Posts by user "Landroger" [Posts: 38 Total up-votes: 0 Page: 2 of 2]ΒΆ

Landroger
December 29, 2010, 19:27:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6148867
Exwok and Bellerophon

Between you, you have just about created a 'flash time machine'. An instant image of a real day and a real moment. I'll admit that though I looked at Bellerophon's picture with some care, it was only by reading his text that the image began to make some sense. Then along comes Exwok, casts his eyes over the image and suddenly we are squinting in the glare of high altitude sunlight and listening to the sound of the machine as she arcs across the sky, entirely comfortable with her environment and eye watering pace. Thank you both.

I don't wish to pry on personal sentiment, but having been part of a very elite band - only 97 people have flown Concorde including two women? Is that right? - isn't every memory retrieved by such things as that photograph, just pure, heart wrenching sadness? It is clear from this fabulous thread that the passing of Concorde has left an aching void in the lives of the contributors here.

Definitely thought provoking.

Which reminds me, apart from being the vanquisher of the Chimera , Bellerophon has more lately been warships of Her Majesty's Navy - at the battles of both Trafalgar and Jutland, but why a pilot?

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
December 31, 2010, 17:49:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6152365
ChristiaanJ

Yes, two women. One in France, one in Britain.
Unless you also include Jacqueline Auriol, probably the world's first female test pilot, who flew Concorde 001 in the earliest days.
Oooerr CJ! I would think Hanna Reich would turn in her grave if she heard that! I believe she even test flew a V1 (Doodlebug)!!

Roger

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): V1

Landroger
January 01, 2011, 16:41:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6153674
Live Aid.

A Concorde question arose in conversation last night - standing in the kitchen avec bier and churning over the past, as you do. The subject of party 'rock anthems' inevitably brought up Live Aid and the fact that mine host and his wife were actually there.

It is his impression that during the London concert, Concorde flew directly over the stadium and 'waggled its wings' in salute, at which the crowd went wild, as they say. Can anyone confirm this?

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
January 14, 2011, 21:57:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6180277
CliveL

PS: Everyone seems to be adding their favourite Concorde photograph so I thought I would be different and add my LEAST favourite
Ohh yuk!! What is that Clive? It looks photoshopped to me, because why would anyone want Concorde to look like that?

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
January 15, 2011, 12:18:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6181129
Don't worry Dude, its the 'prattle' we're here for! And I echo your greetings to Landlady.

Thank goodness that dreadful paint job never flew - somebody might have been tempted to have a proper go at shooting her down!! (Not that they could catch her. )

Roger.



Subjects: None

Landroger
January 25, 2011, 19:30:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6202791
Shaggy Sheep Driver

She's always looked good, but probably didn't look any better in 1969 than she does now.

Cars are 'styled' and are therefore subject to fashion whims. So a car of 1969 looks awfully old fashioned by 2011 standards.

Concorde wasn't styled. She is the shape she is because that's the shape she needs to be to enable her to do what no other aeroplane could do - carry 100 shirt-sleeve comfort passengers at Mach 2 and 60,000' for up to 4.5 hours.

Concorde was form following function. Her beutiful lines did not come from a stylists drawing board, but from those of the aerodynamicist and other engineers involved in her design. So she hasn't dated!
A good thought Shaggy and probably spot on.

We read posts in this thread from people, all over the world, who saw Concorde once, maybe a couple of times in their lives and will never forget the occasion. Not surprising in many ways. Those of you who worked with her don't find that surprising, because you never tired of looking.

I have been an aeroplane geek since I was eight, have lived under the 'funnel' for 28L for fifty-five of my years and I pretty much know what's overhead by the sound. Much as I like and admire the stately 747, I can pretty much take or leave them, if distracted or busy. I saw Concorde almost every day, sometimes twice, in all the years she was flying and I always stopped and stared upwards. Always.

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
January 30, 2011, 11:23:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6212446
M2Dude.

Ahah! Got you! Reference my original question about calibrating so many vital analogue systems.

No big deal with a digital ADC of course but not so clever when you are dealing with steam driven analog as we were. (Bearing in mind that any analog ADC is an electro-mechanical device). To give identical Mach 2 cruise readings between ADC 1 & 2 a plug in resistor/diode module was hooked into the respective ADC circuit, and this module stayed with the aircraft always.
I knew there would have to be something somewhere. However, I have to agree that it only goes to demonstrate yet again, just how good were the original systems and the engineers who designed them.

Nice picture from you too Dude, which raises a couple of questions for me. Why the blind window nearest your wife's camera? And I'm not sure why I've never been aware of it before, but this view shows up some sort of tube mounted atop the fuselage, just in front of the fin. What is that please?

