September 06, 2010, 20:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5918123
Oooops - thanks for pointing out my AOT logic there. Note to self: don't post after returning from a night flight!
The other reason for the disparity of bugs on the Machmeter vs the flt envelope is whether they relate to the first or second M/CG warning. I can't remember and don't have the manuals to hand. I do recall that it was more accurate/practical to monitor the speed-driven limits on the CG indicator rather than the CG-driven limits on the machmeter.
The other reason for the disparity of bugs on the Machmeter vs the flt envelope is whether they relate to the first or second M/CG warning. I can't remember and don't have the manuals to hand. I do recall that it was more accurate/practical to monitor the speed-driven limits on the CG indicator rather than the CG-driven limits on the machmeter.
Subjects
C of G
Manuals
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 12, 2010, 11:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5929931
Hi,
I would first like to thank everyone in this thread for making it so informative and a brilliant read.
If I may I would like to pose a question, the answer to which I can't seem to find in all the books and manuals I have read, this relates to the procedure that was adopted on those ocassions when FL600 was reached.
As far as I am aware Cruise/Climb was carried out with AT1, AP1, FD1 or AT2 AP2 or FD2 and with MAX CLIMB engaged, MAX CRUISE would automatically engage as required. Was 60,000 feet set in the Altitude Select window and was ALT ACQ primed?
If not, what stopped her from continuing to climb past FL600 if conditions were suitable, and, if ALT ACQ was primed and FL600 reached and she then held that altitude what was the procedure if speed started to decay due to external influences? Was a gentle descent initialised using the pitch datum adjust until the speed came back and then MAX CLIMB re-engaged?
Many thanks.
Steve.
I would first like to thank everyone in this thread for making it so informative and a brilliant read.
If I may I would like to pose a question, the answer to which I can't seem to find in all the books and manuals I have read, this relates to the procedure that was adopted on those ocassions when FL600 was reached.
As far as I am aware Cruise/Climb was carried out with AT1, AP1, FD1 or AT2 AP2 or FD2 and with MAX CLIMB engaged, MAX CRUISE would automatically engage as required. Was 60,000 feet set in the Altitude Select window and was ALT ACQ primed?
If not, what stopped her from continuing to climb past FL600 if conditions were suitable, and, if ALT ACQ was primed and FL600 reached and she then held that altitude what was the procedure if speed started to decay due to external influences? Was a gentle descent initialised using the pitch datum adjust until the speed came back and then MAX CLIMB re-engaged?
Many thanks.
Steve.
Subjects
FL600
Manuals
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 12, 2010, 16:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5930300
First of all, THANKS to all you from Concorde family for this fantastic topic. Started reading last night and almost slept in front of computer trying to read everything!
As a Concorde fan for 10 years (since I bought FS2000), and passionate developer of SSTSIM Concorde and FSLabs ConcordeX (flight dynamics, weight and balance), it's simply awesome to have you guys and gal here sharing your memories.
Regarding the CG corridor, here's a fantastic graphic from online Concordepedia, aka ConcordeSST.com, Technical/Fuel System section:
Interestingly, it doesn't show a warning for CG>59.1% above M1.6, opposite to what M2Dude said earlier on the topic.
I got curious on the Max Climb/Cruise and ALT ACQ not being primed. How the levelling at FL600 was done? Manually?
Regarding the fuel tanks, specially tanks 6 and 8: did these tanks' lateral center of gravity change with quantity? Due to their completely assymetrical shape, I'd expect some change in it.
Operationial question: did BA use the 380kts descent profile? Have heard that only AFR used it, but Haynes' book says that BA started using it too.
There are many doubts regarding procedures as manuals and informations available on the internet are mostly from BA 1976 entry-into-service era. But i understand many things changed along the years, as I can see on a Aug 2000 manual I've got, with percentages showing differences from the 76 era, or even completely new tables.
Well, that's it, hope to be able to contribute on the topic, but mainly learn from you that flew the real thing.
As a Concorde fan for 10 years (since I bought FS2000), and passionate developer of SSTSIM Concorde and FSLabs ConcordeX (flight dynamics, weight and balance), it's simply awesome to have you guys and gal here sharing your memories.
Regarding the CG corridor, here's a fantastic graphic from online Concordepedia, aka ConcordeSST.com, Technical/Fuel System section:
Interestingly, it doesn't show a warning for CG>59.1% above M1.6, opposite to what M2Dude said earlier on the topic.
I got curious on the Max Climb/Cruise and ALT ACQ not being primed. How the levelling at FL600 was done? Manually?
Regarding the fuel tanks, specially tanks 6 and 8: did these tanks' lateral center of gravity change with quantity? Due to their completely assymetrical shape, I'd expect some change in it.
