Posts about: "Barbados" [Posts: 16 Page: 1 of 1]¶

Biggles78


...The altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane. This is true of all aeroplanes...

Sadly, it isn’t, as subsonic aircraft are allocated a specific cruising flight level and often - for example on the North Atlantic Track system - a specific cruising Mach number as well, and no deviation from that clearance is permitted without specific permission from ATC. Obviously everyone flight plans at the most economic heights and speeds for their aircraft type, but in busy airspace not everyone gets what they want!

Think of your flight plan as being Angelina Jolie, and your ATC clearance as being your wife. Your flight plan is what you’d really like to have, but your ATC clearance is what you’re going to have to live with!


... altitude flown was due to temperature and weight of the areoplane...this was more true of Concorde?...

Subsonic aircraft could equally benefit from using cruise-climb techniques (early long range aircraft crews knew all about cruise-climb techniques and used them when able) but with the large number of subsonic aircraft now using the world’s airways it is impractical for ATC to allow them to drift up and down at will, and so they are assigned specific cruising altitudes.

Few other aircraft got up to Concorde’s cruising levels, and so ATC were able to issue much more flexible clearances to her.

A typical Concorde ATC clearance would have allowed her to accelerate to M2.00 whilst operating within a "block" of altitude, rather than at a specific flight level. Typically this block clearance would have been to operate anywhere between FL450 up to FL600 without restriction.

So, unlike subsonic aircraft assigned a fixed cruising altitude such as FL350, Concorde could, and did, drift up or down, and was thus able to remain at the optimum altitude for the prevailing conditions throughout most of the flight.


... I remember reading the BA Concorde flew with 2 Captain Pilots (and of course the most important Flight Engineer)...

Concorde operated, as did all 3 crew aircraft in BA, with a standard crew of a Captain, F/O and F/E.

A small number of trips had two Captains on board (or two F/Es for that matter) when training or checking was going on, or an extra crew member was carried for PR purposes, but otherwise, the vast majority of occasions, just the standard crew was on board. Everyone preferred it that way, especially the F/O and F/E!


... The subsonics have issues with Coffin Corner (I think I read that one Airbus model had somehting like 7kts between the high and low end of the envelope when up high); did Concorde have this "problem"?...

Have a look at this picture of G-BOAE, cruising at her maximum certificated altitude of FL600, en-route to Barbados on 16 August 2003:





The available IAS speed range is shown on the ASI, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating 440kts, and the white bug set to 300kts, the VLA ( L owest A uthorised speed) at this altitude.

The available Mach speed range is shown on the Mach meter, and lies between the yellow and black Barbers Pole, currently indicating M2.05, and the yellow bug which indicates the lowest Mach number allowed for the current aircraft CG position (the AFT limit) currently showing M1.35.

So, given that at her maximum altitude she had a speed range of 140kts IAS and a Mach range of M0.7, we can see that coffin corner was not a problem!


main_dog


...I too would like to ask what her idle thrust glide ratio was...

By my calculations, the figures quoted for a straight in approach, give an average glide ratio of around 20:1, however these were for a standard decel/descent, and on Concorde the early part of the decel/descent was not flown at idle power.

A considerable amount of power was left on initially, around 94% N2, for various reasons, and only below M1.0 were the throttles usually selected to idle.

I hadn’t noticed it until now but there does not appear to have been a chart giving glide distance at idle thrust!

However, since the speeds to be flown during the “4 Eng Flame Out” procedure were not too far from the normal decel/descent speeds, I’ll hazard a guess (and that is all it is) that the glide distance from FL600, with no thrust, would have been about 150nm, giving a glide ratio of around 15:1.

I've been wondering about that too.... just looking for an easy way to do a "copy and save" of an entire thread.
Any ideas?
It would need some editing afterwards, to bring the various sub-subjects together.

Quite true... it was a pleasant surprise during the major overhauls. People like M2dude can no doubt tell you far more about that.

It would probably have been a major factor in extending the service life, if other things hadn't put an end to that in 2003.

Even if the moisture did not literally "boil off", most of it evaporated, with structural temperatures up to 100\xb0C in many places, as against the -40\xb0C and less in some subsonic aircraft.

