September 19, 2010, 11:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5943311
BlueConcorde
... Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
... Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Subjects
British Airways
Fuel Saving Landing
Haynes guide to Concorde
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
September 19, 2010, 18:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5943969
Originally Posted by
Bellerophon
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
By the way, I highly recommend this book to everybody, a different point of view, new photos and nice info regarding this bird.
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
Nice info regarding BA004! But if a repair was needed, would BA004 take-off anyway to Gatwick or Birmingham? Has it ever arrived a bit late?
Originally Posted by
ChristiaanJ
My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?
Originally Posted by
Jo90
Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?
Thank you all, awesome topic!!
Subjects
British Airways
Fuel Saving Landing
Haynes guide to Concorde
Rudder
Vortex
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 27, 2010, 23:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6021738
norodnik
...Did you need all 4 reheats to go from 0.95 - 1.7 ?...
No.
Two reheats were the minimum for transonic acceleration, however due regard would have to paid to the additional fuel usage with one or two reheats failed.
...If you got to 1.3 and then one or more failed could you continue (albeit with slower acceleration ?)...
Yes, as above, whilst remembering the 15 minute time limit on the use of reheat.
...I presume if you were unable to get the things lit at 0.95 you just turned round and went home again ?...
Yes, once you were convinced that at least three were not going to light up.
...The procedure would take around 90 mins so would you need to burn off fuel or already be at acceptable landing weight by that time ?...
Not something I ever had to do, fortunately, but even so, 90 minutes would seem somewhat excessive to me, given that the aircraft would still have been over the Bristol channel. On a transatlantic sector, fuel jettisoning would have been necessary to get down to 130,000 kgs (for a fuel saving landing) or 111,130 kgs (MLW) if the nature of the failure precluded a fuel saving landing.
...once when aboard at about 50K-55K feet the aircraft rolled I would estimate 3 degrees to the left and then came back level again almost immediately...what might have cause such an event (I would guess an airflow issue with intake or engine ?)...
Any number of things could have caused this, but probably the most likely one is the one you suspected, a (transient) intake problem.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
...Did you need all 4 reheats to go from 0.95 - 1.7 ?...
No.
Two reheats were the minimum for transonic acceleration, however due regard would have to paid to the additional fuel usage with one or two reheats failed.
...If you got to 1.3 and then one or more failed could you continue (albeit with slower acceleration ?)...
Yes, as above, whilst remembering the 15 minute time limit on the use of reheat.
...I presume if you were unable to get the things lit at 0.95 you just turned round and went home again ?...
Yes, once you were convinced that at least three were not going to light up.
...The procedure would take around 90 mins so would you need to burn off fuel or already be at acceptable landing weight by that time ?...
Not something I ever had to do, fortunately, but even so, 90 minutes would seem somewhat excessive to me, given that the aircraft would still have been over the Bristol channel. On a transatlantic sector, fuel jettisoning would have been necessary to get down to 130,000 kgs (for a fuel saving landing) or 111,130 kgs (MLW) if the nature of the failure precluded a fuel saving landing.
...once when aboard at about 50K-55K feet the aircraft rolled I would estimate 3 degrees to the left and then came back level again almost immediately...what might have cause such an event (I would guess an airflow issue with intake or engine ?)...
Any number of things could have caused this, but probably the most likely one is the one you suspected, a (transient) intake problem.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Subjects
Afterburner/Re-heat
Fuel Saving Landing
Intakes
Transonic Acceleration
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 29, 2010, 21:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6026131
Fuel Saving Landings
Hi,
The mention of fuel saving landings came up awhile back and it would be good to have some additional information on how, when's and why's this procedure was used.
As I understand it a fuel saving landing was one over the normal maximum landing weight, as such did additional inspections or anything have to take place on the airframe?
Any information on his procedure would be very much appreciated as I have only ever seen the term mentioned never the reasons behind it.
Many thanks for such a rivetting thread.
Regards,
Steve.
The mention of fuel saving landings came up awhile back and it would be good to have some additional information on how, when's and why's this procedure was used.
As I understand it a fuel saving landing was one over the normal maximum landing weight, as such did additional inspections or anything have to take place on the airframe?
Any information on his procedure would be very much appreciated as I have only ever seen the term mentioned never the reasons behind it.
Many thanks for such a rivetting thread.
Regards,
Steve.
