the F-104 had huge "blown" flaps and even so it was still pretty "hot" during approach and landing.
As to what to do after an engine failure.... the procedure for a dead-stick landing was in the manual, but generally the "she flies like an angel, but she glides like a brick" would prevail, and you'd punch out.
In the case of the SR-71, much like Concorde, it was the 'spec' that was totally different.
Long-range supersonic cruise (hence space for fuel in the wing was prized), but also acceptable low-speed handling.
Think of the repeated air-to-air refuelling for the Blackbird, or the subsonic sectors in a typical LHR-JFK flight for Concorde.
So for anything that can still take off and land at an acceptable speed and perform well subsonically when needed, yet cruise at Mach 2 or Mach 3, the ogee/delta wing has turned out to be the best compromise.
CJ
9th Nov 2010, 06:04
permalink Post: 688
The SR-71 tech notes describe it as having a delta wing (Ogee applies to an S shaped wing) where the outboard portion has negative conical camber to move the centre of lift inboard to relieve loading on the nacelle carry through structure. Also improves the max lift characteristics of the outboard wing at high angles of attack and enhances crosswind landing capability.
The chines improve directional stability at increasing angles of attack at all speeds, but their primary purpose is to provide a substantial proportion of the total lift at high supersonic speeds and eliminate the need for canards or special nose up (drag producing) trimming devices.
The chines improve directional stability at increasing angles of attack at all speeds, but their primary purpose is to provide a substantial proportion of the total lift at high supersonic speeds and eliminate the need for canards or special nose up (drag producing) trimming devices.
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
10th Nov 2010, 23:49
permalink Post: 703
SSBJ?
M2Dude wrote:
You'd have to say that designing and building the
aeroplane
probably isn't the tough issue. I mean you could probably adapt a military design - a Tornado can lift more than six tons of stores can it not? So that's a ton of people, a ton of bling to keep them comfortable and four tons of fuel ...... oh.
The tough thing needed, the really clever thing that Concorde did and no other aeroplane, sorry, only one other aeroplane - our 'honorary Concorde' the SR71 - would be to design the engine /intake /nozzle configuration that would let our 'Tonkorde' supercruise at Mach two, while running on the smell of the stuff.
Roger.
Quote:
|
I'm with you on the business jet angle, it's such a quick and convenient way of getting from city centre to city centre. And as for the SSBJ, it did sound promising didn't it, that would have been the ultimate business travel tool. (Shall you and I design a 'mini-conc' ?
Regards to all Dude |
The tough thing needed, the really clever thing that Concorde did and no other aeroplane, sorry, only one other aeroplane - our 'honorary Concorde' the SR71 - would be to design the engine /intake /nozzle configuration that would let our 'Tonkorde' supercruise at Mach two, while running on the smell of the stuff.
Roger.
11th Nov 2010, 01:19
permalink Post: 704
As a Yank, the Concorde was Europe's, including the UK, of course, Apollo project. And nothing short of it, either. Concorde required industrial cooperation and collaboration on a huge scale, ground-breaking technology that is still paying back in the 21st century and required political daring unheard of today. Huge applause!
Think of the Sixties projects--Apollo, Concorde, 747, SR-71, motorways, the Beatles, miniskirts--none possible today, the politics alone would kill 'em.
GF
Think of the Sixties projects--Apollo, Concorde, 747, SR-71, motorways, the Beatles, miniskirts--none possible today, the politics alone would kill 'em.
GF
11th Nov 2010, 11:39
permalink Post: 708
Landroger
SSBJ is Supersonic Business Jet Rog', there have been a few designs but the most famous (and had the most potential) was the Sukhoi-Gulfsteam S21. This aircraft would carry about a dozen passenges at Mach 2.2, with a range of 4,500 miles. Gulfstram pulled out of the partnership; there werer serious doubts about the viability of the Russian engine as well as serious aerodynamic issues too.