Oh and something that your photograph put in mind. It must be very seldom that even a parked aircraft is actually quiet. Being under AC like that must have been a bit un-nerving for someone so used to being next to Concorde, because she must be virtually silent?

Roger.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADC (Air Data Computer)

Landroger
February 16, 2011, 21:14:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6251212
That's the first time I've heard that clip and I have to agree with Coffin Dodger. A really emotional recollection, it must have been so difficult to stay so professional on a day like that.

And all the other aircraft saying goodbye was so thoughtful, especially the 'ordinary heavies' asking for somewhere to delay departure so they could watch Concorde's last take off. Given how much approbation she collected the first time she went to New York, it seems New Yorkers eventually found a place in their hearts for her.

Thanks for posting that CD.

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
April 03, 2011, 13:29:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6347861
Dude/SpannersatKL

It often seemed like gynacology, or even 'brain surgery 'for fun and profit' a lot of the time when changing stuff on The Rocket'.
The old "fourteen fingers and rubber legs" syndrome? Been there, done that, got the bad joint pain to prove it.

Roger

Subjects: None

Landroger
April 08, 2011, 00:00:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6357206
Unique design.

I can think of no other design in the world, before or since, civil or military, where a supersonic engine/intake marriage gave such incredidable levels of performance, stability and predictability.
I think Dude's above statement more or less characterises the Concorde design and therefore this entire thread - which I have read, avidly, since post #1. However, since Dude made the statement most specifically about the synergy of the whole intake, engine and nozzles, it is worth reiterating that Concorde's only real peer in her occupation of the very highest and fastest regimes of wing borne flight - the SR71 - initially at least, had a lethal gene. Asymmetric 'Unstart' caused by intake instability.

Without proper scheduling, disturbances inside the inlet could result
in the shock wave being expelled forward--a phenomenon known as an
"inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous loss of engine thrust,
explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the aircraft--like
being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in
the SR-71's development,
This quote is from a much longer article quoted in this thread, about a test flight by Bill Weaver, a Lockheed development pilot, in which Weaver was, quite literally torn out of the aeroplane at Mach 3.2, as was his back seater who, sadly, did not survive the incident.

Basically, a relatively small failure within the intake/spike structure of the SR71 engine, was enough to simply tear the airframe apart within seconds of onset. The scale of forces within these structures therefore, must be almost beyond imagination and yet the Concorde design was such that she did not suffer such destructive failures.

My admiration for everyone who worked on her is endless.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Intakes  Nozzles  SR-71

Landroger
April 24, 2011, 09:52:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6409306
GordonRoxburgh

For a very short test programme, well ahead of any A320 programme which did not come about till 1984, I suspect this was no more than a belt and braces to see if you could fly an aircraft from a side mounted stick.
That cannot of been the sole objective, surely Gordon? Concorde was far too complex and expensive an aeroplane to simply want to prove that with her? Wasn't the F16 flying then? That had side stick - and a 'lay down in the bath' seating position didn't it?

As for the aerodynamics, what a fascinating discussion! I'll readily admit it is mostly on the fringes and way above my understanding, but I can hang on to enough of it to make the subject utterly intriguing. My maths are not and never were anywhere near good enough to make this a career choice, but the image conjured of vorteces and laminar flows and shock waves is quite beautiful.

Thanks again everyone.

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
May 22, 2011, 21:10:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6467057
atakacs

maybe no the proper place but I wanted to share this very nice and supposedly recent photo gallery on the topic...
Oh wow!

Roger

Subjects: None

Landroger
May 23, 2011, 20:09:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6468996
CJ & rodlittle

Photoshop, most of it, I would say.
Still, well done.

CJ
it does say cgi if you look
rod
I know, I know. I saw that, but the images are just the ones you would like to have taken ............ if you wouldn't have been arrested if you'd tried to.

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
October 10, 2011, 22:59:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6744075
BN2A

Many thanks for those three clips, that's a half hour out of my life I don't begrudge or regret one bit. I'm just so glad the crew were all British and were speaking in the completely clear and unhurried, relaxed yet alert tones of people who know what they are doing. I could understand virtually every word.

Dave Rowland's explanations were very clear and made such a lot of sense when they were happening as part of the sequence. Flying Concorde must have been so, so satisfying? Every flight must have been a small triumph and to think you guys got paid for it!

And yet again Dude, I simply marvel at the amazing systems that made the aeroplane do what it did - and not a digital circuit (except the later engine/intake control processors?) in the place. Truly amazing. Thanks again guys.

Roger.

