February 08, 2011, 04:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6230853
Happy Days
I worked on the project for eighteen months in production design control at Brooklands. We were to facilitate certification by the CAA and BEA (Fr).
We built the enlarged tail cone tank and the "droop Snoop" and fwd. fuselage.
I recall that one of the biggest design problems was the toilet up the front.
There simply wasn't the space.
Sir George Edwards fired most of us prior to to the first revenue flight of G-BOAC out of Heathrow.
I got a job at BP in Meadhurst and enjoyed listening and watching this beautiful aircraft get airbourne for New York from the roof of the research establishment that day.
I only played a small part but by God it was fun.
I am looking at my office wall in Fremantle, Western Australia at a photograph of G-BOAC after getting airbourne on its maiden flight. It is signed by my work golleges at Brooklands.
Somewhere in a trunk I have a copy (blueprint) of prototype 01 notated in both English and French. (I cannot recall how I came by it).
This is the best thread I have read ever. What a machine !!
The spin parachute and emergency escape hatch are interesting
We built the enlarged tail cone tank and the "droop Snoop" and fwd. fuselage.
I recall that one of the biggest design problems was the toilet up the front.
There simply wasn't the space.
Sir George Edwards fired most of us prior to to the first revenue flight of G-BOAC out of Heathrow.
I got a job at BP in Meadhurst and enjoyed listening and watching this beautiful aircraft get airbourne for New York from the roof of the research establishment that day.
I only played a small part but by God it was fun.
I am looking at my office wall in Fremantle, Western Australia at a photograph of G-BOAC after getting airbourne on its maiden flight. It is signed by my work golleges at Brooklands.
Somewhere in a trunk I have a copy (blueprint) of prototype 01 notated in both English and French. (I cannot recall how I came by it).
This is the best thread I have read ever. What a machine !!
The spin parachute and emergency escape hatch are interesting
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 09, 2011, 01:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6232786
More About Happy Days.
Great to hear from folk involved with this beautiful work of art (and engineering).
I tried to find that blueprint of the general arrangement of 01 but that trunk in my Garage has a lot of stuff in it.
My memory is not what it used to be and brake parachute indeed makes sense. Spinning one of these aircraft would not have been an option.
I did manage to get on board G-BOAC in the hangar at Filton and was permited to walk out onto the port wing wearing felt overshoes. When I saw that leading edge at close quarters I was stunned. Never got to fly the aircraft but once saw one over the Bristol Channel when I was in a Folland Gnat. He was climbing when I decided to take a closer look. Needless to say this was an exercise in futility. Not a hope in hell of catching him but still a wonderful sight.
Cheers.
I tried to find that blueprint of the general arrangement of 01 but that trunk in my Garage has a lot of stuff in it.
My memory is not what it used to be and brake parachute indeed makes sense. Spinning one of these aircraft would not have been an option.
I did manage to get on board G-BOAC in the hangar at Filton and was permited to walk out onto the port wing wearing felt overshoes. When I saw that leading edge at close quarters I was stunned. Never got to fly the aircraft but once saw one over the Bristol Channel when I was in a Folland Gnat. He was climbing when I decided to take a closer look. Needless to say this was an exercise in futility. Not a hope in hell of catching him but still a wonderful sight.
Cheers.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 08, 2015, 23:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8937379
Great information Exwk.
Didn't the early prototypes have a braking parachute ?
Didn't the early prototypes have a braking parachute ?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 09, 2015, 14:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8937925
May I assist........
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 10, 2015, 06:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8938599
How was the procedure for re-packing that parachute?
Has it been done to the same strict requirements which apply to pilots/ejection seat paracutes, meaning only specifically trained and licenced personnel could do it?
For how many landings was that parachute good? Was there a life limit or has it been an on-condition item?
Was the Concorde design somehow based on the Caravelle parachute, or a specific new design?
Has it been done to the same strict requirements which apply to pilots/ejection seat paracutes, meaning only specifically trained and licenced personnel could do it?
For how many landings was that parachute good? Was there a life limit or has it been an on-condition item?
Was the Concorde design somehow based on the Caravelle parachute, or a specific new design?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 12, 2015, 15:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8941186
@ Volume
Sorry for slight delay; I hadn't a clue and had to ask an old friend who was directly involved in Flight Test. This is his verbatim reply:
I remember the Concorde braking parachute quite well and as I recall the parachute door indicated open during the first flight of 002 although the chute functioned normally on landing.
As I recall the parachute was used quite a bit in the early days even during the 1972 overseas “Sales Tour”. Remember the prototypes were operating well above their max landing weight because of the amount of test equipment on board.
The parachutes were repacked by our own Safety Equipment people who were fully qualified on all the safety Equipment we used on Concorde and on the Canberra.
I don’t recall ever having life problems with the parachutes. I imagine the total number number of deployments would not be that high. I think it would have been an on-condition item.
I can’t see that the Concorde parachute would bear any relation to the Caravelle system. Concorde was a much heavier aircraft with higher landing speeds. I feel sure that Concorde had a specific new design.
Having been on board several times when the chute was used I think the crew liked the initial deceleration which the chute provided . Although I do recall landing at Bombay in very bad weather when the parachute was deployed and immediately jettisoned since it was pulling the aircraft off line.
I think that is about as much as one could hope for after all this time
Sorry for slight delay; I hadn't a clue and had to ask an old friend who was directly involved in Flight Test. This is his verbatim reply:
I remember the Concorde braking parachute quite well and as I recall the parachute door indicated open during the first flight of 002 although the chute functioned normally on landing.
As I recall the parachute was used quite a bit in the early days even during the 1972 overseas “Sales Tour”. Remember the prototypes were operating well above their max landing weight because of the amount of test equipment on board.
The parachutes were repacked by our own Safety Equipment people who were fully qualified on all the safety Equipment we used on Concorde and on the Canberra.
I don’t recall ever having life problems with the parachutes. I imagine the total number number of deployments would not be that high. I think it would have been an on-condition item.
I can’t see that the Concorde parachute would bear any relation to the Caravelle system. Concorde was a much heavier aircraft with higher landing speeds. I feel sure that Concorde had a specific new design.
Having been on board several times when the chute was used I think the crew liked the initial deceleration which the chute provided . Although I do recall landing at Bombay in very bad weather when the parachute was deployed and immediately jettisoned since it was pulling the aircraft off line.
I think that is about as much as one could hope for after all this time
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 22, 2024, 11:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11660607
This may be a dumb question (!) but why have the parachute at the back slowing the aircraft down. I mean I know why, but "why"? Is it something to do with test flights and not knowing how well the brakes may perform, or does it somehow contribute to other testing data received.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 23, 2024, 03:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11661070
luoto
, don't know specifically re Concorde but aircraft under test often have a parachute in case testing in the low speed regime turns to worms, given the nature of delta platforms in low speed flight my guess is the chute was to give the aircraft a nose down moment, a delta wing doesn't stall in the traditional sense.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awrj...MKpFtn_fcB77o-
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awrj...MKpFtn_fcB77o-
1 user liked this post.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
June 22, 2024, 11:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11681790
No detail on tail cone internal structure (for parachute housing) on these 1967 Frank Munger tech diagrams for 'production' version of Concorde, perhaps not surprising. The diagrams also show the mechanical back-up flight control systems. The tail bumper is shown without wheels. Was this the config for the prototypes?
Concorde tech diagrams
Concorde tech diagrams
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.