I would not personally utter 'Concorde and Tornado' in the same breath Rog; you need to carry this 6 tonnes over more than several HUNDRED miles. There is absolutely no comparison between the performance of Concorde and the Tornado I'm afraid, you'd need to base any military adaption on a far better design than that.
Although design of the powerplant for any future SST is pivotal to the whole design, you still need an aerodynamic model with a significantly higher lift/drag ratio than Concorde to make the project viable. And as good as the SR-71 was (I'm one of her biggest fans) she was still using afterburning/reheat at Mach 3 cruise.
galaxy flyer
Great to see you back here GF. I DO hope that you are wrong about mini-skirts
You are so right about the massive industrial collaboration required; it seems that there was so much more of a 'daring spirit' in the 1960's, makes you wonder where all the balls have gone today. (Oh I know, there are so much more deserving
causes than aviation for us to spend BILLIONS of $'s and \xa3's on today).
Nick Thomas
No need to apologise for any thread drift Nick; this is such a diverse thread now; your points are perfectly valid here. And thanks for your kind comments again Nick; CJ the rest of the guys and myself are more than happy to bore the socks off of you and all the other posters and readers.
hoofie
So glad that you enjoyed your Concorde experience. The Jeddah flights were a fairly brief 'experiment',it would be great if one of my pilot/flight engineer friends here did a trip, we'll soon know. The double 'shove in the back' would indeed as you say have been the inboard/outboard reheat selection. Glad you are enjoying the thread, it is certainly bringing back memories for me about this seemingly eternal aereplane.
jodeliste
No problem Rod, I think most of us here agree about that one. A terrible waste and a giant leap BACKWARD in aviation.
Dude
SSBJ is Supersonic Business Jet Rog', there have been a few designs but the most famous (and had the most potential) was the Sukhoi-Gulfsteam S21. This aircraft would carry about a dozen passenges at Mach 2.2, with a range of 4,500 miles. Gulfstram pulled out of the partnership; there werer serious doubts about the viability of the Russian engine as well as serious aerodynamic issues too.
I would not personally utter 'Concorde and Tornado' in the same breath Rog; you need to carry this 6 tonnes over more than several HUNDRED miles. There is absolutely no comparison between the performance of Concorde and the Tornado I'm afraid, you'd need to base any military adaption on a far better design than that.
Although design of the powerplant for any future SST is pivotal to the whole design, you still need an aerodynamic model with a significantly higher lift/drag ratio than Concorde to make the project viable. And as good as the SR-71 was (I'm one of her biggest fans) she was still using afterburning/reheat at Mach 3 cruise.
galaxy flyer
Quote:
| Think of the Sixties projects--Apollo, Concorde, 747, SR-71, motorways, the Beatles, miniskirts--none possible today, the politics alone would kill 'em |
You are so right about the massive industrial collaboration required; it seems that there was so much more of a 'daring spirit' in the 1960's, makes you wonder where all the balls have gone today. (Oh I know, there are so much more deserving
causes than aviation for us to spend BILLIONS of $'s and \xa3's on today).
Nick Thomas
No need to apologise for any thread drift Nick; this is such a diverse thread now; your points are perfectly valid here. And thanks for your kind comments again Nick; CJ the rest of the guys and myself are more than happy to bore the socks off of you and all the other posters and readers.
hoofie
So glad that you enjoyed your Concorde experience. The Jeddah flights were a fairly brief 'experiment',it would be great if one of my pilot/flight engineer friends here did a trip, we'll soon know. The double 'shove in the back' would indeed as you say have been the inboard/outboard reheat selection. Glad you are enjoying the thread, it is certainly bringing back memories for me about this seemingly eternal aereplane.
jodeliste
Quote:
| Sorry again folks more misunderstanding when I said terrible waste I meant the cancellation and grounding not the work done |
Dude
13th Nov 2010, 12:42
permalink Post: 715
Tonkorde.
Sorry Dude, didn't realise that use of the 'T' word would upset you so!
Perhaps you were frightened by one when you were a baby?