The forward or the back one?
Neither look very fascinating.
For the back one just imagine a short stretch of cabin without any seats or fittings or windows. On Delta-Golf at Brooklands and Alpha-Echo at Barbados, they're now used as a sort of small "entry hall" for the visitors.

CJ

Humble SLF here, hope it is ok to have a stab at the questions, mods please feel free to delete if necessary.

1) How many Concorde airframes were built?

22, 20 that flew and 2 test frames

2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.

New York, Washington, Miami, Barbados, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore, no British registered aircraft ever operated to or form Dallas, should not forget BAs most popular destination of all time-London


3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).

0930-Local

4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).

193 & 195 respectiveley

5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavange pump ).

Pass


6) What was the only development airframe to have a TOTALLY unique shape?

101, G-AXDN


7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?

pass


8) How many wheel brakes?

8


9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?

1.3


10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?

Not sure here, best guess -green was part of the take-off moniter -red failure-blue reverse

11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?

Prestwick, shannon, and one in France


12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).

28L , 28R, 27L, 27R, 9L, 9R 10L 10R, 23

13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?

Fed-ex


14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?

214? G-BFKW

1) How many Concorde airframes were built?

22 total. 2 test, 9 BA, 9 AF, 2 spares (1 BA, 1 AF).

2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.

JFK, Dulles Intl., Barbados, Miami, Bahrain, Singapore.

3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).

No idea.

4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?).

No idea.


13 tanks, 2 main pumps each (except tank 11 which had 4 pumps) = 28
Main and aux engine feed pumps (3 per collector, 4 collectors for a total of 12)
Fuel pumps from aux tanks to mains = 4
Fuel dump = 2


BAC 221. Flying test bed for the wing design.






Filton.


27 L/R, 09 R.

OK, I see others have already posted answers.
I've carefully avoided looking at them, but I'll might as well plug in mine now.

My personal problem is that I was involved in the very earliest days, before the aircraft went into service, and then in the last days and afterwards...
So the questions dealing with the in-service period are totally outside my field of experience... all I can do is guess, in case I saw the answers somewhere.

1) How many Concorde airframes were built?
Twenty-two.
Two static-test airframes.
- One at Toulouse, for purely static tests, and tests such as vibration and flutter.
- One at Farnborough, for the long-duration thermal fatigue tests.
(A few bits and pieces of the Farnborough test specimen have survived, and can still be seen at the Brooklands museum).
Two prototypes (001 and 002)
Two pre-production aircraft (01 and 02)
Two production aircraft used for certification, that never entered service (201 - F-WTSB and 202 - G-BBDG)
Fourteen production aircraft, seven that served with British Airways, seven that served with Air France.

2) As far as the British constructed aircraft went, name the destinations that were served?. Regular flight numbers only, excludes charters etc.
Not a clue as to the full list.
- Bahrain, obviously.
- JFK.
- IAD (not sure if that's rated as regular, or only incidental)
- Dallas (with Braniff)
- Barbados (of course, right until the end)
- Sngapore (with Singapore Airlines, and G-BOAD in Singapore Airlines colours on one side)
- Sydney (again no idea if that rated as a regular flight or only a few tries)

3) What was the departure time for the ORIGINAL morning LHR-JFK Concorde services? (Not called the BA001 then either).
Not a clue either. Vague memory of about 10:00 am which gave you a full working day in New York.

4) Further to question 3 above, what WERE the original flight numbers for the BA001 and BA003? (The morning and evening LHR-JFK services?)..
Never flew on them, never had to deal with them.
BA174 comes to mind from the depths of my memory, in that case BA003 would have been BA176?

5) There were no less than FORTY SIX fuel pumps on Concorde. What was the breakdown for these? (Clue; don't forget the scavenge pump )
M2dude, I did AFCS, not the fuel system. I believe you, but without pulling out some diagrams I honestly have NO idea.
I expect each tank had at least two pumps, which gets me up to 26.
Then there were a few emergency pumps for the trim tanks, and I suppose each engine had additional pumps associated with it.
Still nowhere near the 46 I need to find.....

