Posts about: "Braniff" [Posts: 15 Page: 1 of 1]¶

Biggles78
I know these fuel flows seem crazy (If take-off fuel flows had been maintained the endurance of the aircraft would have been about 55 minutes!!). But as the majority of the flight was carried out at Mach 2 and above, with the relatively miniscule fuel flows, you can see how we were able to cross the Atlantic with relative ease. It was the subsonic bit that was the pain.
The powerplant was as you say truly amazing. We had an, as yet, unmatched engine/intake combination, with a variable primary and secondary nozzles. The variable intake allowed supersonic operation with maximum pressure recovery, minimum aerodynamic drag, as well as extreme operational stability. (Extreme temperature shears, that would have caused surge/unstarts in military installations) were dealt with as a total non event). It's astonishing to believe, but at Mach 2 cruise, the intake provided approximately 63% of the powerplant thrust. It was controlled by the world's first airborne digital control system. (The system computers were built by the Guided Weapons Division of what was then BAC). The combination of the variable intake, plus the LP and HP compressors gave an overall compression ratio of 80:1.
The engine itself, being supplied with air at an ideal pressure, could run at an almost conststant TET, thanks to the variable primary nozzle. This also allowed N1 and N2 (corrected for total temperature) to be controlled more or less independently and run as close as possible to their separate surge lines throughout the entire flight envelope.
The variable secondary nozzle (wide open above Mach 1.1) allowed the jet efflux to gently expand against a cushion of air that was passed over the rear ramp of the intake, through the engine bay and into the annulus of the nozzle itself. This prevented thrust being wasted by the jet efflux widely splaying as it met ambient air that was at a pressure of as little as 1.04 PSIA.
It was this integrated powerplant that made true supersonic cruise possible
The airframe life issue was sort of like 'how long is a piece of string?'. The airframes are lifed in supersonic cycles, (which had been extended before, with modifications) and studies were always underway as far as further life extensions were concerned. (Basically the airframe was as tough as a brick outhouse in structural terms). The only real area of concern was the crown area (the roof ). There was a design flaw here in that the structure had not been designed fail-safe (allegedly by designed a Korean designer at A\xe9rospatiale who, it was said, went a bit loopy). When the FAA evaluated the design (in order for the aircraft to be registered in the USA, for Braniff operations out of IAD) they wanted 'crown planking' to be fitted externally, which would have added over a tonne to the weight of the aircraft, as well as producing some not inconsiderable drag. Fortunately a compromise was reached and additional NDT inspections were carried out, as well as more limited structural modifications. There was a long term, cost effective solution being studied, which would have cured the problem altogether. (The changes would have been mandated, over new requirements for ageing aircraft)

Nick Thomas
Nick, the whole expansion issue was one of the biggest issues that had to be addressed. Wiring looms would 'snake' in some underfllor areas to take up expansion, but the biggest difficulty of all were the mulitudes of hydraulic lines. These required sliding expansion joints, with of course seals to prevent leakage. When a seal deteriorated YPU GOT A LEAK!! (Fluid at 4000 PSI tends torun for freedom very quickly ). As far as fittings go, ChristiaanJ is quite right, you tried to anchor at one end only. I seem to remember that the passenger seat rails travelled over a roller afair. Fuel lines wer less of a problem, because their relative lengths were less.
I also agree wholeheartedly with ChristiaansJ's explanation about the 'friction' thing, I never really liked those stories. As a matter of interest, 127 deg's, for Mach 2, that would be at ISA +5 (-51.5 deg's C). Any warmer than that and we could not achieve Mach 2, due to the Tmo limit of 127. I remember one year, for several weeks we had unusually high north Atlantic temperatures; these impacted both the flight time AND the fuel burn. The further away you were from Mach 2, the higher the fuel consumption. (The faster you flew, the less fuel you burnt. How's that for a paradox?).
At ISA (-56.5 deg's C) temperatures, the total temperature was at around 118 deg's C.

ChristiaanJ
I remember the 17.5 degree position on the nose; it always looked as if the aircraft was trying to eat ants to me . I can not recall personally anyone removing the 12.5 deg' stops for access, although this could of course have been done on your side of the 'puddle' I guess.
As far as the APU ducting issue goes (hee, hee, not often we disagree Christiaan ) we are just going to have to agree to disagee about this, although I accept that two 4" diameter pipes (PLUS THERMAL INSULATION) might have done it, BUT I still stand by the other points.

