August 20, 2010, 11:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5881873
Biggles78
I know these fuel flows seem crazy (If take-off fuel flows had been maintained the endurance of the aircraft would have been about 55 minutes!!). But as the majority of the flight was carried out at Mach 2 and above, with the relatively miniscule fuel flows, you can see how we were able to cross the Atlantic with relative ease. It was the subsonic bit that was the pain.
The powerplant was as you say truly amazing. We had an, as yet, unmatched engine/intake combination, with a variable primary and secondary nozzles. The variable intake allowed supersonic operation with maximum pressure recovery, minimum aerodynamic drag, as well as extreme operational stability. (Extreme temperature shears, that would have caused surge/unstarts in military installations) were dealt with as a total non event). It's astonishing to believe, but at Mach 2 cruise, the intake provided approximately 63% of the powerplant thrust. It was controlled by the world's first airborne digital control system. (The system computers were built by the Guided Weapons Division of what was then BAC). The combination of the variable intake, plus the LP and HP compressors gave an overall compression ratio of 80:1.
The engine itself, being supplied with air at an ideal pressure, could run at an almost conststant TET, thanks to the variable primary nozzle. This also allowed N1 and N2 (corrected for total temperature) to be controlled more or less independently and run as close as possible to their separate surge lines throughout the entire flight envelope.
The variable secondary nozzle (wide open above Mach 1.1) allowed the jet efflux to gently expand against a cushion of air that was passed over the rear ramp of the intake, through the engine bay and into the annulus of the nozzle itself. This prevented thrust being wasted by the jet efflux widely splaying as it met ambient air that was at a pressure of as little as 1.04 PSIA.
It was this integrated powerplant that made true supersonic cruise possible
The airframe life issue was sort of like 'how long is a piece of string?'. The airframes are lifed in supersonic cycles, (which had been extended before, with modifications) and studies were always underway as far as further life extensions were concerned. (Basically the airframe was as tough as a brick outhouse in structural terms). The only real area of concern was the crown area (the roof
). There was a design flaw here in that the structure had not been designed fail-safe (allegedly by designed a Korean designer at A\xe9rospatiale who, it was said, went a bit loopy). When the FAA evaluated the design (in order for the aircraft to be registered in the USA, for Braniff operations out of IAD) they wanted 'crown planking' to be fitted externally, which would have added over a tonne to the weight of the aircraft, as well as producing some not inconsiderable drag. Fortunately a compromise was reached and additional NDT inspections were carried out, as well as more limited structural modifications. There was a long term, cost effective solution being studied, which would have cured the problem altogether. (The changes would have been mandated, over new requirements for ageing aircraft)
Nick Thomas
Nick, the whole expansion issue was one of the biggest issues that had to be addressed. Wiring looms would 'snake' in some underfllor areas to take up expansion, but the biggest difficulty of all were the mulitudes of hydraulic lines. These required sliding expansion joints, with of course seals to prevent leakage. When a seal deteriorated YPU GOT A LEAK!! (Fluid at 4000 PSI tends torun for freedom very quickly
). As far as fittings go, ChristiaanJ is quite right, you tried to anchor at one end only. I seem to remember that the passenger seat rails travelled over a roller afair. Fuel lines wer less of a problem, because their relative lengths were less.
I also agree wholeheartedly with ChristiaansJ's explanation about the 'friction' thing, I never really liked those stories. As a matter of interest, 127 deg's, for Mach 2, that would be at ISA +5 (-51.5 deg's C). Any warmer than that and we could not achieve Mach 2, due to the Tmo limit of 127. I remember one year, for several weeks we had unusually high north Atlantic temperatures; these impacted both the flight time AND the fuel burn. The further away you were from Mach 2, the higher the fuel consumption. (The faster you flew, the less fuel you burnt. How's that for a paradox?).
At ISA (-56.5 deg's C) temperatures, the total temperature was at around 118 deg's C.
ChristiaanJ
I remember the 17.5 degree position on the nose; it always looked as if the aircraft was trying to eat ants to me
. I can not recall personally anyone removing the 12.5 deg' stops for access, although this could of course have been done on your side of the 'puddle' I guess.
As far as the APU ducting issue goes (hee, hee, not often we disagree Christiaan
) we are just going to have to agree to disagee about this, although I accept that two 4" diameter pipes (PLUS THERMAL INSULATION) might have done it, BUT I still stand by the other points.
Stlton
Unfortunately not; the keel beam area was extremely thin and there was not anywhere near enough room. Interesting solution on the 727 though, I never knew that one.
Mate, if you could have seen my jaw drop when I read the T/O burn you would probably hurt yourself laughing to much. That is just incredible but the cruise flow seems like stuff all especially considering the speed. The idle flow was also a bit of a jaw dropper.
Was surprised, yet again, that Mach 2 was achieved without reheat. They really were/are an amazing powerplant.
The engine itself, being supplied with air at an ideal pressure, could run at an almost conststant TET, thanks to the variable primary nozzle. This also allowed N1 and N2 (corrected for total temperature) to be controlled more or less independently and run as close as possible to their separate surge lines throughout the entire flight envelope.
The variable secondary nozzle (wide open above Mach 1.1) allowed the jet efflux to gently expand against a cushion of air that was passed over the rear ramp of the intake, through the engine bay and into the annulus of the nozzle itself. This prevented thrust being wasted by the jet efflux widely splaying as it met ambient air that was at a pressure of as little as 1.04 PSIA.
