April 22, 2011, 18:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6406576
Slender wings
Christiaan
Quite true, and I hope I didn't give the impression that it was otherwise. On this side of the Atlantic France had the Mirage series, UK the Javelin, the two Avro aircraft and of course the FD2. However these all had relatively rounded leading edges which reduced the effect somewhat.
I must admit that I was not aware that NACA had proposed an ogee wing for supersonic transports, although all the US SST designs featured 'double deltas' . Ken Owen's book says that US firms had been working on SST research and design studies since the late 1950s, and since the UK equivalent, the Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee (STAC) ran from 1956 to 1959 and definitely included sharp-edged slender wings amongst their studies, I would say UK work was at least in parallel.
But to be frank, the basic idea sprang from German research done during WW2. They were well ahead in knowledge of the aerodynamics of delta wings as part of their research into aircraft suitable for the higher speeds that went with those new-fangled jet engines. Then, after the war's end, the German scientists migrated to either the UK and US (if they were lucky) or got carried off to Russia. They brought with them all the knowledge they had gained (and of course there were specific trained teams whose job it was to search the German research establishment records for any useful data. On the UK side certainly the idea of exploiting vortex lift for use on an SST was generated by German researchers working at the RAE (Kuchemann and Weber in particular). My guess (I don't know for sure) is that similar things happened in the US, although "their Germans" seemed to be more interested in rocketry.
Not as much as you might think, because like the 221 it was too late to have much influence and it also was built to study slender delta handling, in particular a possible problem known as 'Gray's oscillations' rather than vortex lift as such.
Clive
Most deltas develop some vortex lift, and there were several deltas flying long before Concorde, so the phenomenon was not unknown.
Shaping the wing, and in particular the leading edge, optimised the effect on Concorde.
Shaping the wing, and in particular the leading edge, optimised the effect on Concorde.
* The ogee (slender delta) wing was original proposed by NASA (possibly still NACA at the time) as best suited for a supersonic transport. The information was in the public domain by the time the "BAC223" and "Super Caravelle" were first revealed (they later "merged" into the Concorde design).
The Tu-144 design used the same information, which is a major reason for its resemblance to Concorde, rather than espionage...
How much the full advantages of the 'vortex lift' were understood at the time, is still an open question, IIRC.
I'll have to look for the original NASA TN (Tech Note)... it may be on the web somewhere.
The Tu-144 design used the same information, which is a major reason for its resemblance to Concorde, rather than espionage...
How much the full advantages of the 'vortex lift' were understood at the time, is still an open question, IIRC.
I'll have to look for the original NASA TN (Tech Note)... it may be on the web somewhere.
But to be frank, the basic idea sprang from German research done during WW2. They were well ahead in knowledge of the aerodynamics of delta wings as part of their research into aircraft suitable for the higher speeds that went with those new-fangled jet engines. Then, after the war's end, the German scientists migrated to either the UK and US (if they were lucky) or got carried off to Russia. They brought with them all the knowledge they had gained (and of course there were specific trained teams whose job it was to search the German research establishment records for any useful data. On the UK side certainly the idea of exploiting vortex lift for use on an SST was generated by German researchers working at the RAE (Kuchemann and Weber in particular). My guess (I don't know for sure) is that similar things happened in the US, although "their Germans" seemed to be more interested in rocketry.
* I would think the Handley Page HP115 slender-delta low-speed test aircraft must have contributed some details about vortex lift.
Clive
Subjects
HP-115
Tu-144
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.
September 01, 2012, 00:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7389575
Concorde and TU-144 at Sinsheim
Earlier this week I had the great pleasure of a late afternoon followed by a full day at the Sinsheim technical museum near Heidelberg. Highly recommended and much more than just a museum; just ask my children what they thought of the helter-skelter from elevated Ilyushin IL-18 back down to the ground, or the twisting and turning stainless steel tubular slide from museum roof mounted DC3, through a hole in the roof, and back to the ground level entrance! The staff I encountered were all friendly and informed and I now look forwards to a day at the sister museum in Speyer - replete with 747-200 on the roof on which visitors can walk the wing.
