Posts by user "DavvaP" [Posts: 8 Total up-votes: 0 Page: 1 of 1]¶

Long time admirer of the marvel that is Concorde - but no aviation expert at all, just appreciate true genius and beauty! One question I've got is about the Concorde "B". Given it was never built, was there ever a plan to retro-fit some of the modifications back into one of the existing airframes? Specifically I'm thinking the engine - which on its own should have given a large boost to range (or savings on fuel!).

From what I've learned on this thread and elsewhere, when GOAG was put into storage for sometime, its something that I guess maybe could have occured then? Or am I simply being far to dumb and it would have been much to big an undertaking for far too little benefit?

I've got another question about the lady if I may. It was touched on before - about the deicing on her. Having watched a few Air Crash Investigation programs on TV (so, yes, completely NO knowledge about aircraft from any experience at all!), it seems that there are restrictions about how much ice can be on a wing and the aircraft still allowed to take off.

From what I've been told on concorde, how the wing was so radically different from subsonic craft, what limits were there for ice on her wings - was she as affected as other aircraft?

One other thing I was wondering about - how much of concorde is now still under the protection of patents / copyright etc? I suspect not much, as the information posted here is showing quite intimate parts - or are these all publicly available documents anyway? This isn't to question whether the information in this thread is in anyway secret - just wondering how much of the information about concorde is actually still under wraps and can't be told?

Lastly (its late!) is it actually possible for a supersonic aircraft to achieve *higher* fuel efficiency than subsonic aircraft? Only reason I ask is that with all the drag numbers quoted previously it seems that the fuel efficiency climbs higher the faster you go when above mach 1? Or am I just completely off-base with that?

Thanks for this WONDERFUL thread. I've had the wonderful opportunity to see G-BOAF at filton just before she closed, and just wish I still had the chance to fly on her. m2dude - if you have it within you to post your theories about why what happened in 2003, I'd love to hear it.

- DavvaP.

Ok, I've got another question! I was watching "Concorde: The Comeback" on discovery turbo channel last night (just couldn't help myself!).

Really interesting stuff about how they put the kevlar into the fuel tanks etc. I don't know if anyone who posts here was in that program, but if you were - everyone was looking good!! :-) It was superb to see the genuine emotion when Concorde got her certificate back and could take to the skies once again!

Ok, so my question is - BA had to use an airframe as a test for the modifications. However, the choice of airframe seemed a strange one to me, BOAF - which I previously thought to be one of the youngest and best airframe they had (m2dude you explained that BOAF and BOAG weighed less than the previous models). So, why would BA use one of their best airframes, rather than use perhaps the most worn out of their fleet?

All in all though - great program, and lovely shots/video of the Lady, and all who cared for her, from the guys at the top running the business side to the poor guys climbing into the fuel tanks! In all honesty, I'd prefer to be doing the fuel tank side stuff myself, rather than the business side of it! Maybe the pilots had the best of all worlds! ;-)

Cheers for all the insight & information once more!

(Edit: In this program pretty much at the start, all 7 BA concordes are shown lined up in formation on the ground at (I presume) Heathrow). Just seeing them all together, all looking stunning.... breathtaking.

In you'll indulge me in another question that's been on my mind recently! Watched & read various things about the noise monitoring on Concorde's flight out of JFK in order for her to be able to fly in & out at the start of her service life.

Obviously a very inventive solution was practiced and executed which resulted in the noise monitors registering no problem whatsoever - indeed, people wondering why on earth no other aircraft doing the same procedure.

However, my question is this - What if she hadn't done this procedure? Would she have been too loud for the noise monitors? Was it actually necessary to perform the procedure? Politically it was a great idea, and no possibility of failure could be allowed at the time. But was she actually too loud in reality for the JFK noise monitors?

- Davva

Only mention that I found on the internet about this, was on the bbc website from a comment from " Paul Goes, Luxembourg"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3207836.stm

I'm sure there will be more informed people to comment on this though ;-)

Another thing I've found today whilst searching for all things Concorde, were several mentions about the eclipse chasing that Concorde did during its lifetime. One really stood out and that was the chase during 1973. Here's a link to a photograph taken:

Concorde During Eclipse | Surfer Jerry

The intriguing part of the 1973 story though is the special "window" put into 001 to view the eclipse through. ChristiaanJ, you've posted previously on another forum about this (dated back to 2004 ) - are there any photographs of the windows installed for this event?

Chasing The Sun: A Supersonic Celestial Observation | Scienceray

It sounds a completely magical experience!!

Further to skittles post - if anyone has links to HD footage of concorde at all, I'd love it see it. There are a couple of youtube videos:
YouTube - Concorde Final flight:HD Tranquility Base Razorfish ( Audio 320kb
YouTube - Saving Concorde HD

But it would be great to see nice HD footage of one of the ladies in flight.

One question for the people who designed & worked with her - was there any sort of thrust vectoring - not for any directional controls of course, but perhaps to give extra lift to save drag on the wing when at mach2? Or is that a completely daft idea? Perhaps I'm not explaining what I mean well - what I mean is was the direction of the exhaust gases completely 100% unchanged, or were they directed slightly downwards to generate some lift?

Clearly, I have no clue what I'm talking about :-)

Out of interest with any successor to concorde, what lift/drag ratio is now technically possible, and likewise from more advanced powerplants that could be available now what lb/hr/lbf numbers could be achieved?

One other question if I may - how much of a compromise was concorde's wing with respect to the balance of supersonic vs sub-sonic efficiency? What I'm trying to ask is if the wing could be a variable geometry with no weight cost (impossible I know) how much more efficient could the supersonic wing have become - or was the compromise very much on the sub-sonic performance and not much to gain in terms of supersonic efficiency?

Once more - thanks for all the great answers to the really intriguing questions!! I'm fascinated by Concorde - and regret I never had the means to fly on her whilst she was still where she belongs!