October 03, 2010, 13:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5971665
I stumbled upon this thread late last night and thought "26 pages, I'll have to read that in the morning".
Well, I did read it in the morning, it's just that I did so before I took myself off to bed at shortly after 5am.
It's simply wonderful to read all of this information, anecdotes and see the sheer delight and fascination that flows from those associated with the aeroplane.
To the comment about having Concorde pass by twice daily and always looking up, I can only say that I've never been within sight of a Concorde in flight where everyone else as well as me have not been looking up! How many aircraft can you say that about?
Please keep the thread rolling, it's truly fascinating. And to Landlady, I was watching a recent programme about Concorde's life and operation and the ladies of the cabin crew commented that almost everyone that they had on board had a smile on their face for pretty much the whole flight. Again, how many other aircraft can do that? Thank you for your anecdotes, they're priceless.
Well, I did read it in the morning, it's just that I did so before I took myself off to bed at shortly after 5am.
It's simply wonderful to read all of this information, anecdotes and see the sheer delight and fascination that flows from those associated with the aeroplane.
To the comment about having Concorde pass by twice daily and always looking up, I can only say that I've never been within sight of a Concorde in flight where everyone else as well as me have not been looking up! How many aircraft can you say that about?
Please keep the thread rolling, it's truly fascinating. And to Landlady, I was watching a recent programme about Concorde's life and operation and the ladies of the cabin crew commented that almost everyone that they had on board had a smile on their face for pretty much the whole flight. Again, how many other aircraft can do that? Thank you for your anecdotes, they're priceless.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Cabin Crew
October 07, 2010, 12:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5979844
Well, if the price of a Concorde flight was merely sleep deprivation, then we'd all have been propping our eyelids open with matchsticks!
I presume that the fuel penalty for a locked secondary nozzle was due to the reduced expansion of exhaust gas without the maximum divergent shape?
I presume that the fuel penalty for a locked secondary nozzle was due to the reduced expansion of exhaust gas without the maximum divergent shape?
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Nozzles
October 08, 2010, 12:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5981946
Thanks for those nozzle diagrams Dude, they are very useful to visualise what's happening.
I remember reading Stanley Hookers book "Not Much of an Engineer" (I know the feeling
), in which he explains how at Mach 2 the Olympus is only providing about 8% of the total thrust but then goes on to say that at the low speed end of the take-off run it was 100% of the thrust so his designers were not let off the hook. That falls to 82% in subsonic cruise.
Ah, found the figures for Mach 2, the inlet provides 63% of the total thrust, exhaust nozzles 29%. That certainly explains why the thinning and re-profiling of the inlet lip was so important to improving the fuel burn, and hence range.
I remember reading Stanley Hookers book "Not Much of an Engineer" (I know the feeling
), in which he explains how at Mach 2 the Olympus is only providing about 8% of the total thrust but then goes on to say that at the low speed end of the take-off run it was 100% of the thrust so his designers were not let off the hook. That falls to 82% in subsonic cruise.
Ah, found the figures for Mach 2, the inlet provides 63% of the total thrust, exhaust nozzles 29%. That certainly explains why the thinning and re-profiling of the inlet lip was so important to improving the fuel burn, and hence range.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Intakes Nozzles
October 08, 2010, 12:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5981956
Something that I'm wondering about.
The reheat thrust increase is only about 6,000 lb per engine, so why is the fuel flow increase so large for a less than 20% thrust increase? Proportionally I think I remember it being mentioned that the fuel flow about doubles.
The reheat thrust increase is only about 6,000 lb per engine, so why is the fuel flow increase so large for a less than 20% thrust increase? Proportionally I think I remember it being mentioned that the fuel flow about doubles.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat
October 09, 2010, 22:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5984964
Looking at the prototype's nozzle arrangements in comparison with that used in the production aircraft, does anyone know how much the secondary nozzle silencing effect actually gained?
