Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last Index Page
| Nick Thomas
September 06, 2010, 14:25:00 GMT permalink Post: 5917441 |
Thanks Bellerophon and CJ for posting the flight envelope. With regard to the CofG of 59%, I notice that the upper part of the envelope abuts the MMO boundary.So is the Cof G of 59% the determining factor for the MMO or is it some other factor?
Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): C of G Flight Envelope |
| Nick Thomas
September 06, 2010, 23:32:00 GMT permalink Post: 5918554 |
Once again thanks to everyone who has patiently answered my questions. I have certainly learnt a lot about Concorde over the last couple of weeks.
I also agree with many other people who have said that the valuable information provided on this thread should be recorded for posterity. Not an easy task as she is such a wonderful and complex machine. Mind you I think that such a project would be worthy of a Heritage Lottery grant, I say that as in my "real life" I have had experience of how Lottery grants are awarded. Regards Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
September 08, 2010, 12:11:00 GMT permalink Post: 5921702 |
I agree with that. This thread is so good because everyone involved either designed,operated or flew her; together with onlookers such as myself who are grateful that you are all willing to share your unique experiences. If we get on to the crash we will have all the people with other agendas posting here.
Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air France 4590 |
| Nick Thomas
September 08, 2010, 16:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 5922316 |
Hi Exwok, am interested in the fact that Concorde proudced very little lift before rotation. As am SLF I may be mistaken but I can understand that on landing she was pitched up about 10 degrees and obviously on take off this was not the case so there would be little lift. So I presume the high angle of attack is how lift was maintained at slow speed. Therefore on rotation how were the forces that lifted the nose wheel generated?
Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Landing Gear |
| Nick Thomas
September 13, 2010, 19:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 5932725 |
Hi again
I remember that around 1980 one Concorde was painted on one side in the Singapore livery. Obviously the flight to Singapore would need at least one fuel stop. What I have always wondered is which part of the route was flown supersonic? Was she granted any overland supersonic rights? Also was it feasible to have a short supersonic section followed by a subsonic bit and then back to supersonic? I guess that having to use reheat to accelerate twice to mach 2 would use too much fuel. Thanks Landlady for your posts on Concorde. As SLF I never flew on her but thanks to you I now have an idea of what a wonderful experience it would have been. Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Afterburner/Re-heat |
| Nick Thomas
September 20, 2010, 22:19:00 GMT permalink Post: 5946539 |
Hi
I know that there were stall problems with the Trident due to the main wing blocking the air flow to the elevators. I just wondered if there was any side slip problems etc due to the air flow being blocked to the vertical tail by the big delta wing especially at large AoA on landing? If so what was the undoubtably clever solution? Mind you I may be seeing problems where there are none! Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AoA |
| Nick Thomas
September 20, 2010, 23:52:00 GMT permalink Post: 5946667 |
Thanks NW1 for your clear and concise answer and for also answering my next question before I had a chance to post it! which was going to be what were the two ledges at the front for? I had always assumed that they were vesitigal canards but in fact they were to help longtiudinal stabilty.
I have another question and that is whenever I see pictures of Concorde's cabin the seat pitch whist not being as tight as economy does seem not to be that generous. So what was the pitch? and if the pitch used in economy on other craft had been used throught the plane could more people have been carried without affecting takoff and landing weights and compromising evacuation etc? I guess with the length of the flights seat pitch was not an important issue. Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
September 21, 2010, 17:38:00 GMT permalink Post: 5948201 |
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 Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
September 23, 2010, 00:20:00 GMT permalink Post: 5950766 |
Hi again
I think the management of fuel on Concorde is fascinating.One of the reasons that this thread has been so interesting to me has been the explanations on how the fuel not only provided a potential energy source but was also used as a cooling medium and especially it's use in moving the CofG. Am not sure but I think that some baggage was stored aft of the cabin. If that was the case on landing was fuel pumped forward to balance this out? If that was so when deciding on the amount of fuel needed plus diversion fuel etc was there a minimum amount of fuel that had to still be in the tanks on landing? Regards Nick Last edited by Nick Thomas; 23rd September 2010 at 01:44 . Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): C of G |
| Nick Thomas
September 23, 2010, 01:50:00 GMT permalink Post: 5950840 |
I agree that the 747-400 had tail tanks but the 747 upgrade was approx 20 years after Concorde first flew!