It was this integrated powerplant that made true supersonic cruise possible
On my list of regrets, not getting a flight on Concorde would be in the top 5. If they hadn't grounded them what sort of life did the airframes have left in them?
). There was a design flaw here in that the structure had not been designed fail-safe (allegedly by designed a Korean designer at A\xe9rospatiale who, it was said, went a bit loopy). When the FAA evaluated the design (in order for the aircraft to be registered in the USA, for Braniff operations out of IAD) they wanted 'crown planking' to be fitted externally, which would have added over a tonne to the weight of the aircraft, as well as producing some not inconsiderable drag. Fortunately a compromise was reached and additional NDT inspections were carried out, as well as more limited structural modifications. There was a long term, cost effective solution being studied, which would have cured the problem altogether. (The changes would have been mandated, over new requirements for ageing aircraft)
Nick Thomas
Nick, the whole expansion issue was one of the biggest issues that had to be addressed. Wiring looms would 'snake' in some underfllor areas to take up expansion, but the biggest difficulty of all were the mulitudes of hydraulic lines. These required sliding expansion joints, with of course seals to prevent leakage. When a seal deteriorated YPU GOT A LEAK!! (Fluid at 4000 PSI tends torun for freedom very quickly
). As far as fittings go, ChristiaanJ is quite right, you tried to anchor at one end only. I seem to remember that the passenger seat rails travelled over a roller afair. Fuel lines wer less of a problem, because their relative lengths were less.
I also agree wholeheartedly with ChristiaansJ's explanation about the 'friction' thing, I never really liked those stories. As a matter of interest, 127 deg's, for Mach 2, that would be at ISA +5 (-51.5 deg's C). Any warmer than that and we could not achieve Mach 2, due to the Tmo limit of 127. I remember one year, for several weeks we had unusually high north Atlantic temperatures; these impacted both the flight time AND the fuel burn. The further away you were from Mach 2, the higher the fuel consumption. (The faster you flew, the less fuel you burnt. How's that for a paradox?).
At ISA (-56.5 deg's C) temperatures, the total temperature was at around 118 deg's C.
ChristiaanJ
I remember the 17.5 degree position on the nose; it always looked as if the aircraft was trying to eat ants to me
. I can not recall personally anyone removing the 12.5 deg' stops for access, although this could of course have been done on your side of the 'puddle' I guess.
As far as the APU ducting issue goes (hee, hee, not often we disagree Christiaan
) we are just going to have to agree to disagee about this, although I accept that two 4" diameter pipes (PLUS THERMAL INSULATION) might have done it, BUT I still stand by the other points.
Stlton
Not to beat a dead horse, but, on the choice of location for APU, the 727 had a problem with this but for different reasons. Because of the location of the engines that were all mounted at the rear, the Aircraft was quite tail heavy and adding more weight with an APU in the tail section was not desirable.The solution found that I have not seen in any other Aircraft was to mount it in the wheel well transversely across the keel beam with the exhaust out and over the right wing. Quite unusual but it worked fine with the restriction that it could only be operated on the ground.
Its all academic now but, just out of curiosity could this have worked on the Concorde
Its all academic now but, just out of curiosity could this have worked on the Concorde
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
September 03, 2010, 07:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5910383
Nick Thomas
This of course is one for one of my pilot friends to answer properly again, but as galaxy flyer says, it's an 'eye to wheel' issue here when compared to other aircraft.
galaxy flyer
Again best answered by learned gentlemen such as my friends EXWOK or Bellerophon, but to the best of my feeble knowledge a resounding NO, at least as far as CRUISE flying was concerned. As the majority of the flight was carried out between FL500 and FL600 there was really no weather as such to avoid during supercruise. (As has been previously posted, at Mach 2 you would invariably be above FL500). Only at extremely low latitudes where the tropopause could theoretically extend up to around 70,000' was there ever any chance of seeing any cloud anywhere near your cruise altitudes. The only turbulence as such you would ever encounter was as the result of a temperature shear, but these never felt to be too much in the way of 'bumps' to me. And again, only at very low latitudes did you encounter severe shears anyway; anything encountered on the North Atlantic was generally very mild and civilised.
A CONCORDE PARADOX
The tropopause issue here is an interesting one, in that the coldest stratospheric temperatures we ever encountered were close to the equator, whereas the WARMEST temperatures possible are over the POLES
, where the tropopause can be as low as 22,000'. This is just one of the many paradoxes involving Concorde, and the reason why the aircraft would never be routed over the poles, BECAUSE THE DARNED TEMPERATURES ARE TOO HIGH, in terms of the stratosphere. The result here would be that the aircraft is temperature (Tmo) limited all the time to 127 deg's C. (I previously mentioned in another post in this thread that only 5 deg's C above ISA, -51.5 deg's C, would mean Tmo being reached at Mach 2; any warmer and we HAD to slow down) The relatively high polar temperatures mean that we are unable to fly anywhere near Mach 2. Another paradox would then come into play, the slower your cruise speed, the HIGHER your fuel burn. It was originally proposed in the early 1970's that Concorde would fly from London to Tokyo, and the routing for that needed two things: It could not be polar, and possibly just as important , you required a refuel stop. The Soviet Union amazingly proposed granting a supersonic corridor over Siberia, refuelling at the Siberian city of Novosibirsk. This was hardly an ideal routing (definitely far from a great circle) but was arguably one of the very few that was possible at all. This by the way was not some early iteration of glasnost, but the Soviets fully expected that flying thoroughbred, the TU-144 (bad dude
) to be a success, and could compete side by side with Concorde.