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): JFK Nozzles
October 10, 2010, 22:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5986740
I wonder if my piggy bank will ever stretch to a sim session down at Brooklands? I can but dream.....
Thanks for the engine nozzle comments Dude, it certainly seems that the secondary nozzles got bitten by the law of unintended consequences. All engineers are familiar with that one!
Thanks for the engine nozzle comments Dude, it certainly seems that the secondary nozzles got bitten by the law of unintended consequences. All engineers are familiar with that one!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Brooklands Nozzles
October 12, 2010, 22:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 5991057
If only I'd known that flight deck ballast was necessary, I would have volunteered!
Subjects: None
October 24, 2010, 17:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6015028
Hey Dude
Saw your posts about the Concorde reheat spray bar and flame holder assembly in another thread, might it be worth reposting it in this thread to keep it all in the same place?
On a related note, what changed in the engine parameters if the Contingency mode was entered on take-off? And what would trigger that mode?
Oh yes, and once engaged, is there a time limit on how long it can be maintained? I'm assuming in an engine out case that at heavy weight the reheats have to remain engaged on the remaining engines until the speed has built up to get off the back of the drag curve.
Saw your posts about the Concorde reheat spray bar and flame holder assembly in another thread, might it be worth reposting it in this thread to keep it all in the same place?
On a related note, what changed in the engine parameters if the Contingency mode was entered on take-off? And what would trigger that mode?
Oh yes, and once engaged, is there a time limit on how long it can be maintained? I'm assuming in an engine out case that at heavy weight the reheats have to remain engaged on the remaining engines until the speed has built up to get off the back of the drag curve.
Last edited by Feathers McGraw; 24th October 2010 at 17:44 .
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat
October 25, 2010, 19:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6017154
Thanks Dude, very interesting!
As for the 7 fingered reheat flame-holder, do you know of or have any photos? I'm quite fascinated by this, I'd like to see what it looks like. I have never heard of this modification anywhere else so once again this thread manages to surprise by turning up things that one couldn't find out any other way.
As for the 7 fingered reheat flame-holder, do you know of or have any photos? I'm quite fascinated by this, I'd like to see what it looks like. I have never heard of this modification anywhere else so once again this thread manages to surprise by turning up things that one couldn't find out any other way.
Last edited by Feathers McGraw; 25th October 2010 at 19:43 . Reason: Spelling correction
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat
October 25, 2010, 21:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6017352
Thanks Dude.
Not quite what I was expecting but very interesting all the same. I see that each finger appears to have an inlet at the base to allow gas flow to alleviate some of the turbulence behind it.
Now to find a picture of a Concorde reheat flame rosette to see how the flame matches up to the finger pattern.
Good game!
Better still, I found a picture of the reheat assembly with the fingers fitted:
Google Image Result for http://heritageconcorde.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/reheat-picture.jpg
Not quite what I was expecting but very interesting all the same. I see that each finger appears to have an inlet at the base to allow gas flow to alleviate some of the turbulence behind it.
Now to find a picture of a Concorde reheat flame rosette to see how the flame matches up to the finger pattern.
Good game!
Better still, I found a picture of the reheat assembly with the fingers fitted:
Google Image Result for http://heritageconcorde.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/reheat-picture.jpg
Last edited by Feathers McGraw; 25th October 2010 at 22:16 . Reason: Add image link
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat Intakes
November 01, 2010, 23:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6032526
Hmm, Dude, don't hold back on what you think of them, tell it like it is!
Subjects: None
November 02, 2010, 20:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6034431
I'm sure there are plenty of self-effacing pilots, but maybe they don't post on PPRuNe....
And they're not from Yorkshire.... (that's a joke as well
)
And they're not from Yorkshire.... (that's a joke as well
)
Subjects: None
November 06, 2010, 23:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6044296
You can't just leave it there Dude!
Would you be so good as to explain what happened and why? It certainly doesn't sound healthy....
Would you be so good as to explain what happened and why? It certainly doesn't sound healthy....