Anyway, of relevance to this thread I thought I'd shared some of my photos of Concorde F-BVFB and Tupolev TU-144 77112. It was tremendous to be able to walk backwards and forwards between the two, directly comparing design features and relative elegance of execution. Both are achievements for mankind but I have to say that to me not being an aeronautical engineer, Concorde won every time - dreary Air France cabin notwithstanding - with the larger Tupolev coming over as somewhat clumsy; let alone knowing engine technologies to be a world apart, just compare the wheel bogies as one example, and then the cleanliness of wing design as another. Yes, the Tupolev canards were a novel feature, but I understand they were only necessary in the first place because of lower speed control issues as a result of more basic aerodynamics.
Like any aircraft on static display exposed to the elements both airframes could do with some TLC, but here are the photos:
Concorde aft cabin door
TU-144 aft cabin door
TU-144 No 4 engine location viewed from exhaust towards inlet (and directly in to the sun!)
To be continued in separate post as I have hit the photo count ceiling in this one.
Anyway, of relevance to this thread I thought I'd shared some of my photos of Concorde F-BVFB and Tupolev TU-144 77112. It was tremendous to be able to walk backwards and forwards between the two, directly comparing design features and relative elegance of execution. Both are achievements for mankind but I have to say that to me not being an aeronautical engineer, Concorde won every time - dreary Air France cabin notwithstanding - with the larger Tupolev coming over as somewhat clumsy; let alone knowing engine technologies to be a world apart, just compare the wheel bogies as one example, and then the cleanliness of wing design as another. Yes, the Tupolev canards were a novel feature, but I understand they were only necessary in the first place because of lower speed control issues as a result of more basic aerodynamics.
Like any aircraft on static display exposed to the elements both airframes could do with some TLC, but here are the photos:
Concorde aft cabin door
TU-144 aft cabin door
TU-144 No 4 engine location viewed from exhaust towards inlet (and directly in to the sun!)
To be continued in separate post as I have hit the photo count ceiling in this one.
Subjects
Intakes
Tu-144
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 01, 2012, 00:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7389576
...and the second post to conclude the photos and ask a question:
Concorde cockpit (through hazy perspex screen)
TU-144 cockpit (also through hazy perspex screen)
A sign that made me chuckle
I hope that these pictures were of interest and can spark some further discussion in this amazing thread. If I can have the temerity to start the ball rolling with a TU-144 question, I was intrigued to notice the following tiny vane situated on the fuselage base between engines 2 and 3. Closer inspection revealed an adjacent hole, perhaps indicating pressure measurement? Anyway, ideas or proven fact welcome!
As observed
Cropped
Concorde cockpit (through hazy perspex screen)
TU-144 cockpit (also through hazy perspex screen)
A sign that made me chuckle
I hope that these pictures were of interest and can spark some further discussion in this amazing thread. If I can have the temerity to start the ball rolling with a TU-144 question, I was intrigued to notice the following tiny vane situated on the fuselage base between engines 2 and 3. Closer inspection revealed an adjacent hole, perhaps indicating pressure measurement? Anyway, ideas or proven fact welcome!
As observed
Cropped
Last edited by The late XV105; 1st September 2012 at 00:44 . Reason: Additional photos
Subjects
Tu-144
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 01, 2012, 14:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7390476
I think the TU144 needs an entirely new thread. Oooh questions questions....
Subjects
Tu-144
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 01, 2012, 18:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7390819
The late XV105
Dunno about the source of your info on this but it may have got a bit garbled in the telling.
With a plain slender delta on the approach the trailing edge control surfaces will be slightly up and as speed is reduced this angle will increase slightly. If you want to raise the nose in the flare then even more stick back will be needed. This gives - if you like - a wing with a negative flap angle and so rather less lift needing a higher speed than you miught wish.
If you add some canards to give a big nose up force then to trim the aircraft the trailing edge surfaces will all be down a bit - giving a flapped delta with considerable benefit in terms of reduced approach speed.
The Tu144 with canards was able to land on the display runway at Le Bourget and take the second turn off right to the aircraft park - a quite remarkable demonstration of its modest speed on finals.
Yes, the Tupolev canards were a novel feature, but I understand they were only necessary in the first place because of lower speed control issues as a result of more basic aerodynamics.
With a plain slender delta on the approach the trailing edge control surfaces will be slightly up and as speed is reduced this angle will increase slightly. If you want to raise the nose in the flare then even more stick back will be needed. This gives - if you like - a wing with a negative flap angle and so rather less lift needing a higher speed than you miught wish.
If you add some canards to give a big nose up force then to trim the aircraft the trailing edge surfaces will all be down a bit - giving a flapped delta with considerable benefit in terms of reduced approach speed.