6) What airframe had the only TOTALLY unique shape?
That would have been my old friend, 01 (G-AXDN), first pre-production aircraft, now at Duxford.
It was the first Concorde with the new transparent visor, but it still had the short tail that characterised the prototypes.
It was 02 (F-WTSA), the first French pre-production aircraft, that was close to the final shape of the production aircraft.

7) This one is particularly aimed at ChristiaanJ. What was the total number of gyros on the aircraft?
Good question.... never counted them all. But I'll try a guess.
First a nice one, the SFENA Emergency Standby Artificial Horizon (made by the firm I worked for).
Ran off the Emergency Battery Bus via a small independent inverter.
And if that failed too, it would still run reliably for several minutes on its own inertia.
Next, the rate gyros used by the autostabilisation system ; these measured the angular rate of the aircraft along the three main axes, pitch, roll and yaw.
There were six, three each for the two autostab systems.
Now the rest....
Each IMU (inertial measurement unit, part of the inertial naviagation system) had three gyros.
With three INS on board, that would make nine.
Much as I try, I can't remember other ones, so I'll look forward to the final answer.
I can imagine the weather radar using an additional gyro for stabilisation, but I never went there.

8) How many wheel brakes?
Unless this is a trick question, I would say eight, for each of the main gear wheels.
The nose gear did not have any brakes - unless there were some small ones to stop the wheels rotating after retraction of the gear, but not used during landing.

9) What Mach number was automatic engine variable intake control enabled?
No idea.
Mach 1.0 or thereabouts is my personal guess only.

10) Above each bank of engine instruments were three lights, a blue, a green and an amber. What did they each signify?
I know that they each monitored the status of one of the engines, because it was too complex for the pilots to fully monitor all the parameters of all four engines in the short time between start-of-roll and V1... they had too many other things to do.
But I don't remember what each light meant, would have to look it up in the manual.

11) At what airfied were the first BA crew base training details held?
No idea.
Was it Brize Norton, or Casablanca?

12) What LHR runways did Concorde use for landing and take-off? (Trick question, not as obvious as it might seem).
No idea.
Vague memory of it being systematically the North runway for noise issues.

13) What operator had serious plans to operate Concorde from SNN to JFK in the early 1980's?
No idea.

14) What development aircraft did not exceed Mach 2 until fifteen months after her maiden flight?
I would expect the obvious answer to be 002.
Working up from first flight to Mach 2 was a slow and laborious process, and in the end it was 001 that both flew first, and also went to Mach 2 first.
I don't think any of the other aircraft took that long.

A I said, I tried to answer all questions "off the top of my head", without looking at any other sources.

