Page Links: Index Page
TURIN
August 14, 2010, 20:17:00 GMT permalink Post: 5870039 |
For what it's worth, I read a book years ago. "By the Rivers of Babylon" I think it was.
It involved a couple of El-Al (Yes I know hard to believe) Concordes that had APUs fitted in the area normally used as the forward baggage hold. Small it would have to be to fit methinks. No idea if the author had researched it or just made it up to fit the story. Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Auxiliary Power Unit By the Rivers of Babylon |
TURIN
August 18, 2010, 20:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 5878570 |
There's an interesting piece here...
Concorde: story of a supersonic pioneer By Kenneth Owen, Science Museum (Great Britain) Dr Hooker's argument that it makes more sense leaving the dead weight of an APU on the ground rather than carry it around at supersonic speed makes sense. (I presume this is the late Sir Stanley Hooker)
"It surprises me to hear you people asking for equipment to be carried around at supersonic speed when it could be left on the ground. It cannot be economical to carry this stuff around at Mach 2.2 just to save a little labour cost at the airport. On the possibility of aircraft damage, you must organise yourselves so that you do not damage the aeroplane. [Damage by engine starter vehicles to aircraft, and the labour costs involved had been mentioned by Eastern Airlines]. The problems you are imposing involve us in developing entirely new equipment at vast cost. The equipment will be baked consistently at 150 deg C. The problems of certification must be worked out for this equipment and may alter the case considerably."
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) Sir Stanley Hooker |
TURIN
September 01, 2010, 23:25:00 GMT permalink Post: 5907600 |
As a BA apprentice in the early eighties I spent 12 months in the old 'wing hangar' (TBB) cutting my teeth, as it were, on the future of aviation. (The newly introduced B757 was also housed there so I was partly right). I was still growing-9 stone wet through and I had to run around in the rain to get wet-so if there was work to be done in the "Bent Nail's" fuel tanks then I was volunteered. Pouring tins and tins of Thiokols best sealant along leaking joints was a favoured pastime, so it begs the question were the leaks ever plugged?
I have a load of photos of G-BOAG just before it was reintroduced (rebuilt?) into service after being a Christmas tree for years. I think it was taken out of service after the wrong hydraulic fluid was uplifted but I may be wrong there. Never seen so many robbery labels before or since. If I ever get my scanner I'll post 'em up one day. Fascinating thread gents, keep it going. ![]() Last edited by TURIN; 2nd September 2010 at 09:10 . Reason: Apostrophe police out to get me. Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): British Airways G-BOAG Hydraulic |
TURIN
September 02, 2010, 09:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 5908214 |
I cannot think of a civil airliner where the nose gear retracts backwards - they all retract forwards.
M2Dude thanks, a lot of memories returning with this thread. ![]() Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Landing Gear |
TURIN
September 07, 2010, 11:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 5919443 |
it was the process of retraction alone that did the actual shortening.
![]() As we're on landing gear. Why was the sidestay a telescopic affair? Most aircraft use a hinged geometric lock arrangement. More weight saving or down to available space in the landing gear bay? Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Airbus Landing Gear |
TURIN
September 08, 2010, 10:17:00 GMT permalink Post: 5921432 |
M2Dude
I think it's a space saving issue TURIN, I'm not even sure if 'our' telescopic strut arrangement was any lighter. (The Concorde solution was also somewhat more elegant don't you think)?
We used to convince the weekend visitors to TBB that it was actually the retraction jack. I feel so ashamed. ![]() Subjects: None |
TURIN
July 09, 2012, 19:04:00 GMT permalink Post: 7286528 |
Already discussed on this thread Shane.
Try a search..... ![]() Subjects: None |
TURIN
September 01, 2012, 13:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 7390476 |
I think the TU144 needs an entirely new thread. Oooh questions questions....
![]() Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Tu-144 |
TURIN
February 23, 2014, 11:02:00 GMT permalink Post: 8334886 |
By a process of elimination, as my AMM discs seem to be corrupted in CH 31 & 34, those ports could be the sense ports for the Ambient Pressure Switch & the CAU Outlet Overpressure Switch.
Subjects: None |
TURIN
July 28, 2014, 10:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 8583277 |
Evolution: Survival of the fittest.
An often misunderstood expression. Fittest does not mean the most athletic or physically strong, it means fit for it's environment. When the environment changes the animal/plant/aircraft needs to evolve to best fit that changing environment. Living organisms take many generations to change due to the randomness of genetic mutation. Aircraft design, in comparison, changes relatively quickly as new technology and ideas develop. The environment changed in the seventies, fuel prices exploded. The 747, and continued lines of fuel efficient wide bodies thrived, Concorde only continued due to political will. If the price of fuel was still $20/barrel Concorde (and probably a couple of successors) would be going strong as it would still "fit" the political and economic environment. (The greens may have put a bit of pressure on though ![]() Simples eh? Subjects: None |
TURIN
October 15, 2015, 22:21:00 GMT permalink Post: 9149070 |
This made me wonder how much engineering/materials time was spent on reducing drag due to texture, fairings and so on - in fact, how significant that actually was.
Would rrivets, wheel bay doors etc have any sort of significant impact on drag? Does localised flow disruption actually reduce drag under some circumstances? ![]() Subjects: None |
TURIN
August 16, 2021, 11:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 11095989 |
Sounds like a topic for a new thread. If it's as good as this one I can't wait.
Subjects: None |
TURIN
August 17, 2021, 11:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 11096638 |
I think the canard were for low speed control and stability as I think they retracted for supersonic flight.
Subjects: None |
TURIN
May 20, 2024, 19:54:00 GMT permalink Post: 11659435 |
Air Brake
A question has come up regarding air brakes on Concorde. It started off with this image...
![]() Is that an air brake on one of the prototype aircraft? Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Braking |
TURIN
May 21, 2024, 12:41:00 GMT permalink Post: 11659831 |
That's what I thought but the chute door seems to open upwards not sideways.
Subjects: None |
Page Links: Index Page