September 12, 2010, 15:08:00 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 (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways C of G Haynes guide to Concorde
September 12, 2010, 21:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5930942
Thanks on the CG info!!
Right, do this everytime I fly on the sim!
Yes, so my not-so-trivial questions, aimed more for F/E and Ground Engineers are:
1) with the same quantity on tanks 6 and 8, for example, 10 tons, there would be a roll tendency? I suspect yes, but not sure.
2) Using valves 6/7 and 5/8 would make lateral unbalance gone or they just leveled the fuel height on each pair of tanks? (Assuming that all these 4 tanks had the same height, what sounds logical to me)
3) Is there any table with these tanks quantities to reach lateral balance or the F/E did fine tune just by making elevons level?
I have these doubts for a looooooooong time, as I never found the lateral arm of the tanks, just the longitudinal (in % MAC that is equal to root chord in Concorde). So I assumed in FSLabs ConcordeX that if all these 4 tanks were FULL and symmetrical as a group, there would be no imbalance, that means: different quantities and different arms gives the same momentum.
Due to this, I always keep 300~500 kgs more on the 7 and 8 (right) tanks than on 5 and 6, but I'm really not sure if it's a realistic value.
The fuel system was just FANTASTIC... and making it work engineer-less under any abnormal condition would be something VERY difficult, in my humble opinion.
Nice week for everyone!!
Tanks 5 and 7 were operated as a pair as were tanks 6 and 8
Because of the odd shapes of the tanks when you were transferring from the set 5 and 7 the F/E had to pump fuel across the ship to keep lateral trim.
Because of the odd shapes of the tanks when you were transferring from the set 5 and 7 the F/E had to pump fuel across the ship to keep lateral trim.
Once they were empty and 6 and 8 were being used then again due to their shape the F/E had to transfer fuel across the aircraft to keep lateral trim ,but this time in the opposite direction . well it stopped him getting bored
1) with the same quantity on tanks 6 and 8, for example, 10 tons, there would be a roll tendency? I suspect yes, but not sure.
2) Using valves 6/7 and 5/8 would make lateral unbalance gone or they just leveled the fuel height on each pair of tanks? (Assuming that all these 4 tanks had the same height, what sounds logical to me)
3) Is there any table with these tanks quantities to reach lateral balance or the F/E did fine tune just by making elevons level?
I have these doubts for a looooooooong time, as I never found the lateral arm of the tanks, just the longitudinal (in % MAC that is equal to root chord in Concorde). So I assumed in FSLabs ConcordeX that if all these 4 tanks were FULL and symmetrical as a group, there would be no imbalance, that means: different quantities and different arms gives the same momentum.
Due to this, I always keep 300~500 kgs more on the 7 and 8 (right) tanks than on 5 and 6, but I'm really not sure if it's a realistic value.
The fuel system was just FANTASTIC... and making it work engineer-less under any abnormal condition would be something VERY difficult, in my humble opinion.
Nice week for everyone!!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): C of G Elevons
September 14, 2010, 16:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5934510
Blue concorde
In answer to your questions , unlike the chart for C of G purposes there was no such chart for lateral trim rreasons. We would just transfer fuel across the ship so as to keep the elevons level at between 0 and 1 degree down. However when transfering fuel across the ship as the paired tanks are fore and aft of the C of G then when getting lateral trim you also affect the
C of G.
It is along time ago now and I cannot recall actual figures but your suggestion of between 500 and 700 kgs is I think a good ball park figure
The interconnect valves were never used under normal circumstances, but give it a go it might just over come your problem.
Nick Thomas
In answer to your questions , unlike the chart for C of G purposes there was no such chart for lateral trim rreasons. We would just transfer fuel across the ship so as to keep the elevons level at between 0 and 1 degree down. However when transfering fuel across the ship as the paired tanks are fore and aft of the C of G then when getting lateral trim you also affect the
C of G.
It is along time ago now and I cannot recall actual figures but your suggestion of between 500 and 700 kgs is I think a good ball park figure
The interconnect valves were never used under normal circumstances, but give it a go it might just over come your problem.
Nick Thomas
Although nothing actually to stop accelerating twice in a sector the fuel use on a long trip would usually not make this viable
NOTE How do you get the posh blue quote inserts
NOTE How do you get the posh blue quote inserts
Regarding the quote box: add a [xxxxQUOTE] at the beginning and [xxxx/QUOTE] at the end of the section you want to be quoted, without the xxxx after the "[".