ANOTHER CONCORDE PARADOX
If anyone wonders why when you flew faster you burned less fuel, it was primarily down to drag, actually a thing frighteningly termed as 'pre-entry spill drag'. As most people (???) are aware, the Concorde engine inlet utilised a series of carefully controlled and focused shockwaves to slow the air down entering the engine; in 14 feet of engine intake you lost in the order of 1,000 mph of airspeed! Now most of these different shocks varied with a combination of intake variable surface angle, intake local Mach number and also engine mass flow demand. However the oblique shock coming off the top lip of the intake produced a shock that varied with Mach alone, and would project downwards, just forward of the intake bottom lip. Due to the air downstream of this fairly weak shock still being supersonic, a measured amount of this air spills downwards, away from the intake. If you can possibly picture it, we have this wall of air spilling downwards over the lower lip of all four intakes, the combined effect of this supersonic forespill is a fair amount of drag. The faster we go, the more accute the angle of the shock and therefore the less air is spilled, and in consequence the lower the spill drag. Remembering that cool temperatures could produce a higher Mach number, temperature really could either be our friend or enemy, but cool was COOL
I hope this explanation does not sound like too much gibberish, but it really was a fact that 'More Mach = Less Fuel'. Hope it makes some sense.
Dude
This of course is one for one of my pilot friends to answer properly again, but as galaxy flyer says, it's an 'eye to wheel' issue here when compared to other aircraft.
galaxy flyer
Again best answered by learned gentlemen such as my friends EXWOK or Bellerophon, but to the best of my feeble knowledge a resounding NO, at least as far as CRUISE flying was concerned. As the majority of the flight was carried out between FL500 and FL600 there was really no weather as such to avoid during supercruise. (As has been previously posted, at Mach 2 you would invariably be above FL500). Only at extremely low latitudes where the tropopause could theoretically extend up to around 70,000' was there ever any chance of seeing any cloud anywhere near your cruise altitudes. The only turbulence as such you would ever encounter was as the result of a temperature shear, but these never felt to be too much in the way of 'bumps' to me. And again, only at very low latitudes did you encounter severe shears anyway; anything encountered on the North Atlantic was generally very mild and civilised.
A CONCORDE PARADOX
The tropopause issue here is an interesting one, in that the coldest stratospheric temperatures we ever encountered were close to the equator, whereas the WARMEST temperatures possible are over the POLES
, where the tropopause can be as low as 22,000'. This is just one of the many paradoxes involving Concorde, and the reason why the aircraft would never be routed over the poles, BECAUSE THE DARNED TEMPERATURES ARE TOO HIGH, in terms of the stratosphere. The result here would be that the aircraft is temperature (Tmo) limited all the time to 127 deg's C. (I previously mentioned in another post in this thread that only 5 deg's C above ISA, -51.5 deg's C, would mean Tmo being reached at Mach 2; any warmer and we HAD to slow down) The relatively high polar temperatures mean that we are unable to fly anywhere near Mach 2. Another paradox would then come into play, the slower your cruise speed, the HIGHER your fuel burn. It was originally proposed in the early 1970's that Concorde would fly from London to Tokyo, and the routing for that needed two things: It could not be polar, and possibly just as important , you required a refuel stop. The Soviet Union amazingly proposed granting a supersonic corridor over Siberia, refuelling at the Siberian city of Novosibirsk. This was hardly an ideal routing (definitely far from a great circle) but was arguably one of the very few that was possible at all. This by the way was not some early iteration of glasnost, but the Soviets fully expected that flying thoroughbred, the TU-144 (bad dude
) to be a success, and could compete side by side with Concorde.
ANOTHER CONCORDE PARADOX
If anyone wonders why when you flew faster you burned less fuel, it was primarily down to drag, actually a thing frighteningly termed as 'pre-entry spill drag'. As most people (???) are aware, the Concorde engine inlet utilised a series of carefully controlled and focused shockwaves to slow the air down entering the engine; in 14 feet of engine intake you lost in the order of 1,000 mph of airspeed! Now most of these different shocks varied with a combination of intake variable surface angle, intake local Mach number and also engine mass flow demand. However the oblique shock coming off the top lip of the intake produced a shock that varied with Mach alone, and would project downwards, just forward of the intake bottom lip. Due to the air downstream of this fairly weak shock still being supersonic, a measured amount of this air spills downwards, away from the intake. If you can possibly picture it, we have this wall of air spilling downwards over the lower lip of all four intakes, the combined effect of this supersonic forespill is a fair amount of drag. The faster we go, the more accute the angle of the shock and therefore the less air is spilled, and in consequence the lower the spill drag. Remembering that cool temperatures could produce a higher Mach number, temperature really could either be our friend or enemy, but cool was COOL
I hope this explanation does not sound like too much gibberish, but it really was a fact that 'More Mach = Less Fuel'. Hope it makes some sense.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 3rd September 2010 at 10:08 . Reason: clearing up some gibberish
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
December 26, 2010, 14:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6143964
For convenience, I repeat Bellerophon's diagram of the flight envelope here.
Mike's earlier question had me scratching my head too, hence my question.
What are the fundamental reasons for each of the limitations, and what were the consequences of going outside them?
Going clockwise from the left, we have :
VLA (lowest admissible speed)
One would expect a curve for constant alpha max against IAS and altitude, not the staircase in the diagram.
Was this for simplicity of use of the diagram?