The Tu144 with canards was able to land on the display runway at Le Bourget and take the second turn off right to the aircraft park - a quite remarkable demonstration of its modest speed on finals.
Subjects
Le Bourget
Trim
Tu-144
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 03, 2012, 23:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7394794
One of the guys on the Save the TU144 Facebook page says that the thing in that picture on the TU144 is connected to the Air Conditioning.
There is also a TU144 website now. Format donated by Gordons ConcordeSST
TU-144 SST - Flying Forever on the Internet
There is also a TU144 website now. Format donated by Gordons ConcordeSST
TU-144 SST - Flying Forever on the Internet
Subjects
Tu-144
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 04, 2012, 12:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7395641
One of the guys on the Save the TU144 Facebook page says that the thing in that picture on the TU144 is connected to the Air Conditioning.
There is also a TU144 website now. Format donated by Gordons ConcordeSST
There is also a TU144 website now. Format donated by Gordons ConcordeSST
Subjects
Tu-144
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 03, 2013, 10:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 7723382
I suspect that, given the Concorde's rather unusual fuel consumption figures, the most efficient climb profile was also the fastest one, since pretty much anything other than the M2.0 cruise-climb was fairly inefficient. From way back in the thread (
here
) the minimum time to hit M1.0 was about six minutes, and M2.0 came at 9 minutes (although a few posts later someone mentions that these figures may be wrong as the fuel transfer rate wouldn't allow such a fast climb).
Some questions from me, after reading through the thread:
- Someone mentioned that, as a result of Concorde's sustained supercruising across the Atlantic, the twenty-odd Concordes have more supersonic flight hours than all other aircraft combined. Does anyone know what the figures are?
- What was the minimum range for supersonic travel to be worthwhile? Obviously if you were only going a few hundred kilometres it'd make more sense to cruise at 29000ft an M0.95 rather than climbing all the way up to 40000ft+ and M2.0.
- What other aircraft are/were more efficient supersonic than subsonic? The modern supercruising fighter jets (eg. the F-22) are still more efficient at subsonic speeds. The original Tu-144 would certainly have been much more efficient subsonic (since it couldn't supercruise); I'm not sure about the later models. The SR-71 was more efficient at high supersonic speeds than at low supersonic speeds, but I can't find anything about subsonic fuel consumption. And that leaves the XB-70, which is just a big unknown.
Some questions from me, after reading through the thread:
- Someone mentioned that, as a result of Concorde's sustained supercruising across the Atlantic, the twenty-odd Concordes have more supersonic flight hours than all other aircraft combined. Does anyone know what the figures are?
- What was the minimum range for supersonic travel to be worthwhile? Obviously if you were only going a few hundred kilometres it'd make more sense to cruise at 29000ft an M0.95 rather than climbing all the way up to 40000ft+ and M2.0.
- What other aircraft are/were more efficient supersonic than subsonic? The modern supercruising fighter jets (eg. the F-22) are still more efficient at subsonic speeds. The original Tu-144 would certainly have been much more efficient subsonic (since it couldn't supercruise); I'm not sure about the later models. The SR-71 was more efficient at high supersonic speeds than at low supersonic speeds, but I can't find anything about subsonic fuel consumption. And that leaves the XB-70, which is just a big unknown.
Last edited by Slatye; 5th March 2013 at 10:50 .
Subjects
SR-71
Super-cruise
Tu-144
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 20, 2013, 17:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8108572
Concorde might have taken off too early...not withstanding it paved the way for improved airliner design speeds, advanced flight controls and instrumentation,class of comfort and premium service itenerary of all airliners flying today.Where would Fly By Wire technology of today's airliners and bizjets as well as combat planes be..without the pioneering Concorde?It had its design flaws...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?
Subjects
Boeing
Tu-144
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 22, 2013, 16:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8111972
...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?
As for the Concorde nacelle/engine arrangement - it didn't really have that large an impact on the F-BTSC accident - because even if the nacelles weren't grouped, the hot gases from the burning fuel would still have had a negative impact on the airflow to the adjacent engine. If I recall correctly, the investigators calculated the way the damage spread through the structure and control connections and proved that even if all four engines were still producing the correct thrust, the fire would still have caused sufficient structural damage to prevent the aircraft making Le Bourget. The nacelle structure itself was proven to be strong enough to withstand an uncontained failure of the engine when it actually happened on the line.
Apropos of nothing, the separate "podded" design was proven to be no protection against damage to adjacent engines when the inboard starboard engine of El Al 1862 took out the outboard as it fell away.
