Posts about: "Landing Gear" [Posts: 67 Page: 4 of 4]¶

Ruddman -

No autobrakes.

(And - with my pedant's hat on - no 'manual' brakes either. Pedal brakes, yes. I know that the 'manual brakes' has become an accepted term, but the nonsense of it just bugs me….)

Stopping distances were good; from a higher Vapp we stopped rather shorter than a 'classic' 747. Filton was tightish, Bournemouth was worse….

First gen carbon brakes did not like being 'feathered' so we used them pretty firmly on every landing. At Filton, Bournemouth, E Midlands etc. you'd put the pedals to the floor after nose wheel touchdown. Allegedly no more wear doing this than feathering them along a long runway.

Reverse was pretty effective - more so than a modern bypass engine. We idled the outboards at 100kts and the inboards at 75kts so they weren't in play for the whole landing (reverse is most effective at higher speeds anyway).

It was a good 'stopper'. Thankfully.

Remember the occasion well AC560. Was standing at the barrier paralleling the runway during one of her take offs, right where the main gear broke ground. Thought we were insanely close, seemed you could have reached out and touched her, and don't mention the noise. Beautiful, beautiful, what an experience. I'm sure the nanny state that prevails today would have the barrier so far back you would need binoculars.

Hi Dear Guys,


Amazing thread on an amazing aircraft! Red through all the posts. What an immense amount of knowledge/experience on this bird! Your valuable inputs triggerd my curiousity to the extent that I have started to study Concorde manuals trying to understand systems and operating details. Not an easy job! I think a more detailed Traning Manual would help me greatly.
Here is my question:
Going through the FM exterior inspection chapter I have run into tiny details what are really hard to find even on close-up external photos. Just to name a few: "nose gear free fall dump valve vent", "engine oil tank vent" or "hydraulic-driven fuel transfer pump drain". Was there a "pictorial" external inspection guide available on the Concorde for crew training (similar to Boeing or Airbus training aids)? If yes, could somehow, somebody send me a copy of that?


Appreciate your help.

4 min limitation, of my memory serves, is because reverse thrust blocks off the cooling air flowing over the engine mounted accessories. The limitation is then to stop them cooking up.

Regarding an earlier question, you really need a flight crew member to answer, but looking at the RHS panel on the Concorde Heritage site it looks to me that the symbol is the landing gear indication - nose, two mains and a tailwheel. Haven't a clue what the other indication might be.

I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Since the cg is generally close to the landing gear longitudinally, to all intents and purposes the height changes are the same on most aircraft. Pitch change before flight path change is an essential part of the negative lift effect.
But I agree, there is so much happening that it is difficult to separate out individual effects.

Too many factors cascading, but the ignition of leaking fuel led to major changes, including the crew shutting down an engine due to fire warning and the melting of considerable portions of the wing. Per the accident report a large contributor was a defective landing gear that, with one tire gone, swiveled and forced the plane off the runway where one engine ate a light. There was also a suggestion that additional drag from the misaligned gear slowed the takeoff which would otherwise have left the runway before contacting the metal strip. There were also overweight, tailwind, and leaving the ground below the calculated minimum airspeed.

Final Destination and Dead Like Me both offered more likely scenarios than the stack up of factors required for the Concorde crash.

A problem with Concorde was that its stall speed was quite high - well above 200 knots. An emergency landing in a field (gear down) is not apt to end well going that fast with a full load of fuel and an aircraft already on fire (granted, perhaps better than what ultimately happened, but a 'damned if you do - damned if you don't' choice at best). They reportedly tried to raise the gear (which would have helped reduce drag greatly) but the damage already done prevented that.
In 20-20 hindsight, I suspect they would have been better off to not shutdown the engine with the fire warning (#2?) and use whatever thrust they could still get from it to try to make another airfield, but something that would be next to impossible to realize real-time. The rapidly spready fire damage may well have made it a moot point anyway.