Subjects: None

Landroger
November 20, 2011, 13:10:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 6817335
London Science Museum

I was recently able - for the first time in about twenty-five years - to visit the London Science Museum. Not only which, I was able to spend the whole day, on my own , with no children dragging me along. As always, the Aviation Gallery occupied a lot of my time there, but I was quite surprised that there is very little about 'our lady', when I should have thought she was sufficiently 'white heat of the technological revolution' to qualify for a whole display to herself?

Going on from remarks about tracing the number of 593s still around, there is one there. Right at the back corner of the Aviation Gallery, on a yellow trolley and next to an RB211. Very little explanation to it and none whatsoever of the astonishing intake/engine/thrust bucket combination.

The only other Concorde exhibit, that I could find, was a beautiful 'cut away' model, standing on a mirror. The model was so detailed and interesting, I took a photograph of it, as I did of the 593, but I find my "PPRuNe Posting Rule" do not allow me to post attachments.

Is it not slightly surprising that there is not more about Concorde there? After all, I was able to revisit an 'old friend' of mine - the original EMIScanner MkI CT scanner from Atkinson Morley's Hospital - that I used to look after back in the day.

Roger.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Olympus 593  Thrust Reversers

Landroger
September 02, 2012, 10:46:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 7391863
The Late XV105

I am not in any position to offer an answer t o your question XV105, but may I offer a 'speculation'? I would hazard that the projection you highlight might be a Radio Altimeter aperture? It looks like a casting or even a forging and far too fancy for a drain. It seems to me the surface in which the aperture is 'machined', would be pretty much horizontal in the landing configuration and thus offer accurate height of the centre of gravity perhaps? Given that the cockpit would be many feet above that, it makes sense.

Errr..... I'll get me coat.

Subjects: None

Landroger
September 02, 2012, 11:26:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 7391925
I know exactly what you mean Clive and ordinarily I would agree with someone with vastly greater knowledge and experience, but it just looks too.........'classy' for a drain. The aperture is a rounded rectangle, very wave guide in nature and that vane is beautifully made, whatever it was made of. The only thing is, I'm a bit concerned the aperture is not covered in some way.

Somebody, somewhere must know what it is and now I'm fascinated.

Subjects: None

Landroger
February 02, 2016, 11:02:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 9256478
A very belated reply.

I'm not really sure why I stopped coming here, it is one of, if not the most interesting thread on any of the forums I visit - by miles. However, I got back into it a few days ago and realised I was over a hundred pages behind. I have been slowly catching up, but I'm still nearly fifty pages behind.

My first question is; what has become of the Brabazon Hangar/ BAe Filton/ G-BOAF situation? Wikipedia just say its all been sold - the airfield at least - but not what the dispositions of all those valuable items, particularly Alpha Foxtrot.

Second, just to show I really am reading myself back up to date, I noticed something ChristaanJ said that has some resonance with me.

Quote:
Has anybody here read "The Soul of a New Machine", by Tracy Kidder?
It's a pity no book quite like that has ever been written about Concorde... and I can't imagine it could be written today. Too many of the 'actors' have retired, or are not there anymore....

Maybe somebody ambitious could use this thread as a base, and do some interviews, and write "Concorde, From Then to Now" ?
Wow! Yes I have CJ! I only know one other person who has - fascinating book and I know exactly what you mean. Thee are several other books in the same vein; 21st Century Jet - about the conception and birth of the Boeing 777 and Wide Body , the equally fascinating story of the beloved and iconic Boeing 747.

You probably don't remember, but I used to be a "scanner engineer" - I finally retired in July last year - but I was involved in the very early days of what are now common place diagnostic machines. At some point in the early nineties, I realised two things. I could write a bit - not incomprehensibly at any rate - and all the people who made the early scanners, did the development work and worked on them in the field before me, were either retired or passed away. I asked the management at the time if I could have a bit of time, perhaps a half day every week, to do the research and do a 'Tracy Kidder' for the EMIScanner. No answer came the stern reply and it never got done. Now I don't think it can be, so it never will.

I would love to write 'The Soul of a New Machine' for Concorde, but A) I'm probably too old now and B) I was never part of it, so I probably can't put the passion in to it, certainly not the knowledge, that she deserves.

If anyone on here who was part of it who wants to put pen to paper (Oh come on! Who doesn't use a Word Processor - which dates me on its own!) but it doesn't seem to come out right, perhaps we ought to meet?

Few of my close friends are engineers or scientists and although they all agree that Concorde was (and is) a lovely looking thing, they simply don't understand why it is that engineers get passionate and dewy eyed about her. They cannot comprehend the difficulties of flying at Mach 1+, let alone Mach 2 for three hours in a pretty frock and thus, the ability to do so just seems 'normal'. The book is there to write; the book of the people, by the people, for the people.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Boeing  Filton  G-BOAF