Operationial question: did BA use the 380kts descent profile? Have heard that only AFR used it, but Haynes' book says that BA started using it too.
There are many doubts regarding procedures as manuals and informations available on the internet are mostly from BA 1976 entry-into-service era. But i understand many things changed along the years, as I can see on a Aug 2000 manual I've got, with percentages showing differences from the 76 era, or even completely new tables.
Well, that's it, hope to be able to contribute on the topic, but mainly learn from you that flew the real thing.
Subjects
British Airways
C of G
FL600
Haynes guide to Concorde
Manuals
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 24, 2010, 00:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5952905
Circuits: for bjornhall
You're about right with the downwind speed - 250kts was standard.
Speed would be reduced to 190kts at the end of the leg, and then back to final speed on final approach.
Final speed would be one of the following:
Vref (not that often used, and not the nicest speed)
Vref+5 (one engine out)
Vref+7 (at the end of a fuel-saving ILS approach. Nicer to land off than Vref and the most common speed)
Vref+10 (as above in winds above 25kts?? Minimal flare off this one)
Round about the 155-165kt mark in normal ops.
Health warning - all the above from memory, NW1 will correct me if I'm wrong. (My manuals are stashed in the loft).
The pattern was flown at 250kts and 1500ft. The trouble is, you lift off at 210ish kts, not climbing that fast as you're way down the drag curve. Over the next thousand feet you steadily accelerate, and at the same time the RoC goes waaaay up as the drag reduces. This is fine - so long as you spot it and deal with it pronto.
It was quite easy to find oneself at 1000' flying at, say, 260kts. So you raise the nose a bit, to find you're still just creeping above 260kts passing 1300' (drag still reducing)....... and climbing at 5000fpm. And accelerating.
I'm told the record was 300kts and 3000' and I believe it!
Luckily we arrived on the scene armed with this story. I have to say the first thing I did passing 800' was roll on 30 degs of bank which calmed things down nicely.
Awesome fun.
Speed would be reduced to 190kts at the end of the leg, and then back to final speed on final approach.
Final speed would be one of the following:
Vref (not that often used, and not the nicest speed)
Vref+5 (one engine out)
Vref+7 (at the end of a fuel-saving ILS approach. Nicer to land off than Vref and the most common speed)
Vref+10 (as above in winds above 25kts?? Minimal flare off this one)
Round about the 155-165kt mark in normal ops.
Health warning - all the above from memory, NW1 will correct me if I'm wrong. (My manuals are stashed in the loft).
The pattern was flown at 250kts and 1500ft. The trouble is, you lift off at 210ish kts, not climbing that fast as you're way down the drag curve. Over the next thousand feet you steadily accelerate, and at the same time the RoC goes waaaay up as the drag reduces. This is fine - so long as you spot it and deal with it pronto.
It was quite easy to find oneself at 1000' flying at, say, 260kts. So you raise the nose a bit, to find you're still just creeping above 260kts passing 1300' (drag still reducing)....... and climbing at 5000fpm. And accelerating.
I'm told the record was 300kts and 3000' and I believe it!
Luckily we arrived on the scene armed with this story. I have to say the first thing I did passing 800' was roll on 30 degs of bank which calmed things down nicely.
Awesome fun.
Subjects
Manuals
Vref
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, 17:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6025611
What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too
Now I do not know what event happened to require the engine to be shut down, and if it was for fuel loss then yes the crew should have been moitoring the difference between fuel on board and fuel used figures and I am sure they were. However if they were also slowing and descending then the fuel system would be quite active and the difference between fuel on board and intergrated fuel left could vary very much during this phase of flight as the fuel cooled and you found that the gauges were still showing a few hundred Kgs each, even though the pump low pressure lights were on
It would not have been until they had settled down at Mach 0.95 with fuel transfer still that a proper appraisal could be made of the difference between the two fuel remaining indication and now the loss of fuel in the appropriate collector tank.
Not sure where they were when they started their subsonic diversion but believe me even with everything going for you there would not have been huge amounts of fuel left, by the time the aircraft got to Halifax
Perhaps if there is any blame it should lie with the people who wrote the checklist, by not putting an item in to cover such a case as this
It seems to me thet poor old Air France are blamed when
1] They deviate from the checklist as was suggested in the crash
OR
2] Stick to the checklist as in this case
Now you might say what about airmanship, well they did use it, perhaps a bit earlier would have been better, but easy to say without knowing all the facts.
Subjects
Air France 4590
Checklists
Engine Shutdown
Manuals
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, 04:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6026638
Fuel-saving landings
I can't give you much of the background but can remember the bare bones - here they are, without the benefit of manuals so subject to the usual caveats:
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......
Subjects
Braking
Manuals
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.
December 22, 2010, 17:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6137943
NW1
- amen..........
