DozyWannabe
October 18, 2013, 21:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8106344

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdracer

BA was able to make money on Concorde as in positive cash flow. But they were basically given the airplanes. The commercial failure aspect comes from the simple fact that no one wanted them to build any more (what I've heard is that at least one production Concorde was built but never put into service - basically becoming a donor for spares - not sure if that's true).

Not as far as I know - the first UK "production" Concorde intended for testing rather than line flying (G-BBDG) did end up as a donor for spares, but it wasn't a case of an aircraft without a home - it was just the way things turned out - they never intended to sell it to an airline. In fact that very airframe is the one now living at Brooklands. Several things kiboshed Concorde as a going concern in the '70s - not least of which was the protest movement in the US making US airlines shy away. Above all it was not an issue with the project itself, but the early '70s oil crisis which had the most drastic effect. In fact, while the UK government effectively wrote off the cost in the '70s, the profits BA ended up making could have made a sizeable dent in the development costs.

Quote:

I also suspect it was too much of a point design - it didn't have the range to be useful in the Pacific.

There was a B model on the drawing board which could very well have been capable in that arena.

CONCORDE SST : CONCORDE B

Quote:

If BA (and Air France) honestly thought Concorde was a profit center (rather than brand prestige), they would have wanted more

In fact, BA significantly underestimated what customers would be willing to pay for Concorde service at first - it was this realisation that enabled them to turn a profit!

Quote:

The same thing would have applied to the Boeing SST if it hadn't been cancelled (I knew a guy that worked on the Boeing SST inlet control system - talk about complex

). Cancelling the SST is probably the best thing that ever happened to Boeing - it likely would have bankrupted the company.

Well, that was kind of the crux of the issue. Boeing had already effectively bet the company on the 747 project, and the 2707 still had technical issues on paper that the Concorde project had already solved. As far as my reading suggests, the runaway success of the 747 in fact owed a lot to the issues that ended up swamping the DC-10 and L-1011 - essentially gifting Boeing a market leading position and rescuing the company from the abyss - the 2707 was cancelled long before that became a reality though. In effect, before the success of the 747 was a done deal, Boeing couldn't stretch to doing both.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 18th October 2013 at 22:02 .

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

bertpig
December 10, 2013, 10:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8198315

Superb aircraft, superb thread

I would like to know how susceptible both the clever intakes and the Olympus engines were to damage from bird ingestion, and if it ever happened in flight. I assume the answer might lie in the positioning of the ramps at takeoff and bird inhabited altitudes?

Also, a theme throughout the thread has been that the two projects of the era that people wanted to work on were Apollo and Concorde. My question is; were there any companies (and particularly individuals) who were lucky enough to work in some part (large or small) on both of these marvels of engineering?

I would also be very interested to hear:
i) From the pilots - what the "worst" (both subjectively and objectively if you like) situation or failure was that you trained for in the sim or on a real aircraft.
ii) From the engineers - the "Concorde factor" aside, how was she to work on and how did her systems compare in terms of ease of maintenance to regular passenger aircraft of the day? What were the jobs/events most and least looked forward to?
iii) Any more about the de-tune facility in some of the pictures posted earlier - was its sole function to hold the bird in place and quieten the engine noise, or did it serve any other purpose (e.g. did it contain any measuring instruments).

Disclaimer: Not a pilot/engineer.

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

Slatye
January 13, 2014, 10:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8261569

Getting somewhat closer to the topic - does anyone know what the Tu-144 used for computing? The NASA report on the Tu-144LL says that they had a digital controls for the engines, but since those were new engines the control system was probably a good deal more modern than the original. I can't see any mention of how the intakes were controlled, or what the original engines used.

And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well?

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

pattern_is_full
July 16, 2016, 16:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9441981

According to this, 5500-6000 feet/1700 meters

Heritage Concorde

IIRC from one of the previous posts here, the strong differential required also defined the normal descent/deceleration timing and distance.

Power could only be reduced to 94% (N1 or N2, I forget which) or there would not be enough "bleed" air available to maintain the cabin altitude at TOD.
(although I could have misinterpreted that - it may have had more to do with maintaining the oblique inlet shocks, or hydraulics, or some such.)

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

EXWOK
December 14, 2017, 12:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9989964

Tanks 5 and 7 inlet valves have an \x91override\x92 position, do they not?

During the t/o roll, while the trim transfer pumps in 11 will be off, the de-air pump would allow flow through the trim transfer pipes to any tank with an open valve. The valves *should* be closed, unless someone had been creative with any override selections and failed to return them to normal.

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

EXWOK
December 15, 2017, 00:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9990585

I\x92m not sure we *know* the tank 11 txfr pumps were on.

The 5/7 inlet valves were in the override position.

Even if the T11 txfr pumps were off, the de-air pump would pump fuel to the trim txfr pipes and hence to 5/7.

All assuming I remember the report correctly.

The nub being, if you \x91hide\x92 fuel and forget to return the 5/7 inlet valves to normal, you will still feed 5/7 even if the 11 pumps are off.

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

EASAPARTACADEMY
June 24, 2022, 23:14:00 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.

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

dixi188
January 30, 2023, 11:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11376777

Someone I used to know,(TO), was a F/O on a Concorde that had a double engine failure mid Atlantic. One engine surged and coughed an inlet door out of the front and it went down the adjacent engine, The vibration was very high and both engines were shut down. The Mayday call to Shanwick was that they may not make Shannon. The reply was that they would alert the coastguard.
IIRC they restarted the engine with the lowest vibration and made it to Shannon.
I saw some photos of the engine that ate the door and the compressor was a mess.