I picked the T*****o randomly to illustrate the contrast between a military supersonic design and Concorde. She
really
wasn't a converted bomber and even by using up every ounce of a Tonka's lifting capacity, it would still run out of fuel before it reached the Fastnet Rocks, let alone anywhere useful.
I must have missed something about the SR71 while we were discussing 'Inlet Thrust' on the other thread. I thought there was at least some part of the performance envelope where the Blackbird 'supercruised?' If not, then Concorde's ability in this area is all the more astonishing.
While mentioning the SR71, a striking image of them - to me anyway - was of the streams of fuel, leaking from every seam of the fuselage immediately following in-flight refuelling. These apparently 'sealed up' when she expanded in supersonic flight. How did Concorde avoid this rather startling phenomenon?
Roger.
Perhaps you were frightened by one when you were a baby?
I picked the T*****o randomly to illustrate the contrast between a military supersonic design and Concorde. She
really
wasn't a converted bomber and even by using up every ounce of a Tonka's lifting capacity, it would still run out of fuel before it reached the Fastnet Rocks, let alone anywhere useful.
I must have missed something about the SR71 while we were discussing 'Inlet Thrust' on the other thread. I thought there was at least some part of the performance envelope where the Blackbird 'supercruised?' If not, then Concorde's ability in this area is all the more astonishing.
While mentioning the SR71, a striking image of them - to me anyway - was of the streams of fuel, leaking from every seam of the fuselage immediately following in-flight refuelling. These apparently 'sealed up' when she expanded in supersonic flight. How did Concorde avoid this rather startling phenomenon?
Roger.
14th Nov 2010, 08:50
permalink Post: 716
Landroger
Come on Rog, let's not be silly now. I was not 'upset', and you can use the 'T' word any time you feel that you need to lad. It's just that you used a very poor example to use when, I don't know what your point was anyway, comparing Concorde with any other aeroplane.
The J58 powerplant design for the SR-71 is superb, and considering the early 1960's era that it was developed, was nothing short of astounding.
For Mach 3 cruise air is bypassed around the engine core and fed staright into the afterburner duct, where it supplied the afterburner directly. Still a remarkable design though, even now.
Oh she didn't; she just leaked. (not on the same scale as the SR-71 though).. If you were nuts enough to walk under a fully fueled Concorde without an umbrella you often got quite wet and smelly. The leaks were 'drips' and not running streams, and maximum permissable leak rates were mandated and controlled, but if she became particularly 'drippy' it was straight back to the hangar for tank re-sealing for our Concorde. The fuel tanks were sealed using liquid viton rubber, the idea being that the viton when it solidified would filll in all the nooks and crannies of the tanks. Controlling leaks was one of the most time and labour consuming aspects of Concorde maintenance, to get in and seal some of the smaller tanks was challenging to say the least, and some pretty small chappies were required for some of the tank areas.
I still remember that when we were building Concorde, this idiot of a production manager at Filton (the same one that was responsible for the debacle of G-BOAD sitting on her tail) insisted that the fuel tanks were filled with fuel as soon as the tanks were completed, whether the sealant was dry or not. I still wonder how much of the in-service leak maladies could be directly attributed to him.
Dude
Come on Rog, let's not be silly now. I was not 'upset', and you can use the 'T' word any time you feel that you need to lad. It's just that you used a very poor example to use when, I don't know what your point was anyway, comparing Concorde with any other aeroplane.
The J58 powerplant design for the SR-71 is superb, and considering the early 1960's era that it was developed, was nothing short of astounding.
For Mach 3 cruise air is bypassed around the engine core and fed staright into the afterburner duct, where it supplied the afterburner directly. Still a remarkable design though, even now.
Quote:
| While mentioning the SR71, a striking image of them - to me anyway - was of the streams of fuel, leaking from every seam of the fuselage immediately following in-flight refuelling. These apparently 'sealed up' when she expanded in supersonic flight. How did Concorde avoid this rather startling phenomenon? |
I still remember that when we were building Concorde, this idiot of a production manager at Filton (the same one that was responsible for the debacle of G-BOAD sitting on her tail) insisted that the fuel tanks were filled with fuel as soon as the tanks were completed, whether the sealant was dry or not. I still wonder how much of the in-service leak maladies could be directly attributed to him.
