ChristiaanJ
December 08, 2011, 17:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6890119

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jofm5

1) I adore the lady in many ways but I would imagine she was far from perfect with the challenges that had to be overcome.

She was pretty well 'state-of-the-art', really.
And through the long proto-preprod-prod developent cycle, I would say she was as near 'perfect' as we could make her at the time she went into service.

Maybe I should mention that in 'my field' (automatic flight control systems) the 'state-of-the-art' was changing significantly almost from year to year.

Quote:

I would imagine the positives way out weighed any negatives. So what were the downsides for the Capt/FO/FE that were most discussed - was anything done to alleviate these is design/Pre-Production and what if any gripes made it through to production.

I'd be interested too.

Quote:

2) For each of you (I would imagine they would be different based upon your skill set) what were the biggest challenges you personally had to overcome when switching to/designing our iconic aircraft.

LOL.....
Being Dutch, I had to convert my school French to engineering French on the one hand, and 'argot' on the other hand, while at the same time getting familiar with the way 'my' firm was implementing the latest developments in electronics.

Quote:

Finally some more anecdotes from LandLady and Concorde Trivia from M2 would be good.

Has anybody here read "The Soul of a New Machine", by Tracy Kidder?
It's a pity no book quite like that has ever been written about Concorde... and I can't imagine it could be written today. Too many of the 'actors' have retired, or are not there anymore....

Maybe somebody ambitious could use this thread as a base, and do some interviews, and write "Concorde, From Then to Now" ?

CJ

Subjects Cabin Crew

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

MrSnuggles
November 03, 2013, 01:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8132175

Concorde hymn...

Thankyou.

Thankyou all, EXWOK, Bellerophon, CliveL, ChristiaanJ, M2Dude, Brit312 and landlady for providing these wonderful stories directly from "the horse's mouth". I love it. Please, since landlady is already publishing her piece of history, maybe you others could at least join forces and use this excellent, brilliant and awesome thread as inspiration?

I have read this thread for breakfast every day the past week and finally catched up and never got this sorted out.... HOW is it possible that Airbus now "operates" (weeeell, you know what I mean...) Concorde?

I have tried to follow all clues, looking up companies on Wikipedia and who was subcontractor to whom, but it's just a big mess and I need help to sort it out. Is there anyone who might help shed some light onto this?

Sorry if my post is long, but this is such an amazing aircraft and since I come from Sweden where all we have is a tiny (but hugely effective!!) SAAB Gripen I am in awe to you who have created a milestone in aviation.

Subjects Airbus Cabin Crew

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Bellerophon
December 20, 2016, 15:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9615418

Reverse Thrust in the air - Limitations

Inboard engines (either or both) only
Idle power only
Between 30,000 ft - 3,000 ft AGL only
Subsonic only
Max speed 370 kts over most of the allowable range
Min speed 250 kts above 15,000 ft
Min speed 225 kts below 15,000 ft
4 minutes only

The descent profile was planned without the use of reverse thrust, but it was available, and used, when required.

The principal benefit of reverse thrust in the air, in my view, was the ability to reduce speed quickly in a shallow descent, whilst keeping the aircraft attitude (and so the cabin floor) substantially level. Passengers found this more comfortable than using reverse thrust, at a constant IAS, to achieve a very high rate of descent, with the consequent steep nose down attitude.

If a runaway bar trolley, dragging a stewardess behind it, thumped into the back of the flight deck door, you had probably overdone the nose down attitude!

Subjects Cabin Crew IAS (Indicated Air Speed) Reverse Thrust

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

EASAPARTACADEMY
June 25, 2022, 00:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11251293

Quote:

Originally Posted by M2dude

Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.

Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct?

What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS.

Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud.