Ladyland, very nice! felt myself being served while reading.
How was this around-the-world trip? Did the crew have time to enjoy the so different locations visited?
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Elevons
September 16, 2010, 00:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5937315
Let's not stop!
Did I understand correctly? This space where the MEPU used to be installed is empty space on production aircraft?
Since DG had a MEPU, that means other production aircraft could have one installed?
Were the charter flights much different from the scheduled ones?
I've seen the 1999 Around the World video, and they took some engineers aboard (They should've taken M2Dude with them, LOL). Did they make the flight-planning on each stop or everything came from the mothership @ London?
Did I understand correctly? This space where the MEPU used to be installed is empty space on production aircraft?
Since DG had a MEPU, that means other production aircraft could have one installed?
Were the charter flights much different from the scheduled ones?
I've seen the 1999 Around the World video, and they took some engineers aboard (They should've taken M2Dude with them, LOL). Did they make the flight-planning on each stop or everything came from the mothership @ London?
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MEPU (Monogol Emergency Power Unit)
September 16, 2010, 13:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5938222
Originally Posted by
EXWOK
... visiting SFJ or Rovaniemi, or setting off around the world, predominantly to non-BA destinations. My favourites, though, were the RTBs out of Filton - EVERYONE was either connected to Conc development or manufacture, or was related to someone who was. Fantastic atmosphere. Shame the runway wasn't a bit longer........
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
The most amazing thing about RTW charters (or earth orbiters, as I would call them) was that the aircraft often returned to London with only a very small handfull of minor defects. The thing about Concorde was the more that she flew, the happier she was, and less likely to catch a cold.
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
At Heathrow when the crew arrived to depart the aircraft, she was already fairly well tested and fired up, systems wise, even to the extent that the INSs were usually aligned (but not put into NAV mode). Now this all helped immensely as far as systems reliability went, but a last minute INS or ADC failure could often still occur, and hit you in the 'you know wheres' when you had least time. Such was the nature of the beast. (But we all loved her ).
Originally Posted by
Landlady
I haven't time right now to go into the spectacular Round-The -World aircruises, but I promise I will be back if you are still interested. I used to do some public speaking about Concorde on behalf of BA,(we were called ambassadors in those days),so I will try to dig out some catering facts and figures, which are quite interesting.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADC (Air Data Computer) C of G Filton INS (Inertial Navigation System) LHR Simulator
September 19, 2010, 01:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5942840
Hello again!
I went on Thursday to one of the few aviation libraries in Brazil, and found a very rare book on Concorde. Once they take copies of the items I requested, will share here.
The book in question was edited in 1969, French and English, and shows all suppliers of the protoypes, with some interesting ads.
Well, just recycling my questions, lost on the previous page:
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?
And a new question:
3) Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?
Thanks again for all your posts, about to watch the BBC videos!
I went on Thursday to one of the few aviation libraries in Brazil, and found a very rare book on Concorde. Once they take copies of the items I requested, will share here.
The book in question was edited in 1969, French and English, and shows all suppliers of the protoypes, with some interesting ads.
Well, just recycling my questions, lost on the previous page:
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?
And a new question:
3) Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?
Thanks again for all your posts, about to watch the BBC videos!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Haynes guide to Concorde
September 19, 2010, 17:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5943969
Originally Posted by
Bellerophon
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing .
BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.
In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.
By the way, I highly recommend this book to everybody, a different point of view, new photos and nice info regarding this bird.
Originally Posted by
M2Dude
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
Nice info regarding BA004! But if a repair was needed, would BA004 take-off anyway to Gatwick or Birmingham? Has it ever arrived a bit late?
Originally Posted by
ChristiaanJ
My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?
Originally Posted by
Jo90
Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?
Thank you all, awesome topic!!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways Haynes guide to Concorde Rudder Vortex
September 21, 2010, 18:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5948259
Originally Posted by
Nick Thomas
Yet another question and again this concerns the AofA on landing. As she slowed down the drag must have increased so would more power be required to fly slower? If that was the case was a higher speed kept on approach to save fuel, engine wear and also to reduce noise? As SLF I apologise for asking what may be simple and obvious questions to all you Concorde experts.
Thanks again
Nick
Thanks again
Nick
Subjects: None