CJ

OK guys, here are the answers. If you disagree about any of them then fire away, the old memory certainly 'aint perfect.
As many of you have guessed, there were 22: The 14 production airframes, the 2 production series development aircraft (201 & 202), the 2 pre-production airframes (101 & 102) and the 2 prototypes 001 & 002. PLUS, the major fatigue test specimen at the RAE Farnborough and the static test specimen at CEAT in Toulouse. The CEAT tests actually tested the wing to destruction; I seem to remember it was something like a 200% overload before the wing failed at the root. And great but rather sad pictures VOLUME , never seen these before.
OK, from MY memory , we have: London LHR (duhhh!!), Bahrein BAH, Singapore SIN, New York JFK, Washington IAD, Dallas DFW, Miami MIA, Toronto YYZ, Barbados BGI, and Riyadh RUH. As well as charters being ommited, so are some of the special 'surprise' shuttle appearances that Concorde would make, substituting a subsonic to and from destinations such as Manchester and Edinburgh.
11:15
The BA193 and BA 195.
OK, there were 12 engine feed pumps (3 per engine) 8 main transfer tank pumps (2 each for the transfer tanks 5, 6, 7 & 8), 4 'A' tank pumps (2 each for 5A & 7A), 8 trim-transfer tank pumps (2 electric pumps each for tanks 9, 10 & 11 PLUS 2 hydraulically driven pumps for tank 9), 4 electric engine start pumps (there was a single electric start pump per engine that delivered fuel to it's own dedicated start atomiser in the combustion chamber. The pump automatically ran when the engine HP valve was set to OPEN and would continue running for 30 seconds after the DEBOW switch was returned to the 'normal' position), 4 engine first stage pumps (a single mechanically driven pump per engine), 4 second stage pumps (a single pneumatically driven pump, sometimes termed 'the turbopump, per engine. This would cut out at around 20,000'), our scavenge tank pump (triggered automatically when there was 7 US gallons in the tank; pumping it back into tank 2. This pump was identical to an 'A' tank transfer pump), and FINALLY, a single de-air pump for tank 10. The pump would drive the fuel through a mesh, removing air bubbles from the fuel. Tank 11 used the L/H trim pump for de-air (similar principle)and would be switched on during take-off. This is why the tank 5 trim inlet valve being set to over-ride OPEN would result in the tank being highly pressurised in the case of the Gonesse disaster; the pump would obviously pressurise the L/H trim gallery and any tank on that side with an open inlet valve!!!
G-AXDN, aircraft 101. (A production wing, fuselage, droop nose and intakes, but with the short tail section and secondary nozzles of the prototypes.
Ready ChristiaanJ? There were 18....Yes, the single SFENA standby horizon, 9 INS gyros (one per X,Y and Z platform in each of the 3 INUs), 8 autostab' rate gyros (one per axis for each of the 2 autostab' computers PLUS a monitor gyro for the pitch axis). The radar by the way used attitude signals from the INS.
9. One per main wheel plus the single 'in flight braking' nose wheel brake.
Mach 0.7!!! Between this and Mach 1.26 the intake surfaces were positioned as a function of engine N1 if the engine was shut down for any reason. (Otherwise of course the intake surfaces were fully up). You needed a sub idle N1 of 57% and below for all this to happen, and it was to assist relight performance and reduce buffet. Between Mach 1.26 and 1.32 the ramps were driven down slightly to about 5%, full supersonic scheduling itself commencing at Mach 1.32.
Already brilliantly answered by Brit312 (as well as the FSLabs diagram). Yep, Geen GO, T/O monitor armed, fuel flow and P7 at or above datum, A/C on ground, reverse not selected and CON light not on. Amber CON (Reheat selected and not detected, N1 OK or reverse selected and primary nozzle (Aj) not at minimum. Blue REV; steady buckets at reverse, flashing buckets in transit.
Fairford, followed by Brize Norton, and then a host of airfields from Prestwick and Shannon to Chateauroux.
OK, probably no surprises now:
Landing - 27L & R, 9L & R (prior to LHR mag' deviation update were 28L & R & 10L & R) together with 23/05.
Take off - 27L (28L), 9R (10R) and 9L. (10L never happened as take offs on this runway only occurred in 2003).
It was FedEx, they planned to operate two stripped out aircraft, leased from BA, between Shannon and JFK as high value parcel carriers. The idea was that parcels would be flown in from all over Europe by small FedEx feeder aircraft and the parcels transferred to Concorde which would then speed on to JFK in around 2 1/2 hours. It never happened because of a combination of economics appraisal by FedEx and BA deciding that it could would not release the aircraft anyway.
A/C 101, G-AXDN first flew on 17th December 1971 with FIXED INTAKES!! (101 was going to be the launch vehicle for the new digital intake control system, but the 'boxes' were still being designed). This placed an operating limit of Mach 1.5 on the aircraft, limiting her ability with such a restricted flight envelope. She returned to Filton in late 1972 for installation of the system, as well as the new Olympus 593-602 engine. (The engine, very similar to the production Mk 610 version, used a quite revolutionary annular combustion chamber, and eliminated at a stroke the thick smoke exhaust that had up to then been Concorde's unwanted visual signiture). The aircraft flew more or less smokeless on 15 March 1973, achieving Mach 2 soon afterwards. As ChristiaanJ pointed out, the British prototype 002 had a similar gap, actually significantly higher, of 19 months. (The French aircraft 001 had an even longer gap of some 20 months).