Max altitude (60,000ft)
This is the 'simplest' one: it was the highest 'safe' altitude from which an emergency descent could be made, in the case of a window blowing out, without having the blood of the pax boil....
Test flights (without pax, and with the crew pressure-breathing oxygen) did go as high as 69,000ft.
Mmo (max operating Mach number)
Mach 2.04 is usually quoted as having been chosen to assure an adequate life of the airframe.
But what effect does a higher Mach number as such have?
Or are Mmo and Tmo (127\xb0C) directly related?
Vmo (max operating speed) = 530kts until 43,000ft
I suppose this is related to structural limits (qmax)?
Vmo reducing to 380/400kts at about 33,000ft
What is the limiting factor here (other than qmax)?
Vmo constant at 380/400kts down to 5,000ft
What is the limiting factor here? The answer will no doubt also explain why this is slightly weight-dependent.
Vmo reducing to 300kts between 5,000ft and 0 ft
Why the sudden change below 5,000ft?
CJ
Mike's earlier question had me scratching my head too, hence my question.
What are the fundamental reasons for each of the limitations, and what were the consequences of going outside them?
Going clockwise from the left, we have :
VLA (lowest admissible speed)
One would expect a curve for constant alpha max against IAS and altitude, not the staircase in the diagram.
Was this for simplicity of use of the diagram?
Max altitude (60,000ft)
This is the 'simplest' one: it was the highest 'safe' altitude from which an emergency descent could be made, in the case of a window blowing out, without having the blood of the pax boil....
Test flights (without pax, and with the crew pressure-breathing oxygen) did go as high as 69,000ft.
Mmo (max operating Mach number)
Mach 2.04 is usually quoted as having been chosen to assure an adequate life of the airframe.
But what effect does a higher Mach number as such have?
Or are Mmo and Tmo (127\xb0C) directly related?
Vmo (max operating speed) = 530kts until 43,000ft
I suppose this is related to structural limits (qmax)?
Vmo reducing to 380/400kts at about 33,000ft
What is the limiting factor here (other than qmax)?
Vmo constant at 380/400kts down to 5,000ft
What is the limiting factor here? The answer will no doubt also explain why this is slightly weight-dependent.
Vmo reducing to 300kts between 5,000ft and 0 ft
Why the sudden change below 5,000ft?
CJ
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
December 26, 2010, 17:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6144161
[quote=ChristiaanJ]
VLA (lowest admissible speed)
One would expect a curve for constant alpha max against IAS and altitude, not the staircase in the diagram.
Was this for simplicity of use of the diagram?[quote]
I don't have a complete explanation for all the regions - it was a long time ago and I'll need to dig, but:
Below 16000 ft Vla obviously needs to go as low as Vref to cover landing at elevated airfield altitudes. At present I don't have a satisfactory explanation for 250 kts between 16000 ft and about 45000 ft (250kts/Mach 1.0) A constant value in IAS is what you would get for a constant CLmax (the alphamax is not really the driver). Vla should give a margin above stall, and a quick sum suggests that 250 kts would be consistent with a 1.3Vs condition and a CLmax of about 0.8 up to Mach 1.0, which is not unreasonable, but I am not saying that is the correct interpretation.
From 45000 ft to 60,000 ft I think Vla may be set by manoeuvre requirements. Certainly the forward CG envelope boundary between 1.0M and 1.5M discussed in earlier posts is very close to the requirement to be able to pull 1.2g with half hinge moment available at Vla and heavy weights. Again not certain, but best guess at the moment.
Yes
[quote ]Mmo (max operating Mach number)
Mach 2.04 is usually quoted as having been chosen to assure an adequate life of the airframe.
But what effect does a higher Mach number as such have?
Or are Mmo and Tmo (127\xb0C) directly related?[quote]
I have always been puzzled by this statement as one does not normally associate Mach Number with a life limit. Going through my collection of lectures I found another, more plausible explanation:
quote" The scheduled cruise mach Number was 2.0. associated with a structural total temperature of 400 degK. Above ISA +5 Mc was cut back to maintain 400 degK.
To cope with variations of flight mach Number about Mc associated with often rapid and significant changes in wind and temperature which occur particularly in the vicinity of the tropopause (which can of course be as high as 60,000 ft in the tropics) a maximum operating Mach Number (Mmo) of 2.04 is selected" unquote [Leynaert, Collard and Brown, AGARD Flight Mechanics Symposium October 1983]
This is much more in line with my memory on this subject.
Yes in principle, but it is a bit chicken and egg, since 530 kts also represents a very good choice for best performance, and I am sure that the stucture would have been built to cope if a higher speed was needed for performance reasons. To the best of my knowledge there is no structural design case that would be critical in this flight regime (other than flutter of course)
Same as earlier - transonic manoeuvre requirements with failed hydraulics, matched to aircraft weight and CG envelope possibilities.
Same again.
I'm not entirely sure, but:
a) there is absolutely no advantage is having a high Vmo at low altitudes as it could not be exploited even if one wanted to because of ATC limitations to 250 kts below 10,000 ft (in the USA at least)
b) there are a lot of things that get rapidly worse if you encounter them at high speed and which are anyway more likely at low altitude - hail, birds etc.
So why store up trouble for yourself!
CliveL
One would expect a curve for constant alpha max against IAS and altitude, not the staircase in the diagram.