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

DozyWannabe October 18, 2013, 21:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 8106344	Quote: Originally Posted by tdracer BA was able to make money on Concorde as in positive cash flow. But they were basically given the airplanes. The commercial failure aspect comes from the simple fact that no one wanted them to build any more (what I've heard is that at least one production Concorde was built but never put into service - basically becoming a donor for spares - not sure if that's true). Not as far as I know - the first UK "production" Concorde intended for testing rather than line flying (G-BBDG) did end up as a donor for spares, but it wasn't a case of an aircraft without a home - it was just the way things turned out - they never intended to sell it to an airline. In fact that very airframe is the one now living at Brooklands. Several things kiboshed Concorde as a going concern in the '70s - not least of which was the protest movement in the US making US airlines shy away. Above all it was not an issue with the project itself, but the early '70s oil crisis which had the most drastic effect. In fact, while the UK government effectively wrote off the cost in the '70s, the profits BA ended up making could have made a sizeable dent in the development costs. Quote: I also suspect it was too much of a point design - it didn't have the range to be useful in the Pacific. There was a B model on the drawing board which could very well have been capable in that arena. CONCORDE SST : CONCORDE B Quote: If BA (and Air France) honestly thought Concorde was a profit center (rather than brand prestige), they would have wanted more . In fact, BA significantly underestimated what customers would be willing to pay for Concorde service at first - it was this realisation that enabled them to turn a profit! Quote: The same thing would have applied to the Boeing SST if it hadn't been cancelled (I knew a guy that worked on the Boeing SST inlet control system - talk about complex ). Cancelling the SST is probably the best thing that ever happened to Boeing - it likely would have bankrupted the company. Well, that was kind of the crux of the issue. Boeing had already effectively bet the company on the 747 project, and the 2707 still had technical issues on paper that the Concorde project had already solved. As far as my reading suggests, the runaway success of the 747 in fact owed a lot to the issues that ended up swamping the DC-10 and L-1011 - essentially gifting Boeing a market leading position and rescuing the company from the abyss - the 2707 was cancelled long before that became a reality though. In effect, before the success of the 747 was a done deal, Boeing couldn't stretch to doing both. Last edited by DozyWannabe; 18th October 2013 at 22:02 . Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
bertpig December 10, 2013, 10:44:00 GMT permalink Post: 8198315	Superb aircraft, superb thread I would like to know how susceptible both the clever intakes and the Olympus engines were to damage from bird ingestion, and if it ever happened in flight. I assume the answer might lie in the positioning of the ramps at takeoff and bird inhabited altitudes? Also, a theme throughout the thread has been that the two projects of the era that people wanted to work on were Apollo and Concorde. My question is; were there any companies (and particularly individuals) who were lucky enough to work in some part (large or small) on both of these marvels of engineering? I would also be very interested to hear: i) From the pilots - what the "worst" (both subjectively and objectively if you like) situation or failure was that you trained for in the sim or on a real aircraft. ii) From the engineers - the "Concorde factor" aside, how was she to work on and how did her systems compare in terms of ease of maintenance to regular passenger aircraft of the day? What were the jobs/events most and least looked forward to? iii) Any more about the de-tune facility in some of the pictures posted earlier - was its sole function to hold the bird in place and quieten the engine noise, or did it serve any other purpose (e.g. did it contain any measuring instruments). Disclaimer: Not a pilot/engineer. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Slatye January 13, 2014, 10:19:00 GMT permalink Post: 8261569	Getting somewhat closer to the topic - does anyone know what the Tu-144 used for computing? The NASA report on the Tu-144LL says that they had a digital controls for the engines, but since those were new engines the control system was probably a good deal more modern than the original. I can't see any mention of how the intakes were controlled, or what the original engines used. And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well? Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
pattern_is_full July 16, 2016, 16:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 9441981	According to this, 5500-6000 feet/1700 meters Heritage Concorde IIRC from one of the previous posts here, the strong differential required also defined the normal descent/deceleration timing and distance. Power could only be reduced to 94% (N1 or N2, I forget which) or there would not be enough "bleed" air available to maintain the cabin altitude at TOD. (although I could have misinterpreted that - it may have had more to do with maintaining the oblique inlet shocks, or hydraulics, or some such.) Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
EXWOK December 14, 2017, 12:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 9989964	Tanks 5 and 7 inlet valves have an \x91override\x92 position, do they not? During the t/o roll, while the trim transfer pumps in 11 will be off, the de-air pump would allow flow through the trim transfer pipes to any tank with an open valve. The valves should be closed, unless someone had been creative with any override selections and failed to return them to normal. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
EXWOK December 15, 2017, 00:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 9990585	I\x92m not sure we know the tank 11 txfr pumps were on. The 5/7 inlet valves were in the override position. Even if the T11 txfr pumps were off, the de-air pump would pump fuel to the trim txfr pipes and hence to 5/7. All assuming I remember the report correctly. The nub being, if you \x91hide\x92 fuel and forget to return the 5/7 inlet valves to normal, you will still feed 5/7 even if the 11 pumps are off. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
EASAPARTACADEMY June 24, 2022, 23:14:00 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. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
dixi188 January 30, 2023, 11:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11376777	Someone I used to know,(TO), was a F/O on a Concorde that had a double engine failure mid Atlantic. One engine surged and coughed an inlet door out of the front and it went down the adjacent engine, The vibration was very high and both engines were shut down. The Mayday call to Shanwick was that they may not make Shannon. The reply was that they would alert the coastguard. IIRC they restarted the engine with the lowest vibration and made it to Shannon. I saw some photos of the engine that ate the door and the compressor was a mess. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "Intakes" [Posts: 68 Page: 4 of 4]¶