I hope you guys had fun with this one, regards to all

Dude

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 .

jodelistie
First of all Rod, welcome to our Concorde thread, and thank you very much for your kind words.
Now as far as the rumour goes, I'm afraid that it is nonsense, however the truth is an even more complex story of collusion, betrayal and intrigue. You may read that 'Concorde was retired by BA and Air France purely due to economic reasons', however that is not quite the case (and as far as THIS side of the English Puddle goes, is total poppycock!!). Now BA lost a huge amount of her regular traffic as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and also as a result of the 2003 Iraq war, but things were improving nicely. In her 27 years of operation, Concorde had survived countless dips in her traffic, only to return stronger as market conditions improved.
It is early 2003, and French Concorde traffic to the USA has almost vanished, down to single digit loads. This is due mainly to total French opposition the impending US/UK invasion of Iraq, and US businessmen using BA Concorde almost exclusively. (French business seems to be boycotting the US altogether, so their contribution to passenger loads virtually ceased). Due to the apalling loads, AF are losing absolutely MILLIONS of Euros, at a time when the carrier is trying to privatise itself ... but there is more:
In the same February, AF very nearly lost ANOTHER Concorde, yet again largely down to total incompetence and lack of adherence to established procedures. Aircraft F-BTSD was flying between CDG and JFK when there was a failure of the reheat delivery pipe that runs from the engine 1st stage fuel pump to the reheat shut-off valve. This failure, although not particularly serious, led to a chain of events that very nearly resulted in the loss of the aircraft, and all those onboard. (Air France engines were overhauled seperately to BA, who never experienced this particular failure). What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too late. The aircraft just managed to land in Halifax, with barely enough fuel left in the tanks to taxi!! So, herer we are, AF are horrified that they have come very close to yet another disaster, knowing full well that yet again human error was a major factor.
But there is more....
One week later another AF aircraft loses part of a rudder panel due to de-lamination of the honeycomb surface, not particularly serious in itself, but it put even more jitters up the trousers of AF. (Rudder failures had happened to BA aircraft many years previous to this, but BA had purchased brand new and improved rudders from Airbus UK in Filton, but Air France chose not too).
So it seems that the chairmen of both Air France and Airbus (who regards Concorde as a waste of its valuable resources) have a 'secret' meeting to plan what was effectively the murder of Concorde. There is no way that AF want BA to carry on flying Concorde while they have to cease operations, so the plan is for Airbus to make a huge hike in their product support costs; these costs would have to be borne by BA exclusively, which they both knew would not be possible. If these support costs were not met, there would be no manufacturers support, and without this there would be no type certificate, and without this, no more Concorde.
Their (AF & Airbus) hope was that BA would not challenge this move legally, and sadly for the world of aviation they did not. At a meeting, BA AND AIR FRANCE!!!! were told by Airbus about the hike in product support costs, and BA would also have to cease operations. BA were not even allowed to continue until March 2004 (the Barbados season was nearly fully booked already), and so would have to cease operations in October 2003.
But the British were far from blameless in all this; a now retired very senior British airline person had always obsessively HATED Concorde, so the French conspiracy was a very early Christmas present for him; he finally got what he had always wanted. The 'end of Concorde' anouncement by both airlines was made in April 2003; AF had got what their executives wanted and finished flying in May, reluctantly leaving BA to fly until late October. If you want a full (and extremely well informed) explanation of what happened in that whole debacle, the article by Don Pevsner is worth reading. It can be found at this website:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the truly disgusting events in France in early 2003, Concorde would still be proudly flying for BA. (And with modifications and enhancements would fly safely for many more years).
quote** "in the hands of true professionals, Concorde was the safest aircraft that ever flew. and in the hands of BA crews at least, she was always just that..*

Oh and yes you were correct, the Olympus (the world's first ever 2 spool engine) was originally a 'Bristol-Siddeley' design, before BS were absorbed into Rolls-Royce. Stanley Hookers book is in my view totally superb, a true classic.

Dude

Hello again chaps and chapesses,

Having consumed enough rum punch to ensure that the guys at the Mount Gay distillery in Barbados stay in business for a long while yet, I was very pleased to return from holiday to see the thread still going and of course, still very interesting.