Subjects: None
November 07, 2010, 01:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6044456
OK Dude, thanks very much for that. Extremely interesting, I assume that there must have been some sort of fuel control failure for a sub-idle N2 to establish with the engine lit.
I've never heard of this phenomenon before, although I know that some fairly odd things can happen in helicopter rotors where the air below the rotor can be pulled around by the passing blades which sounds vaguely similar.
What steps were taken to prevent his happening again? Modification of the fuel control scheduling or something else?
I've never heard of this phenomenon before, although I know that some fairly odd things can happen in helicopter rotors where the air below the rotor can be pulled around by the passing blades which sounds vaguely similar.
What steps were taken to prevent his happening again? Modification of the fuel control scheduling or something else?
Subjects: None
November 10, 2010, 12:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6051733
Biggles
I think the rudder failure incident was covered in Brian Calvert's book, "Flying Concorde".
IIRC, after the rudder failed and separated the first indication of a problem was during deceleration, a light buffet or buzzing sensation was detected by the flight crew. There was no indication of the problem other than this.
The crew was informed of the problem by the tower during their landing, but I don't remember whether this was during the approach or once on the runway.
I think the rudder failure incident was covered in Brian Calvert's book, "Flying Concorde".
IIRC, after the rudder failed and separated the first indication of a problem was during deceleration, a light buffet or buzzing sensation was detected by the flight crew. There was no indication of the problem other than this.
The crew was informed of the problem by the tower during their landing, but I don't remember whether this was during the approach or once on the runway.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Rudder
November 12, 2010, 12:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6056130
At some point during the development of Concorde, there were a number of flights performed in the UK where RAF Lightnings flew at supersonic speed over various places to assess the effects, including how many complaints were received.
I don't remember exactly when this happened, but I would guess about 1970. What I do remember was being in my bedroom in North London when there was a double boom and just managing to see for an instant the aircraft that made it heading south towards Central London before disappearing behind the trees and houses at the bottom of our garden. I can't recall how high it was flying but it did look very small from my perspective.
Of course by this time Concorde was already flying so it was clear that it would have to stick with its general configuration and deal with overflight problems by changes in routing, but I did enjoy the experience. I think it was the first sonic boom I had ever heard, but I was already interested enough in aircraft to know what it was.
I don't remember exactly when this happened, but I would guess about 1970. What I do remember was being in my bedroom in North London when there was a double boom and just managing to see for an instant the aircraft that made it heading south towards Central London before disappearing behind the trees and houses at the bottom of our garden. I can't recall how high it was flying but it did look very small from my perspective.
Of course by this time Concorde was already flying so it was clear that it would have to stick with its general configuration and deal with overflight problems by changes in routing, but I did enjoy the experience. I think it was the first sonic boom I had ever heard, but I was already interested enough in aircraft to know what it was.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Sonic Boom
November 14, 2010, 22:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6060943
Fascinating stuff again Dude, I'd never realised that even that leak rate existed on Concorde but then maybe other airliners leak a bit too, I don't make a habit of walking around under them (more's the pity).
As for the SR-71, the construction was a bit like a lot of ribs with sliding clips that attached the skins to them, hence things could slide about to cope with the heating at Mach 3+. Kelly Johnson often referred to this as his "Mach 3 Ford Tri-motor".
The fuel used (JP-7) had a tendency to rot the wiring in the aircraft, so they were re-wired quite often during their lives. All Sleds sat in pools of fuel when hangared, unless they were totally empty.
Refuelling was usually carried out at about 33,000 feet, and as the tanks filled it became necessary to light minimum afterburner on one engine to maintain contact with the tanker. The nose was always yawed the same way because only one of the windshield panes was de-misted so this side was always used to maintain sight of the tanker's underside.
After tanking a descent was commenced to about 26,000 feet to help with acceleration to supersonic speed, as far as I am aware all supersonic flight was made with afterburner selected.