Regards Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
September 28, 2010, 16:30:00 GMT permalink Post: 5961862 |
Autopilot
I was wondering if it was possible to hand fly Concorde when she was supersonic? Therefore would the failure of one or both autopilots mean that you would have to divert to the nearest airport? Also how long after takeoff would it normally be before engaging the autopilot?
Thanks again Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Auto-pilot |
| Nick Thomas
September 28, 2010, 17:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 5961934 |
Hi M2dude
In the spirit that you asked them; does the answer to Q2 include crew seats, jump seats and even loo seats? Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
September 28, 2010, 21:10:00 GMT permalink Post: 5962404 |
Thanks everyone for such interesting replies. Yet again Concorde suprises me!
M2dude am looking forward to your answers on Thursday especially Q2! Regards Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
October 01, 2010, 23:47:00 GMT permalink Post: 5969254 |
Hi everyone
Earlier in this thread there was an interesting discussion on emergency depressurisation. During the rapid descent I would guess that the FE would be very busy find out "what was what" etc. So I have been wondering if there were any special procedures for managing the CofG in a rapid descent especially as there could also be many other factors needing the crews attention? BTW it only seems like yesterday when I was sat in front of my parents TV watching Concorde take off for the first time from Filton and in fact it's now nearly 42 years ago. I like most people watched the event in black and white which just goes to prove how far ahead of her time she was. Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): C of G Depressurisation Filton |
| Nick Thomas
October 07, 2010, 00:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 5978885 |
This thread is so good because of the interesting way that all the Concorde experts from both sides of the channel have answered the many questions posted. So I was a little surprised to read the last post which in my humble view breaks the "harmony" of this thread!
Regards Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
October 11, 2010, 15:05:00 GMT permalink Post: 5987998 |
Centre of Gravity
I have been thinking (always dangerous!) about CofG movement. I understand the concept that the CofG must be positioned for the particular phase of flight. What I have been wondering is on shorter charter flights was there a mininium ammount of fuel that had to be loaded just to always have enough fuel for CofG movement ie was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?
Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): C of G |
| Nick Thomas
October 12, 2010, 00:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 5989046 |
Thanks CJ and Bellerophon for your answers.
When Concorde was retired what happened to the pilots and FEs who were too young to retire? Did they have a choice of what to fly next? Did the newer glass cockpits offer less of a challenge? I have always presumed that the FEs would be nearer retirement as by that time all other BA planes would be a two pilot flight deck. Regards Nick Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways |
| Nick Thomas
November 03, 2010, 00:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 6034833 |
Flight Directors
I have read somewhere (could be on this thread) that Concorde's flight directors were only used in the climb above a certain altitude.
If that was the case, what was the reason? and was there a specific altitude above which the FDs would be used? I presume that on the descent they could be used all the way down to the landing as they would be linked to the ILS. Regards Nick Subjects: None |
| Nick Thomas
November 10, 2010, 20:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 6052662 |
Whilst Concorde only resulted in a small production run and from that perspective it was not successful. I think that CJ's last post shows that the (unforseen at the time) spin offs and the subsequent success of Airbus means that in my view Concorde was not "a terrible terrible waste".
Maybe this is not the right place to ask this but I have been wondering for a while what leasons have been learnt from Concorde that could be applied to the design of a future SST? I hope it's not that one should never again be attempted! Regards Nick Last edited by Nick Thomas; 11th November 2010 at 01:03 . Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Airbus |
| Nick Thomas
November 11, 2010, 01:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 6053048 |
GF I agree totally. All great projects and Apollo, Concorde and the SR 71( a plane I know very little about but from what I have read on this thread, it's obvious that I should make ever effort to find out more. An interesting way to spend these cold winter evenings) were all conceived within approx 50 years of the Wright brothers first powered flight. (Typing conceived reminded me of the other great sixities advance designed to stop that. Extreme thread drift so I apologise in advance!).
Once again thanks to M2dude and CJ for being so generous with your time and knowledge. Nick Subjects: None |