Posts by user "galaxy flyer" [Posts: 29 Total up-votes: 0 Page: 1 of 2]¶

Yes, M2dude , but how long could you remain above M1.1 with a four-engine flameout while drifting down? I presume you would driftdown above M0.7. BTW, the RAT on the F-16 is hydrazine powered as was the ME 162 rocket interceptor.

M2dude

Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct?

What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS.

Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud.

Just a note from a mature Yank pilot. When I was first getting interested in commercial aviation around the middle Sixties, Flying magazine (US) had ads from most US carriers featuring the Concorde as the future of aviation. Best of all these were ads to hire pilots, along the lines of "this is your future as an airline pilot-supersonic flight. One offered, "we'll pay you over one million dollars over your career to fly for us." The carriers were TWA, Pan Am, American. The 747 was supposed to a passenger plane as an interim to supersonic flight, it would be a cargo plane. If can find an old magazine and figure out posting it here, I'll do so.

The other great Concorde fact was the variety of simple "rules of thumb" to deal with deceleration and descent over the alert areas off of NYC. CJ or M2, any comments?

M2Dude

Yes, 4,000 hours in Lockheed's contribution to wide-body cargo planes. The marvel in all of these planes from the '60s that they were designed by men who began their engineering careers during WW II, used slide rules and tested nearly everything in the sky. I asked a Lockheed engineer (a Canadian from the Avro Arrow program which throw off a number of engineers to the US) how many guys did the actual design work--his answer was something like 300. With GE engines, the Galaxy is finally reaching its potential. A proper plane--it has a Flight Engineer.

My one contact with the Concorde was when I flew a US corporate jet in the mid-80s for a British-American company (industrial gases, you can guess the rest) whose MD was an American who worked in London. During the summer, like clockwork, he worked in London on the Friday mornings, take the mid-day Concorde to JFK. Customs would meet him AT THE GATE, clear him and turn him over to us for the short flight to Martha's Vineyard. His wife could recognize the plane, meet us at the airport at noon for lunch. On Monday, the return trip would unfurl in reverse. NOT one bit of that story can happen today, I cannot imagine US Border officials doing such a thing.

I did hear that a Concorde did once need a engine change in Dulles.

One more question, could the Concorde lose pressurization, descend to some low level (FL180 or below, perhaps FL100) and make it to scheduled destination or would a divert to Shannon or Gander be required? What was a low level cruise speed?

I was recently at Duxford and did tour the Concorde there, amazing how small the cabin was--DC-9-like.

CJ

Quite right on the two projects of the Sixties. Many of the engineers on Apollo were ex-Avro Arrow types. The shame is that these projects could not get off the ground (no pun intended) today, even with modern technology. Just a "relofted" (to use a nautical term) Concorde would be a marvelous machine. Politics, environmental regs and NIMBYism would kill anything like it.

I was speaking with a seat mate on an airliner who happened to be a civil engineer. As a young man, he had worked on the US Interstate Highway system, said it could never be done today and widening and improving the one that exists is very hard to approve.

Mach2dude

How was takeoff performance calculated? Was it very different from subsonic jets and how did Vzf fit in?


GF

EXWOK

Excuse me, Vzrc was exactly what I meant. I remember reading it in the Concorde CDG report and wondered if it figured into daily per calcs or was it a more technical

If you could depart with 3 reheats, I guess it wasn't a problem with the transition to supersonic flight? What I find amazing is the F-22 goes on about super cruise but here was a plane designed over 40 years that routinely super cruised.

GF

Having seen some of their other efforts, this one doesn't wonder. Ever fly on an IL96 or see a IL62? Their fighters aren't crude, they are positively agricultural! Out tractors are more elegant in their engineering.

GF

DW

No argument from me on former Soviet fighters being capable, but please read Red Eagles , if you want a Western view on their planes. Lots of poor engineering and execution, not that impressive.

GF

The BR710 on the GLEX and G 550 also need to "rotor bow" on start within the same time limits. I fly the GLEX and the FADEC does it automatically, but I understand the G550 installation requires the pilots to recognize the requirement and motor for 30 seconds. Sub-idle vibration is quite discernible during an unbow start. Interesting that RR engines require this as I have flown GE and P&W, never heard of it.

GF

CJ

Back to thread, which came first, the American designs or the Concorde? Somehow I thought the American entries were a reaction to the Concorde. In any case, both US planes would have been huge. There has been talk of a supersonic biz jet for decades, but no real progress and I doubt there will be until it can fly over land supersonic.

GF

Nick

What we are looking for is "eye-to-wheel" for the Concorde v. The B747. My question is were there ever turbulence problems at Concorde levels and speeds? Also, did the Concorde crews ever have to deviate around weather or slow down?

GF

Maindog

That sounds right for the B747, the eye-to-wheel height for the C-5 at the THR was 34 feet.

GF

Landlady

Did Concorde F/As fly it exclusively at BA or did you fly it on and off? Excuse me, I am not familiar with BA contract rules.

GF

Brit312

You mentioned the T-storms in the Straits of Malacca, at FL 600, you still could not top them? How was deviating around at M 2.0? Any problems with turbulence at those levels?

GF

EXWOK

Was all initial training accomplished in the sim or did new "to type" pilots do touch-and - goes before flying the line? How long was the conversion course? I imagine it was quite thorough.

GF

An optimist was a Luftwaffe Starfighter pilot who quit smoking!

GF

As a Yank, the Concorde was Europe's, including the UK, of course, Apollo project. And nothing short of it, either. Concorde required industrial cooperation and collaboration on a huge scale, ground-breaking technology that is still paying back in the 21st century and required political daring unheard of today. Huge applause!

Think of the Sixties projects--Apollo, Concorde, 747, SR-71, motorways, the Beatles, miniskirts--none possible today, the politics alone would kill 'em.

GF

Roger

My appreciation for your complement. Anyone, yank or otherwise, who does not appreciate the long term and continuing world wide cooperation that is required for any project like Concorde or Apollo is simply being xenophobic. Today, Boeing has a large engineering bureau in Moscow, BMW has a design office in California.

Many of the engineers that worked on Apollo, 747 and, even, the C-5, were Canadian ex-pats fired from the Avro Arrow program shutdown. BTW, my nomination for least appreciated, least known but most ambitious aircraft design.

GF

To the ATC question, one experience. I was flying a Falcon 10 into KIAD one afternoon, level in the mid-teens, indicated 300-ish, when the ATCO vectored us off the airway for overtaking traffic. Now, in 1980, the DA-10 was considered pretty hot stuff for biz jets. We asked for an increase in speed and offered 400 KIAS or better. We took the vector, to watch the Speedbird speed by. As magnificent as pictures are, in flight a couple of miles away it is stunning.

GF

Mr Vortex

An ejection was recommended because it was possible, not that was necessarily impossible to land a Draken dead stick. F-16s have done a number of them, I witnessed one at KTPA. There was a video of the HUD view of one at NAS Glenview, IL.

To your question, it would depend on distance to go to the airport, glide ratio (high but probably not terribly worse than any conventional airliner) and most importantly the capability of the RAT providing hydraulic power.

M2dude , any idea of the min IAS for the RAT to provide the juice and hydraulics? Would it be as low as Vapp minus some margin?

GF