Was this for simplicity of use of the diagram?[quote]
I don't have a complete explanation for all the regions - it was a long time ago and I'll need to dig, but:
Below 16000 ft Vla obviously needs to go as low as Vref to cover landing at elevated airfield altitudes. At present I don't have a satisfactory explanation for 250 kts between 16000 ft and about 45000 ft (250kts/Mach 1.0) A constant value in IAS is what you would get for a constant CLmax (the alphamax is not really the driver). Vla should give a margin above stall, and a quick sum suggests that 250 kts would be consistent with a 1.3Vs condition and a CLmax of about 0.8 up to Mach 1.0, which is not unreasonable, but I am not saying that is the correct interpretation.
From 45000 ft to 60,000 ft I think Vla may be set by manoeuvre requirements. Certainly the forward CG envelope boundary between 1.0M and 1.5M discussed in earlier posts is very close to the requirement to be able to pull 1.2g with half hinge moment available at Vla and heavy weights. Again not certain, but best guess at the moment.
Max altitude (60,000ft)
This is the 'simplest' one: it was the highest 'safe' altitude from which an emergency descent could be made, in the case of a window blowing out, without having the blood of the pax boil....
Test flights (without pax, and with the crew pressure-breathing oxygen) did go as high as 69,000ft.
This is the 'simplest' one: it was the highest 'safe' altitude from which an emergency descent could be made, in the case of a window blowing out, without having the blood of the pax boil....
Test flights (without pax, and with the crew pressure-breathing oxygen) did go as high as 69,000ft.
[quote ]Mmo (max operating Mach number)
Mach 2.04 is usually quoted as having been chosen to assure an adequate life of the airframe.
But what effect does a higher Mach number as such have?
Or are Mmo and Tmo (127\xb0C) directly related?[quote]
I have always been puzzled by this statement as one does not normally associate Mach Number with a life limit. Going through my collection of lectures I found another, more plausible explanation:
quote" The scheduled cruise mach Number was 2.0. associated with a structural total temperature of 400 degK. Above ISA +5 Mc was cut back to maintain 400 degK.
To cope with variations of flight mach Number about Mc associated with often rapid and significant changes in wind and temperature which occur particularly in the vicinity of the tropopause (which can of course be as high as 60,000 ft in the tropics) a maximum operating Mach Number (Mmo) of 2.04 is selected" unquote [Leynaert, Collard and Brown, AGARD Flight Mechanics Symposium October 1983]
This is much more in line with my memory on this subject.
Vmo (max operating speed) = 530kts until 43,000ft
I suppose this is related to structural limits (qmax)?
I suppose this is related to structural limits (qmax)?
Vmo reducing to 380/400kts at about 33,000ft
What is the limiting factor here (other than qmax)?
What is the limiting factor here (other than qmax)?
Vmo constant at 380/400kts down to 5,000ft
What is the limiting factor here? The answer will no doubt also explain why this is slightly weight-dependent.
What is the limiting factor here? The answer will no doubt also explain why this is slightly weight-dependent.
Vmo reducing to 300kts between 5,000ft and 0 ft
Why the sudden change below 5,000ft?
Why the sudden change below 5,000ft?
a) there is absolutely no advantage is having a high Vmo at low altitudes as it could not be exploited even if one wanted to because of ATC limitations to 250 kts below 10,000 ft (in the USA at least)
b) there are a lot of things that get rapidly worse if you encounter them at high speed and which are anyway more likely at low altitude - hail, birds etc.
So why store up trouble for yourself!
CliveL
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 13, 2011, 08:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6176684
atakacs
Really an answer for CliveL, but I'll have a go. The short answer to your question is 'oh yeah, big time'. Total temperature varies with the SQUARE of Mach number and static temperature. Depending on the height of the tropopause itself as well as other local factors, there can be little or no significant variation of static temperature between FL600 and FL700. The 400\xb0K (127\xb0C) Tmo limit was imposed for reasons of thermal fatigue life, and equates to Mach 2.0 at ISA +5. (Most of the time the lower than ISA +5 static air temperatures kept us well away from Tmo). In a nutshell, flying higher in the stratosphere gains you very little as far as temperature goes. (Even taking into account the very small positive lapse above FL 650 in a standard atmosphere). As far as the MAX SPEED bit goes, Concorde was as we know flown to a maximum of Mach 2.23 on A/C 101, but with the production intake and 'final' AICU N1 limiter law, the maximum achievable Mach number in level flight is about Mach 2.13. (Also theoretically, somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.3, the front few intake shocks would be 'pushed' back beyond the lower lip, the resulting flow distortion causing multiple severe and surges).
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630). This to me was an absolute TESTAMENT to the designers achievement with this totally astounding aeroplane , and always made me feel quite in awe of chaps such as CliveL.
Well the maximum altitude EVER achieved in testing was I believe by aircraft 102 which achieved 68,000'. As far as the second part of your question goes, not to my knowledge (gulp!!) but perhaps CliveL can confirm.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
So glad you are enjoying the thread, and absolutely loved the description of your flight in OAD and your photo is superb. I don't think it is possible to name a single other arcraft in the world that could be happily flown hands off like this, in a turn with 20\xb0 of bank at Mach 2. (One for you ChristiaanJ; The more observant will notice that we are in MAX CLIMB/MAX CRUISE with the autothrottle cutting in in MACH HOLD. Oh, we are in HDG HOLD too
).