Subjects Boeing 747 Cabin Crew Flameout Flight Envelope Hydraulic Hydrazine IAS (Indicated Air Speed) Intakes JFK LHR N1 (revolutions) Olympus 593 RAT (Ram Air Turbine) Relight

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

ChristiaanJ December 08, 2011, 17:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 6890119	Quote: Originally Posted by Jofm5 1) I adore the lady in many ways but I would imagine she was far from perfect with the challenges that had to be overcome. She was pretty well 'state-of-the-art', really. And through the long proto-preprod-prod developent cycle, I would say she was as near 'perfect' as we could make her at the time she went into service. Maybe I should mention that in 'my field' (automatic flight control systems) the 'state-of-the-art' was changing significantly almost from year to year. Quote: I would imagine the positives way out weighed any negatives. So what were the downsides for the Capt/FO/FE that were most discussed - was anything done to alleviate these is design/Pre-Production and what if any gripes made it through to production. I'd be interested too. Quote: 2) For each of you (I would imagine they would be different based upon your skill set) what were the biggest challenges you personally had to overcome when switching to/designing our iconic aircraft. LOL..... Being Dutch, I had to convert my school French to engineering French on the one hand, and 'argot' on the other hand, while at the same time getting familiar with the way 'my' firm was implementing the latest developments in electronics. Quote: Finally some more anecdotes from LandLady and Concorde Trivia from M2 would be good. Has anybody here read "The Soul of a New Machine", by Tracy Kidder? It's a pity no book quite like that has ever been written about Concorde... and I can't imagine it could be written today. Too many of the 'actors' have retired, or are not there anymore.... Maybe somebody ambitious could use this thread as a base, and do some interviews, and write "Concorde, From Then to Now" ? CJ Subjects Cabin Crew Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
MrSnuggles November 03, 2013, 01:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 8132175	Concorde hymn... Thankyou. Thankyou all, EXWOK, Bellerophon, CliveL, ChristiaanJ, M2Dude, Brit312 and landlady for providing these wonderful stories directly from "the horse's mouth". I love it. Please, since landlady is already publishing her piece of history, maybe you others could at least join forces and use this excellent, brilliant and awesome thread as inspiration? I have read this thread for breakfast every day the past week and finally catched up and never got this sorted out.... HOW is it possible that Airbus now "operates" (weeeell, you know what I mean...) Concorde? I have tried to follow all clues, looking up companies on Wikipedia and who was subcontractor to whom, but it's just a big mess and I need help to sort it out. Is there anyone who might help shed some light onto this? Sorry if my post is long, but this is such an amazing aircraft and since I come from Sweden where all we have is a tiny (but hugely effective!!) SAAB Gripen I am in awe to you who have created a milestone in aviation. Subjects Airbus Cabin Crew Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Bellerophon December 20, 2016, 15:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 9615418	Reverse Thrust in the air - Limitations Inboard engines (either or both) only Idle power only Between 30,000 ft - 3,000 ft AGL only Subsonic only Max speed 370 kts over most of the allowable range Min speed 250 kts above 15,000 ft Min speed 225 kts below 15,000 ft 4 minutes only The descent profile was planned without the use of reverse thrust, but it was available, and used, when required. The principal benefit of reverse thrust in the air, in my view, was the ability to reduce speed quickly in a shallow descent, whilst keeping the aircraft attitude (and so the cabin floor) substantially level. Passengers found this more comfortable than using reverse thrust, at a constant IAS, to achieve a very high rate of descent, with the consequent steep nose down attitude. If a runaway bar trolley, dragging a stewardess behind it, thumped into the back of the flight deck door, you had probably overdone the nose down attitude! Subjects Cabin Crew IAS (Indicated Air Speed) Reverse Thrust Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
EASAPARTACADEMY June 25, 2022, 00:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11251293	Quote: Originally Posted by M2dude Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR. Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff. Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world. Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct? What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS. Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud. Subjects Boeing 747 Cabin Crew Flameout Flight Envelope Hydraulic Hydrazine IAS (Indicated Air Speed) Intakes JFK LHR N1 (revolutions) Olympus 593 RAT (Ram Air Turbine) Relight Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "Cabin Crew" [Posts: 64 Page: 4 of 4]¶