Dude
14th Nov 2010, 23:00
permalink Post: 717
Fascinating stuff again Dude, I'd never realised that even that leak rate existed on Concorde but then maybe other airliners leak a bit too, I don't make a habit of walking around under them (more's the pity).
As for the SR-71, the construction was a bit like a lot of ribs with sliding clips that attached the skins to them, hence things could slide about to cope with the heating at Mach 3+. Kelly Johnson often referred to this as his "Mach 3 Ford Tri-motor".
The fuel used (JP-7) had a tendency to rot the wiring in the aircraft, so they were re-wired quite often during their lives. All Sleds sat in pools of fuel when hangared, unless they were totally empty.
Refuelling was usually carried out at about 33,000 feet, and as the tanks filled it became necessary to light minimum afterburner on one engine to maintain contact with the tanker. The nose was always yawed the same way because only one of the windshield panes was de-misted so this side was always used to maintain sight of the tanker's underside.
After tanking a descent was commenced to about 26,000 feet to help with acceleration to supersonic speed, as far as I am aware all supersonic flight was made with afterburner selected.
I remember reading some time ago that fuel consumption was in order of 8,000 US gal per hour. Not sure if that is an average or whether it covers only Mach 3 cruise.
As for the SR-71, the construction was a bit like a lot of ribs with sliding clips that attached the skins to them, hence things could slide about to cope with the heating at Mach 3+. Kelly Johnson often referred to this as his "Mach 3 Ford Tri-motor".
The fuel used (JP-7) had a tendency to rot the wiring in the aircraft, so they were re-wired quite often during their lives. All Sleds sat in pools of fuel when hangared, unless they were totally empty.
Refuelling was usually carried out at about 33,000 feet, and as the tanks filled it became necessary to light minimum afterburner on one engine to maintain contact with the tanker. The nose was always yawed the same way because only one of the windshield panes was de-misted so this side was always used to maintain sight of the tanker's underside.
After tanking a descent was commenced to about 26,000 feet to help with acceleration to supersonic speed, as far as I am aware all supersonic flight was made with afterburner selected.
I remember reading some time ago that fuel consumption was in order of 8,000 US gal per hour. Not sure if that is an average or whether it covers only Mach 3 cruise.
18th Nov 2010, 20:36
permalink Post: 732
Always love to hear stories like this....I am sure there are many more ! Cheers Christiaan ( and m2dude ) for such great information on our beloved icon....
Reg:
Ancient tale.
There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading "because of traffic at your altitude".
Traffic at THEIR altitude ??
Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their flight path.
Reg:
Ancient tale.
There's this SR-71 Blackbird stooging around Cuba on a top-secret mission, at FL500+ and Mach 2+.... when they get a call requesting them to change heading "because of traffic at your altitude".
Traffic at THEIR altitude ??
Anyway, they comply, and shortly, yes, there's an Air France Concorde out of Caracas (Air France flew there in the early days) slowly sailing across their flight path.
21st Nov 2010, 18:48
permalink Post: 755
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by
galaxy flyer
As I gather,
Mr Vortex
is a relative novice (from the profile, I'm making an assumption), an additional point.
|
I'm always amazed about how many people, who've never flown on Concorde, sometimes never even have seen her fly, still try to find as much about her as they can, even on technical issues they'd never bother with about for any aircraft (apart from maybe the SR-71).
It's worth passing on the heritage, I think.
CJ
29th Nov 2010, 09:01
permalink Post: 808
Dude, only 5 seconds ?? I'd demand a re-edit mate...outrageous !
Out of interest...here is a pic of AG in Seattle ( taken a while back ) and the source of a big part of this thread - unfortunately could not get any higher in order to get a better view...on either end ! ( I need to check on her again and see how she is doing ) and the SR71 also ( from the Pima Air / Space museum in Arizona) - I am sure all have seen the Concorde intakes but the SR71 rear end is interesting....
ps Please forgive the pic of the Sikorsky ( at Pima also ) ...couldnt resist
Cheers...