Stlton
Unfortunately not; the keel beam area was extremely thin and there was not anywhere near enough room. Interesting solution on the 727 though, I never knew that one.

That answered the question I was going to ask. Thanks for the explanation though.

Were the Braniff crews trained specificially for Concorde or were they supplied as part of the lease package and what were they thinking flying a supersonic machine along the USA subsonic route? Marketing exercise???

Biggles,

The Braniff crews [ I think it was 5 sets of crew] were trained for Concorde with some of crews trained in France whilst the others were trained in the UK. Flying training was done using an Air France Concorde
F-BVFA with flying being at Shannon initially but when they ran out of fuel it was moved to Montpellier. As their operation was to be subsonic they were only trained to operate the aircraft subsonically, but they were given a supersonic trans Atlantic trip as an observer.

ChristiaanJ

If I remember correctly ground effect tended to force the aircraft nose down, so requiring the pilots to pull back on the stick as if they were flaring ,but in fact what they were doing was as you say maintaining the pitch attitude constant. I have to say that in the early days the landing could be a bit of a hit or miss affair with some being perfect and some less so. The crews were originally taught to pull the power off in one stroke at about 15ft, but later they used to bleed it off and in my opinion this improved the landings greatly.

The problem with landing Concorde was when it got into ground effect if you let the nose drop you lost a lot of lift and arrived somewhat heavily. However if you pulled too hard you could raise the nose too much and suffer a big loss of speed causing a subsequent un-attractive landing, and you could also touch the tail wheel. This touch would be noticed by the ground engineer after landing as a scuff mark on the tail gear tyres. Therefore your friendly F/E on his external check prior to departure would always check the tail wheel tyres for scuff marks and if there were any you could inform the engineers at the other end of the trip that they were there prior to you taking the aircraft, and they would have to go and find another crew to blame


At touch down the pilots eye height was similar to that of a 747 pilot at touch down. Below 800ft when the aircraft had slowed down to landing speed the pitch attitude was such that the F/E could not see the runway ahead

Bigggles78
Brit312 has certainly answered your query about the Braniff crew issue; I remember being told that one of their captains, a Texan who allegedly wore big cowboy boots while flying, had an ambition at '3,2,1, NOW..' to KICK the throttles open with the sole of his right boot. Never did find out if this ever happened.
The Braniff operation does seem a little crazy now, I must admit. They were supposed to have had long term ideas of serving the Pacific Rim with Concorde, it's a pity that we never got the chance to find out if that could have worked.

Dude

M2dude,

The Braniff crews were great characters and yes many did wear cowboy boats, but the story I like is the one that goes as follows

After hours of briefing prior to going on the simulator [for the first time] the Braniff crew got on the sim and went through all their checks, started the engines and taxied out to the end of the runway for their first Concorde sim take-off. Everybody was strapped in with seats in the correct position and all checks complete.

The Captain called out "3,2,1, now" and all the throttles were moved sharply to full power and away we went with the visual showing the runway passing by at an ever increasing rate. Now the F/E had a couple of calls to make prior to V1 relating to how good the engines were performing the most important being at 100 kts, however before we got that far the Braniff F/E stood up in his harness and let out the cry " Gee Whiz look at the son of a bitch go".

Needless to say that take off was stopped and we went back to start again at the end of the runway

Hey folks, I too have a wonderful love of the beautiful lady "Concorde"

I jsut fly the little ole 73 for Southwest. A former Braniff Captain, working as an instructor now(age 60 hit him); named Jerry white...has told me many fascinating stories of flying Concorde.

I could sit and listen to him all day long.

Not too long ago, fslabs released a version of Concorde for Microsoft flight sim FSX.

Don't know if any of you "Concorde" folks as well as others have seen it.
If not, take a look at Flight Sim Labs, Ltd.

From what I understand, this is as close to flying a real Concorde as you can get. Marvelous bit of programming. I know a lot of the systems, flight model etc..were verified by former Concorde crews for accuracy.

Check it out when you have the time.

Now back to reading....