The photos from pax-man, (thank you!), brought back my own memories of AC, for that was the Concorde on which I did a round-the-world trip in 1988 with the lovely Captain Jeremy Rendell at the controls.

They also reminded me - since she is at Manchester - of taking her up to Ringway a few times when BA would surprise shuttle pax by putting a Concorde on the route as a last minute a/c change.... sheer delight and 100 Concorde grins every time! I sat on the f/d a couple of times going in to Manchester as I am a northern lass and began my flying career there, so the place holds a lot of fond memories for me. On the approach, you could see cars parked everywhere, all the roads and motorways jammed with spectators. It seemed like the whole of the north of England were there to welcome her in.

I realise that I did promise - a while ago now - a bit more information with regard to the RTW trips, so I am off to dig out some old diaries in the hope that I can relate some yarns for you all.

Whilst in BGI I was offered the opportunity to see Connie in the special hangar which they have for her over there, but I simply didn't have time this trip. Maybe I am putting it off... I know that it will be a very emotional experience to touch the galley tops again.... I am back in Barbados again next March, so I will go then..... although I know I will be crying when I have to say goodbye to her.

Happy to be back on line (I don't go in for all this keeping up with forums/facebook/e-mails whilst on holiday!) and happy to answer any cabin-related questions you may have.

Warm regards,
LL x

Landlady ,
I know this will sadden you... but better forewarned than discovering it on the day, no?

When they set up the Barbados 'Concorde Experience' on G-BOAE, they decided it would work far better if people could move one way, from the back to the front, rather than continuously getting in each others way.
Now, the two little service doors in the rear galley are not really suited as entrances for the public.
You should know!
Hence the decision was made to remove the rear galley (which they undoubtely kept in storage somewhere, if not actually on display) and to have people enter through the rear baggage hold door, through the baggage hold, and from there into the rear cabin.
(Much the same was done on Delta Golf, the Concorde now at the Brooklands, Weybridge museum.)

So, the only galley tops will be those in the forward galley. Snif....

CJ

Perhaps more an operational than a technical question, but it's nice to see one of the sky-gods back on this thread!

I confess to occasionally firing up Microsoft Flight Simulator and SSTSIM, and am particularly impressed by the Barbados route - especially as half-way between the Azores and Barbados, you are literally a thousand miles from anywhere with limited diversion options and marginal fuel in case of engine failure and subsonic cruise. While I'm sure you had all the angles covered, was it really a nail-biting moment and what sort of contingency plans were in place?

fizz57


As well as carrying sufficient fuel to arrive at BGI with standard fuel reserves remaining, there was also a requirement that sufficient fuel be carried to ensure that, following an engine shut-down at any stage in the flight, Concorde could divert, on three engines, to a suitable diversion airfield, and still arrive there with standard fuel reserves remaining.

It was this requirement - the three-engined diversion requirement - that often required more fuel to be loaded - above the basic LHR-BGI flight plan fuel figure - often bringing the total fuel required up to or over the full tanks figure and so became the limiting factor on this route.

Perhaps the main difference between Concorde and most subsonic aircraft, following an engine shutdown in cruise, was that Concorde would suffer a much greater loss in range. From four-engined supersonic flight to optimum three-engined subsonic cruise the loss in range would have been in the order of 30-35%.

This was mainly because Concorde, following an engine shut-down in cruise, would have to decelerate and descend, and thus leave a very efficient flight regime, at M2.0 and 55,000-60,000ft, with relatively low drag, low winds and very cold outside air temperatures, for a much less efficient regime, at M0.95, at around 30,000ft, in a higher drag subsonic cruise with warmer outside air temperatures and much stronger, probably adverse, winds.

The forecast weather at the principal en-route diversion airfields of Santa Maria, Lajes, Bermuda and Antigua, along with the calculated wind components at subsonic cruise levels to these airfields, were all taken into account at the flight planning stage, with the forecast subsonic cruise wind component to Antigua generally being the most critical factor.

If the weather conditions at and en-route to these diversion airfields were favourable, flight planning was straightforward. If the weather conditions were unfavourable, flight planning got more difficult, but the necessary fuel was always carried, passenger numbers limited or a re-fuelling stop planned.