Subjects
Air France 4590
Boeing
F-BTSC
Le Bourget
Tu-144
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.
January 13, 2014, 11:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 8261569
Getting somewhat closer to the topic - does anyone know what the Tu-144 used for computing? The NASA report on the Tu-144LL says that they had a digital controls for the engines, but since those were new engines the control system was probably a good deal more modern than the original. I can't see any mention of how the intakes were controlled, or what the original engines used.
And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well?
And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well?
Subjects
Intakes
Tu-144
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 24, 2016, 06:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9320920
Most people are familiar with the space race between the US and the Soviets, but there was a very interesting race between the US, Europe and the Soviet Union to build a supersonic passenger aircraft. Europe built the successful Concorde, the US had the unsuccessful Boeing SST, and the Soviets had the unsuccessful Tu-144.
Somewhere there is a taped phone conversation of President Kennedy raising heck with someone over the fact that the US does not have a supersonic passenger aircraft program to compete with Concorde.
Somewhere there is a taped phone conversation of President Kennedy raising heck with someone over the fact that the US does not have a supersonic passenger aircraft program to compete with Concorde.
Subjects
Boeing
Boeing SST
Tu-144
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.
August 17, 2021, 12:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11096623
megan
I thought the Tu-144 had canards instead, leading to an entirely new world of weight and complexity pain.
I thought the Tu-144 had canards instead, leading to an entirely new world of weight and complexity pain.
Subjects
Tu-144
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.
November 29, 2023, 19:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11548236
Stumbled on an interesting program on the TV last night - "Concorde - The Untold Story"
Two-part program (one hour each - closer to 45 minutes after commercials) but shown back-to-back. A good history of the three country 'race' to build a commercial SST, with what ultimately happened with the Boeing 2707 and Tupolev 144 (including how fitting the "Concordski" nickname was given the level of Soviet espionage that went on to steal Concorde technology so they could make the thing work).
A bit simplistic in some of the explanations of the technology and such, but understandable given that most people who watch won't have Aerospace Engineering degrees
Produced by MTV, at least on this side of the pond it's being shown on The Smithsonian Channel.
Hopefully it'll be made available on other sources for those who don't get Smithsonian.
Two-part program (one hour each - closer to 45 minutes after commercials) but shown back-to-back. A good history of the three country 'race' to build a commercial SST, with what ultimately happened with the Boeing 2707 and Tupolev 144 (including how fitting the "Concordski" nickname was given the level of Soviet espionage that went on to steal Concorde technology so they could make the thing work).
A bit simplistic in some of the explanations of the technology and such, but understandable given that most people who watch won't have Aerospace Engineering degrees
Produced by MTV, at least on this side of the pond it's being shown on The Smithsonian Channel.
Hopefully it'll be made available on other sources for those who don't get Smithsonian.
Subjects
Boeing
Tu-144
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.
November 29, 2023, 21:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11548296
Stumbled on an interesting program on the TV last night - "Concorde - The Untold Story"
Two-part program (one hour each - closer to 45 minutes after commercials) but shown back-to-back. A good history of the three country 'race' to build a commercial SST, with what ultimately happened with the Boeing 2707 and Tupolev 144 (including how fitting the "Concordski" nickname was given the level of Soviet espionage that went on to steal Concorde technology so they could make the thing work).
A bit simplistic in some of the explanations of the technology and such, but understandable given that most people who watch won't have Aerospace Engineering degrees. Produced by MTV, at least on this side of the pond it's being shown on The Smithsonian Channel. Hopefully it'll be made available on other sources for those who don't get Smithsonian.
Two-part program (one hour each - closer to 45 minutes after commercials) but shown back-to-back. A good history of the three country 'race' to build a commercial SST, with what ultimately happened with the Boeing 2707 and Tupolev 144 (including how fitting the "Concordski" nickname was given the level of Soviet espionage that went on to steal Concorde technology so they could make the thing work).
A bit simplistic in some of the explanations of the technology and such, but understandable given that most people who watch won't have Aerospace Engineering degrees. Produced by MTV, at least on this side of the pond it's being shown on The Smithsonian Channel. Hopefully it'll be made available on other sources for those who don't get Smithsonian.
(Well I assume it's the same programme - it certainly sounds the same.)
Last edited by netstruggler; 29th November 2023 at 21:36 .
Subjects
Boeing
Tu-144
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.