Best,
David

BRIT312
This story is totally hilarious, can't quite get this visual out of my head. ('100 KTS, POWER SET' sounds so boring in comparison). I never had the good fortune to meet any of the Braniff guys; sounds like there was certainly a character or two there. It really is a pity that their operation never really got a chance to expand into the proposed Pacific Rim service, who knows, it might really have done something.
It's generally known that the BA aircraft were temporarily re-registered to facilitate Braniff's operation out of IAD to DFW; G-BOAA, B, D & E were re-registered from G-BOAA and so on, to G-N94AA etc. Being an older registration, G-BOAC was re-registered as G-N81AC. At IAD, the 'G' part of the registration was covered over, leaving a now perfect 'American' tail number. Only five aircraft were involved in the operation (at the time BA operated just six aircraft, G-BOAF was still at the manufacturers at Filton, and G-BFKW (later to become G-BOAG) was on loan from British Aerospace. In order for the necessary FAA certification, required for operation by a US airline, a modification package were required by the FAA. Some of these modifications seemed a little 'picky' and irrelevant at the time (they still do). However some modifications were certainly not in this category, and quite honestly should have been 'picked up' by the CAA & DGAC during original certification of the aircraft. As an example, if the flying controls had been operating on GREEN or BLUE hydraulics only (due to an indicated spool valve jam) and that particular hydraulic system was subsequently lost, there was originally no automatic switching to select the standby YELLOW system into the flying controls; the controls would have been completely unpowered until a manual selection was made by the pilot. . One of the 'FAA Mods' was to facilitate just that, so if this (extremely unlikely I grant you) scenario had occurred, then YELLOW would automatically been selected into the controls, and at no time would the controls have been in an unpowered state.
The Braniff operation ended in May 1980, due to heavy losses on the subsonic only route, and it's a rather sad irony that aircraft G-BOAF had been modified and reregistered at Filton, from it's original registration of G-BFKX to G-N94AF. Unfortunately the aircraft was delivered to BA in June 1980, one month too late to participate, and prior to delivery it's registration was converted to it's 'normal' British registration; all other aircraft also reverted to original registrations also.
ChristiaanJ
Not really, being the sad b****d that I am, I still remember the Concorde flare law of: h+5h. = 0, so it was fairly easy to work out the programmed descent rates. (I did have to check the final 1.7'/second figure though). The rest I'm afraid is straight out of this sad old memory of mine.
Bellerophon
A brilliant description of the mechanics of final approach. It's so easy for us mere mortals to forget just what an involved and skilled process it was, to fly, and in particular land our totally amazing aircraft.