Now for your question
A very good question. The anti-skid system used a fixed simulated nose wheel rolling speed Vo signal as soon as the undercarriage was down and locked, this was confirmed by the illumination of the 8 'R' lights on the anti-skid panel. The illumination of these lights confirmed that there was full ant-skid release from the relevant wheel, due to there being of course zero output initially from the main gear tachos but this simulated Vo output from the nose gear tacho. The Vo signal therefore ensured that the aircraft could not be landed 'brakes on' (all the main wheels think they are on full skid) and that there was anti-skid control pending lowering of the nose-wheel. As the main wheels spin up on landing, their tacho outputs now start to back off the Vo signal, and braking can commence. As the nose leg compresses, the Vo signal is removed and the Nose-wheel tachos(their were 2 wired in parallel) spin up, their output will now replace the Vo signal, and full precise anti skid operates.
As far as your air conditioning question goes, you needed an external air conditioning truck to supply cabin air on the ground. Not needed in the hangars of course, but come departure time if these trucks were not working, then the cabin could become very warm/hot place indeed (depending on the time of year). Oh for an APU
Best regards
Dude
Just wondering was that the maximum speed "in" the design ? I understand that "the higher & the colder = the faster" was the key to the performance and that the Mach +/- 2.0 cruise was implied by limiting altitude to FL 600 in order to mitigate cabin depressurization consequences. I guess there where also thermal issues but was, say, Mach 2.2 @ FL700 "warmer" than Mach 2.0 @ FL600 ?
Really an answer for CliveL, but I'll have a go. The short answer to your question is 'oh yeah, big time'. Total temperature varies with the SQUARE of Mach number and static temperature. Depending on the height of the tropopause itself as well as other local factors, there can be little or no significant variation of static temperature between FL600 and FL700. The 400\xb0K (127\xb0C) Tmo limit was imposed for reasons of thermal fatigue life, and equates to Mach 2.0 at ISA +5. (Most of the time the lower than ISA +5 static air temperatures kept us well away from Tmo). In a nutshell, flying higher in the stratosphere gains you very little as far as temperature goes. (Even taking into account the very small positive lapse above FL 650 in a standard atmosphere). As far as the MAX SPEED bit goes, Concorde was as we know flown to a maximum of Mach 2.23 on A/C 101, but with the production intake and 'final' AICU N1 limiter law, the maximum achievable Mach number in level flight is about Mach 2.13. (Also theoretically, somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.3, the front few intake shocks would be 'pushed' back beyond the lower lip, the resulting flow distortion causing multiple severe and surges).
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630). This to me was an absolute TESTAMENT to the designers achievement with this totally astounding aeroplane , and always made me feel quite in awe of chaps such as CliveL.
Also wondering what was the max altitude ? Was high altitude stall (for the lack of a better word) ever experimented during tests or training ?
Shaggy Sheep Driver
So glad you are enjoying the thread, and absolutely loved the description of your flight in OAD and your photo is superb. I don't think it is possible to name a single other arcraft in the world that could be happily flown hands off like this, in a turn with 20\xb0 of bank at Mach 2. (One for you ChristiaanJ; The more observant will notice that we are in MAX CLIMB/MAX CRUISE with the autothrottle cutting in in MACH HOLD. Oh, we are in HDG HOLD too
).
Now for your question
I understand that the anti-skid used a rotational reference from the unbraked nosewheels to compare to the rotation of the mains, and that with gear down in the air a substiute nose-wheel referance is supplied which, because the mains are not yet rotating, allows the anti-skid to keep the brakes off. But what happens when the mains touch down with the nose wheels still high in the air? What (if anything) inhibits wheel braking until the nosewhels are on the ground (and therefore rotating)?
As far as your air conditioning question goes, you needed an external air conditioning truck to supply cabin air on the ground. Not needed in the hangars of course, but come departure time if these trucks were not working, then the cabin could become very warm/hot place indeed (depending on the time of year). Oh for an APU
Best regards
Dude
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 13, 2011, 10:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6176851
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
Really an answer for CliveL, but I'll have a go. The short answer to your question is 'oh yeah, big time'. Total temperature varies with the SQUARE of Mach number and static temperature. Depending on the height of the tropopause itself as well as other local factors, there can be little or no significant variation of static temperature between FL600 and FL700. The 400\xb0K (127\xb0C) Tmo limit was imposed for reasons of thermal fatigue life, and equates to Mach 2.0 at ISA +5. (Most of the time the lower than ISA +5 static air temperatures kept us well away from Tmo). In a nutshell, flying higher in the stratosphere gains you very little as far as temperature goes. (Even taking into account the very small positive lapse above FL 650 in a standard atmosphere). As far as the MAX SPEED bit goes, Concorde was as we know flown to a maximum of Mach 2.23 on A/C 101, but with the production intake and 'final' AICU N1 limiter law, the maximum achievable Mach number in level flight is about Mach 2.13. (Also theoretically, somewhere between Mach 2.2 and 2.3, the front few intake shocks would be 'pushed' back beyond the lower lip, the resulting flow distortion causing multiple severe and surges).
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630)
On C of A renewal test flights (what I always called the 'fun flights') we DID used to do a 'flat' acceleration to Mach 2.1 quite regularly, as part of the test regime, and the aircraft used to take things in her stride beautifully. (And the intakes themselves were totally un-phased by the zero G pushover that we did at FL630)
As usual Dude you beat me to it! I really must give up having another life
As Dude says, the 'cruise' condition was set by the aircraft specification for transatlantic range on an 85% (ISA +5) day and the chosen mach Number was 2.0 (of which more anon). This gives a Total Temperature of 400.1 deg K. [Dude, I know your pipe-smoking thermodynamicist and he was having you on - he is quite capable of memorising the square/square root of 407.6 or whatever!]