I remember reading some time ago that fuel consumption was in order of 8,000 US gal per hour. Not sure if that is an average or whether it covers only Mach 3 cruise.
As for the SR-71, the construction was a bit like a lot of ribs with sliding clips that attached the skins to them, hence things could slide about to cope with the heating at Mach 3+. Kelly Johnson often referred to this as his "Mach 3 Ford Tri-motor".
The fuel used (JP-7) had a tendency to rot the wiring in the aircraft, so they were re-wired quite often during their lives. All Sleds sat in pools of fuel when hangared, unless they were totally empty.
Refuelling was usually carried out at about 33,000 feet, and as the tanks filled it became necessary to light minimum afterburner on one engine to maintain contact with the tanker. The nose was always yawed the same way because only one of the windshield panes was de-misted so this side was always used to maintain sight of the tanker's underside.
After tanking a descent was commenced to about 26,000 feet to help with acceleration to supersonic speed, as far as I am aware all supersonic flight was made with afterburner selected.
I remember reading some time ago that fuel consumption was in order of 8,000 US gal per hour. Not sure if that is an average or whether it covers only Mach 3 cruise.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat SR-71
November 19, 2010, 12:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6071862
Cron
If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in.
I think that Concorde was a running love affair for a lot of people, especially for those that flew her, looked after the passengers and maintained her but the effect of a Concorde pass on just about anyone was noticeable. Every head turned and looked skyward, and kept looking even after the aircraft was out of sight. People who lived below the regular flight paths, who might have been expected to be upset by the noise, used to come outside and watch on every occasion. I've seen almost a whole street appear a few minutes before a departing Concorde that passed over Reading and be rewarded with a great view in brilliant sunshine.
Not many aircraft have that kind of following....
If you watch some of the more recent Concorde programmes, such as "Concorde's Last Flight", you'll hear and see the reaction of the various people (including our very own Dude) from the BA side of things as they talk about their charge. The AF crews also have that same look on their faces in the few programmes I've seen them in.
I think that Concorde was a running love affair for a lot of people, especially for those that flew her, looked after the passengers and maintained her but the effect of a Concorde pass on just about anyone was noticeable. Every head turned and looked skyward, and kept looking even after the aircraft was out of sight. People who lived below the regular flight paths, who might have been expected to be upset by the noise, used to come outside and watch on every occasion. I've seen almost a whole street appear a few minutes before a departing Concorde that passed over Reading and be rewarded with a great view in brilliant sunshine.
Not many aircraft have that kind of following....
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air France British Airways
November 19, 2010, 16:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6072413
"Concorde's Last Flight" was shown a couple of months ago, on Channel 4 I think, but my memory may be playing up. No, it isn't, see here.
Concorde's Last Flight - Concorde's Last Flight - Channel 4
It's not on 4OD, so you will have to search other video sites and see if you can find it. Interesting, nothing really new and earth-shattering but some good things in it.
Concorde's Last Flight - Concorde's Last Flight - Channel 4
It's not on 4OD, so you will have to search other video sites and see if you can find it. Interesting, nothing really new and earth-shattering but some good things in it.
Subjects: None
November 21, 2010, 01:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 6074940
In 2000 I was on my way to Helsinki in a Finnair A321 at Heathrow taxying out towards 28R when looking out of the windows we realised that a Concorde was passing to the left of us. Just at that moment the ceiling screens folded down and the forward facing camera powered up, showing us the whole of the Concorde as it turned onto the runway and spooled up. The whole of the fuselage of our 'bus was rattling away, and then as the noise decreased we were cleared to line up ourselves and the screens showed rapidly receding reheat flames through a cloud of exhaust smoke. Despite being cleared to take off immediately, we were naturally left well behind, I could just see the Concorde climbing out to the west as we turned north and then east to head off across to the North Sea.
No prizes for guessing which flight I would have preferred to be on....
No prizes for guessing which flight I would have preferred to be on....
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat LHR