Dude

As promised here are the answers to our trivia quiz.
Actually there were 14 (but if you are not necessarily a Concorde person, 13 is acceptable). There were '13 fuel tanks, numbered 1 - 11' as we used to tell all the visitors to the aircraft, (The wingtip tanks 5A & 7A making up the extra 2) PLUS a single small scavenge tank at the rear of the aircraft that was used to remove fuel from the vent lines and return this fuel via a transfer pump back to tank 3. (A fuel level sensor would trigger the pump with only 1 US Gallon of fuel in the tank). If the trim gallery became over-pressurised (ie tank 3 already full to the brim) an overflow relief valve (ORV) underneath the rear of the aircraft would open and dump the contents of the tank overboard. There was a flight deck indication if the scavenge pump was running in flight to give the crew an indication that a tank somewhere was probably over-filling and to take the appropriate action. There was one added goody about the ORV; If you were on the ground with the refuel door open and due to a refuelling overfill anywhere, fuel entered the scavenge tank, at 7 gallons the ORV would open and rapidly dump the fuel on the floor. For this reason a vent pipe and fuel drum was often placed underneath the ORV during high load refuels. If this was not fitted and you just happened to walk underneath the aircraft at the wrong moment during fuelling........
As a total aside to all this (or me going off on a tangent yet again) the fuel tanks themselves were gently air pressurised above 44,000' to around 2.2 PSIA. This was to prevent the beginnings of any boiling of the fuel in the tanks, due to the low ambient pressure/high fuel temperatures, causing pump cavitation. (Boiling itself could not occur much below 65,000'). A small NACA duct at the right side of the fin was used to supply the ram air for tank pressurisation, the two vent valves in the tail cone, one per trim gallery, closing off automatically at around 44,000', the pressure being controlled by a pneumatic valve, with full automatic over-pressure protection. OK sorry guys and gals, back to the answers:
This is the stinker.... there were 114 (although at entry into service there were 115!!). 100 passenger seats + 6 cabin crew seats + 5 flight deck seats (including the fold up seat in the aisle at the rear) PLUS 3 LOO SEATS (Originally 4 loos, the fourth loo being removed in the early 1980's).
50,189' and 530 KEAS, but we'll settle for anything around FL500 being correct.
Aircraft 216, G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built. When 216 first flew in 1979 she was a variant 192 'British Unsold Aircraft' and was registered as G-BFKX. In late 1979, BA purchased the aircraft and it was subsequently converted to a Type 102 British Airways variant, and after modifications were complete, test flights were carried out from Filton under the registration of G-N94AF. This registration was to enable the aircraft to participate in the Braniff interchange between IAD and DFW, but when the Braniff Concorde adventure unfortunately ended in 1980, she was again re-registered to G-BOAF, this is how she was delivered to BA later that year.
Easy one this I hope; 60.000'. (As we've said before this limitation was imposed because of the dual window failure / emergency descent time consideration, not as a performance issue. On test flights 63,000' was routinely attained, and altitudes of up to 68,000' were achieved during development flying. (On her maiden flight, G-BOAB achieved 65,000' and Mach 2.04; the first British constructed Concorde to achieve Mach 2 on her maiden flight, and the ONLY one of the original five BA aircraft to achieve this).
Hopefully an easy one... there were TWELVE: 2 nose wheels, 8 main wheels and 2 tail wheels. (No, even I'm not nasty enough to include the wheels on the bar trolleys ). Oh, and there were 9 wheel brakes, one for each main wheel and as was mentioned in a previous post, a single steel disc brake for the nose wheels (the nose having a live axle), for automatic use during gear retraction only.
Three modes; Blue electronic signalling, green electronic signalling and mechanical signalling. I suppose we COULD be pedantic here and include the Emergency Flight Control mode where even with a jammed control column/control wheel, strain gauges (and Safety Flight Control Computers of course) would still enable you to control the elevons.
OK, three basically. Up (Duh!), 5 degrees for taxi/take off and low speed flight and 12.5 degrees for landing. As ChristiaanJ quite rightly pointed out in an earlier post, the prototype (and pre-production) aircraft landing position was 17.5 degrees of droop. (In my view the nose of the aircraft looked a little like an armadillo in this extreme configuration).
In 1977 the new digital Plessey PVS 1580 Aircraft Integrated Data System was progressively fitted to the BA fleet, this being the first microprocessor application on Concorde, this application being followed in several other systems during the life of the aircraft. The 'final' applications being TCAS and the superb retrofitted Bendix RDR-4A weather radar system.
No we are not including torch batteries and emergency lights etc. There were a total of seven main power sources: 4 x 60KVA AC generators, one per engine, a single 40KVA hydraulically powered emergency generator and 2 lead acid (or ni-cad in the case of G-BOAG) main aircraft batteries. (Not a terribly Re-Volting question I hope).

I hope this quiz was fun and not too perplexing to any of you guys.

Dude

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

Hello,

In the early eighties, Braniff "we'd better be better !" leased (rented ?) Concorde for firstclass flights between Washington and Dallas.

It was a subsonic flight.

Question: Where had the crew (I guess they were Braniff's) been trained , was the training supersonic too ?


What a super thread. Thanks a lot !

Yep - Braniff crews trained to fly the full envelope. But for BA insurance reasons, there had to be a BA captain and flight engineer riding along in the jumpseats.

Another cute trick - the European airlines "sold" the airframes temporarily to Braniff, with new US N-numbers, so they could fly a "domestic" route without violating cabotage laws. Then "sold back" to BA or AF for the transatlantic legs.

CONCORDE SST : Braniff Concorde Services

Braniff Concorde

Were both BA and AF involved / lend aircraft to the short lived Braniff Concorde operation flying the aircraft subsonic from Washington Dulles to the Dallas Fort Worth airport ?


I read somewhere that the aircraft owner, whether it was BA or AF always had one of their captains as an observer in one of the cockpit jumpseats on these flights ?


Not sure if that's true but any other insights or information on this unusual arrangement
would be welcome.

Stilton:

Braniff that the subsonic Concorde flights, IAD to Texas with British Airways or Air France crews handling the subsequent supersonic overseas flights to Europe and the UK.

I understand the observer positions taken up by British crew was mainly due to insurance concerns. I have no knowledge of the Air France arrangement regarding observers, but hopefully one of our good contributors will clear that one up.