No, not really.

LHR-BGI was certainly the most demanding route on Concorde, and required careful planning, good tactical awareness and diligent in-flight monitoring, however the flight planning procedures and tactical decision making processes were standard and would have been very familiar to any ETOPS rated pilot.

With one exception.

Concorde would still have got you to a diversion airfield following a second engine failure!

Best Regards

Bellerophon

Just for theories sake, if there were no noise, speed or boom considerations what would be the optimum profile for Concorde to fly after departure ?



In normal service I understand it had to comply with normal noise abatement departures, speed limits and remain subsonic until far enough from land to prevent the boom being a consideration.


But what if it could accelerate immediately, with no restrictions of any kind ?


I imagine you would stay in afterburner, accelerate to VMO and on to M2 in the climb ? or would airframe heating at lower altitudes prevent this ?



Lastly, was this ever done in testing, or for example leaving Barbados ?

10 minutes to Mach 1?? What rate of climb was obtained once everything was stabilised and climb speed was reached (obviously without any step restrictions)?? In my world (and everyone's now, unfortunately) a full contingent of passengers would be lifted to maybe +/- 20,000 feet in that time, not supersonic territory at that altitude without government instructions and an enemy!!

I take it Barbados was similar? 3 2 1 Now, and the next touch of the throttles was at top of descent at the other end??

Been stated before, but John Hutchinson's interview on the OmegaTau podcast, and the video of Dave Rowland and Roger Bricknell going to JFK and back are essential for any self respecting enthusiast... I don't suppose they are the real names of some of the experts contributing to this thread are they?

@ BN2A

I'm sure the real experts will "adjust" my understanding - but I believe Concorde, loaded for the transatlantic "Sierra" routes, could hit about 5000 fpm peak VS when climbing at 400 KIAS between ~10,000 and ~28,000 feet (wherever 400 KIAS = M 0.99). Leaving a coastal airport (New York, Barbados, Dakar), she would quickly be clear of land and could more or less transition directly through Mach 1 as soon as she reached 28-30,000 feet.

Those 4 Olympus engines could maintain Mach 2 with no afterburner at 50,000+ feet, so they had tons of excess power down low. Again my understanding is that they stayed at 100% dry thrust from brake release until TOD (except for subsonic cruise segments), with the AB added for takeoff, and when accelerating from Mach 0.96 through Mach 1.7.

Mach 2.00 was reached in about 30 minutes @ ~51,300 feet, depending on atmospherics - a relatively long slow slog compared to the initial climb and acceleration.

From inland airports such PDG or Heathrow, there was a "pause" for level subsonic cruise (M 0.94-0.96) in the high 20s until clear of the coastline by 20 miles (over La Manche or the mouth of the Bristol Channel.)

@ leb001 - greenhouse visor, BA livery, and short tail - probably G-AXDN (aircraft 101). Although I'll defer to the experts, as always.

Long time lurker - I was addicted to this thread real-time from late 2010 - I guess I must have broken away at some point and didn't realise the posts were still coming.

I re-read most of it mid-2011 and came back recently to read all over again.

I have a question that I don't think has been covered (but will happily stand corrected).

But first, my love of Concorde has been life-long - each time I go to Barbados I visit the exhibit there and it brings a tear to my eye every single time without fail -- and, I didn't design, engineer, maintain or fly her -- so I can fully appreciate the emotions the beautiful lady must evoke in those that did.

in about 2002/2003, I was finally in a position to financially support a flight on Concorde, but it never happened in time before the shutdown - honestly, this is one of the biggest regrets of my life.

This thread is my favourite read of all time - absolutely and totally priceless and the full and generous contributions from the people that were there are so very much appreciated.

And now, to the question.

Concorde was limited to 60k feet and M2.04 for all the reasons stated.

Just suppose for a moment, that these restrictions were removed.

I've read of her attaining 68k feet and M2.23 (from memory), but what could she have achieved in the opinion of those qualified to judge such things.

If all altitude and speed restrictions were removed (and related issues solved), then what could have been the result - I am assuming that range would have gone up quite considerably?

Thanks again to all for this stupendous thread.