Out of interest...here is a pic of AG in Seattle ( taken a while back ) and the source of a big part of this thread - unfortunately could not get any higher in order to get a better view...on either end ! ( I need to check on her again and see how she is doing ) and the SR71 also ( from the Pima Air / Space museum in Arizona) - I am sure all have seen the Concorde intakes but the SR71 rear end is interesting....
ps Please forgive the pic of the Sikorsky ( at Pima also ) ...couldnt resist
Cheers...
29th Nov 2010, 13:35
permalink Post: 810
speedbirdconcorde
5 seconds I know, but it does at least compensate for my other screen hoggings.
Some really nice shots of G-BOAG and the SR71. (I particularly love the 'business end' shot of the J-58, showing the 4 afterburner rings).
I last visited OAG in Seattle about 5 years ago and the exterior had really suffered from the elements, being parked right next to a highway near one of the most beautiful but wettest cities in the USA. (Boeing told me that they were planning a re-paint, don't know if it ever happened though). The interior however was absolutely immaculate, thanks to the pre-conditioned air being pumped through the entire fuselage. (Now THAT'S the way to do it
).
And as for the last photo.....
(I laughed so much I almost fell of the chair).
1965 BEA
Nice clip, pity it's an ambedded Flash movie. It is at a good resolution however, if you zoom in the web page it's really quite good quality.
Regards
Dude
5 seconds I know, but it does at least compensate for my other screen hoggings.
Some really nice shots of G-BOAG and the SR71. (I particularly love the 'business end' shot of the J-58, showing the 4 afterburner rings).
I last visited OAG in Seattle about 5 years ago and the exterior had really suffered from the elements, being parked right next to a highway near one of the most beautiful but wettest cities in the USA. (Boeing told me that they were planning a re-paint, don't know if it ever happened though). The interior however was absolutely immaculate, thanks to the pre-conditioned air being pumped through the entire fuselage. (Now THAT'S the way to do it
).
And as for the last photo.....
(I laughed so much I almost fell of the chair).
1965 BEA
Nice clip, pity it's an ambedded Flash movie. It is at a good resolution however, if you zoom in the web page it's really quite good quality.
Regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 29th Nov 2010 at 13:47 .
5th Dec 2010, 10:31
permalink Post: 836
This thread just gets better.
A couple of observations and a questionette, if I may? First, I'm feeling quite pleased with myself that I have largely understood the latest phases of discussion, re: Reheat Ignition and N1 resonance! To be fair I was a bit puzzled about 'Hot Streak' until Dude explained in a slightly different way. Then my first thought was; 'Cor crikey, isn't there enough heat on the turbine blades already?' It seems not, but it does raise the issue of TBE (TEB?) injection,
a la
SR71? I know the Blackbird used rather different fuel (JP8?), but is there not a similar chemical that would have done the same thing? Perhaps it was a reluctance to use 'exotic' chemicals in a civilian aeroplane?
The resonance issue is quite interesting, in that it appears to have affected all models of Olympus and was at roughly the same rpm on all. I take it that any attempt to damp specific frequency resonance would have adversely affected the performance?
Which brings me to my questionette - given that Bristol-Siddley created the original design when jet travel was still quite novel, what was it about the Olympus that made it so capable in so many guises and for so long? Not only Concorde of course, but TSR2, warships and fixed electrical generators.
Roger.
The resonance issue is quite interesting, in that it appears to have affected all models of Olympus and was at roughly the same rpm on all. I take it that any attempt to damp specific frequency resonance would have adversely affected the performance?
Which brings me to my questionette - given that Bristol-Siddley created the original design when jet travel was still quite novel, what was it about the Olympus that made it so capable in so many guises and for so long? Not only Concorde of course, but TSR2, warships and fixed electrical generators.
Roger.