Subjects
Fuel Saving Landing
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 30, 2010, 12:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6027195
Fuel Saving Landing
Requirements :
Not permitted with :
Notes
3-engine landings were permitted. For all landings the landing gear would be lowered earlier than normal to ensure the brakes were stone cold to start with, maximum reverse thrust would be used on landing, and braking modulated so as to use (nearly) all of the full length of the runway. Landing performance figures at 130,000 kgs were in the performance manual for most runways. Any runway for which this procedure had not been pre-authorised required some rather tedious calculations, using the generalised basic data and graphs found in the performance manual.
If manual performance calculations were necessary, the F/E and I usually seemed to find that another problem that required our urgent and undivided attention had come up, and we would reluctantly be compelled to hand over all the manuals, charts and graphs for the F/O to perform the calculations!
If the aircraft had an AFT ZFW CG (perhaps loaded with a lot of heavy bags in the rear hold), and given the specific fuel distribution requirements for a fuel saving landing, it was possible that the landing weight might have to be reduced below 130,000 kgs, in order to achieve a landing CG of 53.5%.
After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!
Reasons
The clue is in the name! A possible saving of roughly 5,200 gallons of fuel, nearly 19,000 kgs, which need not be jettisoned, thus reducing the time spent in the air before re-landing, fuel costs and pollution.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Requirements :
- Manual landing, at V REF , only
- Minimum of one autothrottle operative at start of approach
- Contingency power available
- Specific fuel distribution achieved
- Record in Maintenance Log
Not permitted with :
- Slippery runway
- Precipitation covered runway
- 3-engine ferry
- 2-engine approach and landing
- Reduced noise approach
- Fuelled with wide-cut fuel
- Secondary nozzle locked out
- Brake unit isolated
- Total loss of Electric Trim
- Total loss of Pitch Stab
- Total loss of Electrical Signalling
- Suspected tyre failure
Notes
3-engine landings were permitted. For all landings the landing gear would be lowered earlier than normal to ensure the brakes were stone cold to start with, maximum reverse thrust would be used on landing, and braking modulated so as to use (nearly) all of the full length of the runway. Landing performance figures at 130,000 kgs were in the performance manual for most runways. Any runway for which this procedure had not been pre-authorised required some rather tedious calculations, using the generalised basic data and graphs found in the performance manual.
If manual performance calculations were necessary, the F/E and I usually seemed to find that another problem that required our urgent and undivided attention had come up, and we would reluctantly be compelled to hand over all the manuals, charts and graphs for the F/O to perform the calculations!
If the aircraft had an AFT ZFW CG (perhaps loaded with a lot of heavy bags in the rear hold), and given the specific fuel distribution requirements for a fuel saving landing, it was possible that the landing weight might have to be reduced below 130,000 kgs, in order to achieve a landing CG of 53.5%.
After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid M2Dude and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!
Reasons
The clue is in the name! A possible saving of roughly 5,200 gallons of fuel, nearly 19,000 kgs, which need not be jettisoned, thus reducing the time spent in the air before re-landing, fuel costs and pollution.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Subjects
Auto-throttle
Braking
C of G
Fuel Saving Landing
Landing Gear
Manuals
Nozzles
Reverse Thrust
Trim
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 31, 2010, 08:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6028702
Bellerophon
There were no specific airframe inspections associated with a fuel saving landing (the possibility of which EXWOK eluded to) ; the 2899XX00 log code would however trip a flag that required the landing vertical and longitudinal accelerations to be analysed on the QAR readout. (The vertical G was also locked into the memory of the AIDS management panel, and was there until the next landing). And would I or anyone within Concorde engineering blame you guys for 'bending it'?....
(Only joking everybody, the most important thing after any minor incident was for us all to sit down and have a thorough post landing chat, so that everyone was clear as to what happened, and the cause of the 'bump in the night' could be nailed and remedied ASAP).
Leg it indeed..
(chuckle).
Dude
After landing, record the actual landing weight in the Maintenance Log using code 2899XXOO, sign it, and then leg it swiftly, to avoid
M2Dude
and the boys, who somehow always managed to imply that you were responsible for anything that had gone wrong with their pride and joy since they last handed her over to you!
(Only joking everybody, the most important thing after any minor incident was for us all to sit down and have a thorough post landing chat, so that everyone was clear as to what happened, and the cause of the 'bump in the night' could be nailed and remedied ASAP).
Leg it indeed..
(chuckle).
Dude
Subjects
Fuel Saving Landing
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.