To give margins for sudden changes in ambient temperature (we had to cater for a 21 deg change in one mile) the Mmo was set at 2.04 which matches 400 degK at ISA +1. In theory then we could have flown faster than our chose Mmo at anything colder than this, but there are two limits:
1) The object is not to fly as fast as you can but to fly with minimum miles/gallon. If you have a nice cold day and enough thrust to go either faster or higher which do you choose? For best specific range you go higher every time.
2) The thing that everyone forgets is that civil aircraft have to have margins around their authorised envelope. In Concorde's case these were set principally by the intake limits and engine surge.
Dude also says quite correctly that 101 flew to 2.23M but the production aircraft was limited to 2.13M. Now you may not believe this, but 101 could fly faster than the production aircraft because she (101) leaked like a sieve!.
I doubt I will get away with that without some explanation
Once you get past a certain Mach Number the airflow into the intake is fixed. The performance (intake pressure recovery and engine face flow distortion) then depends on how this air is shared between the engine and the throat 'bleed'. This bleed was ducted over the engine as cooling air and then exhausted (in principle) throught the annulus formed between the expanding primary jet and the fixed walls of the con-di nozzle. But if you took, or tried to take, more bleed air the intake pressure recovery went up and the primary jet pipe pressure went up with it. This meant that the primary jet expanded more and squeezed the available annulus area which restricted the amount of bleed air one could take.
Obviously if there are alternative exit paths between intake and final nozzle then you can take more bleed air off and the engine face flow distortions will benefit along with the surge margin. 101 was fairly 'leaky' in this respect, particularly around the thrust reverser buckets on the original nozzle design. This meant that 101's intake distortions were lower than the production aircraft so she could fly faster without surge - at least with the first attempt at intake control 'laws'. We managed to tweak most of the margin back eventually. Engine bay leaks were good for surge margin but VERY bad news for m.p.g.!
Here are a couple of diagrams to show what I mean. the first shows the surge lines for the various aircraft variants and also the N1 limiter Dude was talking about. NB: the X-axis is LOCAL Mach Number not freestream. The difference comes from the compression of the underwing flow by the bit of the wing ahead of the intake. Mmo + 0.2 is shown
">The next shows the surge free boundaries in sideslip and normal acceleration. You can see the zero 'g' capability Dude was enthusing over.
">
As for 'high speed stall', I don't think we ever contemplated trying it! Our requirements in 'g' capability were defined and that was it. Besides, the aircraft would fly like the proverbial stone-built outbuilding at those sorts of conditions so I don't think one would have been able to get anywhere near a stall in the conventional sense. Stall as commonly defined for subsonics (deterrent buffet) might have been another matter, but I don't remember anything.
Cheers
Last edited by CliveL; 13th January 2011 at 10:17 . Reason: additional explanation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 28, 2012, 09:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7160324
So far as I know, they were standard TAT measurement instruments, so they gave Total Air Temperature directly.
There was, so far as I recall, no measure of skin temperature - the aircraft limit (Tmo) was simply based on a measured TAT of 400 degK. The implied limits on skin temperature at various points were built into the design cases.
There was, so far as I recall, no measure of skin temperature - the aircraft limit (Tmo) was simply based on a measured TAT of 400 degK. The implied limits on skin temperature at various points were built into the design cases.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 28, 2012, 19:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7161084
Here's the cockpit temp gauge I photgraphed today:
So the TAT probe provides TAT (obviously) which effectively is skin temp (as evidenced by the TMO legend of 127C just below the TAT window?).
(TAT being static air temp plus the temp due adiabatic heating).
So the TAT probe provides TAT (obviously) which effectively is skin temp (as evidenced by the TMO legend of 127C just below the TAT window?).
(TAT being static air temp plus the temp due adiabatic heating).
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 28th April 2012 at 20:14 .
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 03, 2012, 14:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7169165
Er - no, the TAT probes measure just what they say Total Air Temperature.
They are mounted off the skin and in freestream, so they measure the same temperature as would a probe on the nose.
Somewhere near the nose (not exactly on it, as the aircraft flies with a small AoA) there will be a 'stagnation' streamline where the oncoming air is brought to rest. At this point the skin temperature will be equal to the stagnation temperature (TAT). Behind that it gets more complicated! The skin temperature would depend on SAT, local Mach No, local skin friction coefficient (Mach and Re dependent, so varies with distance from nose), amount of heat radiated into space (paint colour!) and the amount of structure available to conduct heat away from the skin into the fuel (so roughly varying with thickness/chord and fuel distribution perhaps?
They are mounted off the skin and in freestream, so they measure the same temperature as would a probe on the nose.
Somewhere near the nose (not exactly on it, as the aircraft flies with a small AoA) there will be a 'stagnation' streamline where the oncoming air is brought to rest. At this point the skin temperature will be equal to the stagnation temperature (TAT). Behind that it gets more complicated! The skin temperature would depend on SAT, local Mach No, local skin friction coefficient (Mach and Re dependent, so varies with distance from nose), amount of heat radiated into space (paint colour!) and the amount of structure available to conduct heat away from the skin into the fuel (so roughly varying with thickness/chord and fuel distribution perhaps?
The temperature shown in the top window of the flight deck gauge is TAT, with the legend 'TMO 128C' beneath it. So the aircraft was flown with reference to TAT, and provided TAT was no greater than 128C then the skin rearward of the stagnation point would be <128C?