Clive L - the whole aeroflexing of the 'A' tanks thing was something mentioned during ground school on my conversion course; I may have misunderstood or it may have been less than accurate info.
Mr Vortex - the superstab was always available, though clearly it wasn't a regime one could get into during many phases of flight. As for the 'stalling' alpha - it doesn't have any meaning on a delta. By normal standards Concorde lifted off and landed in what would be called a 'stalled' condition on a conventional aircraft; in Concorde this was 'vortex lift' and was the secret to having an 1100kt speed range on one wing section. (We've talked about this much earlier in the thread).
The limiting factors for max alpha are pitch-down control and drag. IIRC the ability to stop pitching up ended at about 21-22degs alpha (CliveL will know exact numbers I guess!).
Stick shake went off at 16.5degs and stick 'nudger' (badly named - nearly tore my arms out when we tried it on the conversion course) at 19.5 degs, although this could go off sooner under phase advance if the rate of increase was high. (NB - all the above from memory; flt crew with manuals or development men with proper knowledge feel free to correct)
Lastly - the thrust recuperator was explained by M2dude much earlier in the thread, I'll have a look for it. Short answer - clever gizmo on the port(?) fwd outflow valve to recover thrust from outflow air.
Clive L - the whole aeroflexing of the 'A' tanks thing was something mentioned during ground school on my conversion course; I may have misunderstood or it may have been less than accurate info.
Mr Vortex - the superstab was always available, though clearly it wasn't a regime one could get into during many phases of flight. As for the 'stalling' alpha - it doesn't have any meaning on a delta. By normal standards Concorde lifted off and landed in what would be called a 'stalled' condition on a conventional aircraft; in Concorde this was 'vortex lift' and was the secret to having an 1100kt speed range on one wing section. (We've talked about this much earlier in the thread).
The limiting factors for max alpha are pitch-down control and drag. IIRC the ability to stop pitching up ended at about 21-22degs alpha (CliveL will know exact numbers I guess!).
Stick shake went off at 16.5degs and stick 'nudger' (badly named - nearly tore my arms out when we tried it on the conversion course) at 19.5 degs, although this could go off sooner under phase advance if the rate of increase was high. (NB - all the above from memory; flt crew with manuals or development men with proper knowledge feel free to correct)
Lastly - the thrust recuperator was explained by M2dude much earlier in the thread, I'll have a look for it. Short answer - clever gizmo on the port(?) fwd outflow valve to recover thrust from outflow air.
Subjects
Conversion Course
Manuals
Thrust Recuperator
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.
February 25, 2016, 13:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9281561
Tiny Items
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.
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.
Subjects
Airbus
Boeing
Landing Gear
Manuals
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.
March 22, 2016, 00:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9318245
Hello all, great thread!
I was just reading a few of my Concorde things and I have seen mention of several other manuals used by the crews other than the flying manual, like the performance manual, cruise control manual and navigation manual.
I believe (perhaps wrongly!) that the performance manual contained the take-off data for weight, V speeds, noise time, TLA etc and I'm guessing the cruise manual had all the tables for cruise performances. Am I correct in my guess work?
What kind of info was in the navigation manual as I think airfield charts were separate?
Any info would be great!
I was just reading a few of my Concorde things and I have seen mention of several other manuals used by the crews other than the flying manual, like the performance manual, cruise control manual and navigation manual.
I believe (perhaps wrongly!) that the performance manual contained the take-off data for weight, V speeds, noise time, TLA etc and I'm guessing the cruise manual had all the tables for cruise performances. Am I correct in my guess work?
What kind of info was in the navigation manual as I think airfield charts were separate?
Any info would be great!
Subjects
Manuals
TLA (Throttle Lever Angle)
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.
March 20, 2023, 07:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11405233
https://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photo/Brit...de-102/7172541
Not much to add, apart from picture taken from a unique angle.
Was a link to the FCOM / AFM ever published in this thread? I bet it\x92d make some interesting reading.
Thanks to those in the know, who\x92ve contributed to perhaps the most interesting thread on this forum.
Not much to add, apart from picture taken from a unique angle.
Was a link to the FCOM / AFM ever published in this thread? I bet it\x92d make some interesting reading.
Thanks to those in the know, who\x92ve contributed to perhaps the most interesting thread on this forum.
Subjects
Manuals
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.
March 21, 2023, 06:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11405789
CA
, manuals can be found here, you may have to sign up to access, no fees involved though. There's enough info there to build one.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...srm-ipc.58385/
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...srm-ipc.58385/
Subjects
Manuals
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.
March 21, 2023, 14:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11406004
CA
, manuals can be found here, you may have to sign up to access, no fees involved though. There's enough info there to build one.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...srm-ipc.58385/
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...srm-ipc.58385/
Awesome resource. Thanks a bunch!
Subjects
Manuals
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.