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 04, 2012, 17:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7171594
Minor correction, though: TMO was 127, not 128.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 04, 2012, 17:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7171607
Indeed. Typed in a hurry. Didn't even check my own photo of the temp gauge which clearly shows 'TMO 127C'.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
May 15, 2012, 09:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7190732
The TAT thing
OK, so the skin temperature at the stagnation point will be equal to TAT. This can be taken as the hottest part of the aircraft (behind it, the skin temperature will be less than the TAT).
The temperature shown in the top window of the flight deck gauge is TAT, with the legend 'TMO 128C' beneath it. So the aircraft was flown with reference to TAT, and provided TAT was no greater than 128C then the skin rearward of the stagnation point would be <128C?
The temperature shown in the top window of the flight deck gauge is TAT, with the legend 'TMO 128C' beneath it. So the aircraft was flown with reference to TAT, and provided TAT was no greater than 128C then the skin rearward of the stagnation point would be <128C?
MACH 0.5 . ISA -5: TAT = -50.6 \xb0 C . ISA: TAT = -45.3 \xb0 C. ISA +5 TAT = -40 \xb0 C
MACH 1.0 . ISA -5: TAT = -18.5 \xb0 C . ISA: TAT = -12.5 \xb0 C. ISA +5 TAT = -6.5 \xb0 C
MACH 1.5 . ISA -5: TAT = 34.8 \xb0 C . ISA: TAT = 42 \xb0 C. ISA +5 TAT = 49.3 \xb0 C
MACH 2.0 . ISA -5: TAT = 109.5 \xb0 C . ISA: TAT =118.6 \xb0 C. ISA +5 TAT = 127.6 \xb0 C
Hopefully it all makes a little more sense with some 'real' numbers. You can see that as Mach Number increases the gap between SAT and TAT increases hugely. The Mach 2, ISA +5 case was particularly significant for Concorde, as it breached the 127 \xb0 C/400 \xb0 K airframe temperature limit (TMO) and Mach Number would therefore be automatically reduced by the autopilot. (An overspeed warning would be generated at TMO +7 (134. \xb0 C). Fortunately sustained ISA +5 or above conditions were relatively rare over the North Atlantic but not unheard of either.
Last edited by M2dude; 16th May 2012 at 22:06 . Reason: ISA+5 Typo
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
April 22, 2015, 15:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8952291
At low altitude think 455 ktCAS.
Tmo was a long exposure structural limit
Mmo was an intake limit
Vmo was a structural (flutter) limit
Tmo was a long exposure structural limit
Mmo was an intake limit
Vmo was a structural (flutter) limit
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
October 15, 2015, 08:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9148296
Bit of a hypothetical question requiring a judgemental response!
My short answer would be not much more than the certified limits - at least not without significant modifications.
FL680 was achieved at the end of a zoom climb, so the Mach No was a lot less than 2.0
M2.23 was in a shallow dive. The object was to demonstrate sufficient margin to avoid surge following the worst temperature transient specified in the TSS regulations. To that end both the intake laws and engine operating lines were tweaked as functions of Mach No to minimise intake flow distortions and maximise surge margin. The result was a long way from the performance optimum one would need for steady cruise.
The power plant was being pushed to its limits at this Mach No.
(As an aside, the subsonic rules make no mention of temperature transients as a cause of Mach exceedences. Some recent incidents suggest this could usefully be reviewed)
The altitude limit could perhaps be more readily expamded. The aircraft normally flew a cruise climb bcause at Concorde cruising altitudes there was no ATC conflict. The altitude was very sensitive to ambient temperature and aircraft weight. FL600 would be associated with end of cruise on a coolish day.
To usefully increase cruise altitude would require more engine thrust, but this could only be obtained by increasing engine TET which would screw the engine fatigue life.
Increasing Mmo from 2.04 would need an increase in Tmo (400 deg K) at any temperature above (from memory) ISA. This in turn would affect the airframe fatigue life unless the structural material were changed. Even then, there were a lot of nonmetallic bits (seals etc) that would also have needed replacement.
Sorry if this is a gloomy assessment, but that is the way I see it!
My short answer would be not much more than the certified limits - at least not without significant modifications.
FL680 was achieved at the end of a zoom climb, so the Mach No was a lot less than 2.0
M2.23 was in a shallow dive. The object was to demonstrate sufficient margin to avoid surge following the worst temperature transient specified in the TSS regulations. To that end both the intake laws and engine operating lines were tweaked as functions of Mach No to minimise intake flow distortions and maximise surge margin. The result was a long way from the performance optimum one would need for steady cruise.
The power plant was being pushed to its limits at this Mach No.
(As an aside, the subsonic rules make no mention of temperature transients as a cause of Mach exceedences. Some recent incidents suggest this could usefully be reviewed)
The altitude limit could perhaps be more readily expamded. The aircraft normally flew a cruise climb bcause at Concorde cruising altitudes there was no ATC conflict. The altitude was very sensitive to ambient temperature and aircraft weight. FL600 would be associated with end of cruise on a coolish day.
To usefully increase cruise altitude would require more engine thrust, but this could only be obtained by increasing engine TET which would screw the engine fatigue life.
Increasing Mmo from 2.04 would need an increase in Tmo (400 deg K) at any temperature above (from memory) ISA. This in turn would affect the airframe fatigue life unless the structural material were changed. Even then, there were a lot of nonmetallic bits (seals etc) that would also have needed replacement.
Sorry if this is a gloomy assessment, but that is the way I see it!
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.