Posts by user "megan" [Posts: 15 Total up-votes: 1 Page: 1 of 1]ΒΆ

Page Links: Index Page

megan
June 12, 2015, 00:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9008675
Remember the occasion well AC560. Was standing at the barrier paralleling the runway during one of her take offs, right where the main gear broke ground. Thought we were insanely close, seemed you could have reached out and touched her, and don't mention the noise. Beautiful, beautiful, what an experience. I'm sure the nanny state that prevails today would have the barrier so far back you would need binoculars.

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

megan
February 03, 2017, 11:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9663330
n5296s has posted elsewhere
Apparently landing Concorde in a strong headwind could lead to a very nasty surprise because of the huge relative height difference between the back of the wing and the rest of it. So the trailing edge is much more in ground effect than the rest. As it gets very close to the ground, the headwind reduces due to ground friction. At some point the part of the wing that is doing the most work drops out of - well, not the sky, but where it is.

I don't pretend to follow the detailed math/aerodynamics, but the net effect is a "did we land or were we shot down" landing.
Can someone knowledgeable relate what aerodynamic gremlins were at work?

Subjects: None
megan
February 04, 2017, 00:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9664037
Many thanks for the answers folks. Can't beat getting it from the horses mouth.
We used to use Vref+10 instead of Vref+7 if it was windy (which made a bigger difference than the numbers may suggest) and, if anything, this made it easier
EXWOK, could you expand on the whys and what fores?

Subjects: None
megan
February 09, 2017, 00:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 9669740
I hope that has answered CliveL and Megan's questions somewhat?
No, you've just raised more EWOK. Why would the +7 approach be deemed "unstable" today. Actually, thank you to all the contributors, fascinating stuff.

Subjects: None
megan
December 02, 2020, 16:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 10939061
Probably the speech he made 18 June 1940, link contains speech text, 80 years, but who's counting..
,
https://wiki2.org/en/Appeal_of_18_June

Subjects: None
megan
August 17, 2021, 00:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11096363
Also did they have the same fuel transfer complexity to maintain CoG during cruise
It's the only way they would have available to control the effects of the movement of the wings lift centre of pressure rearwards when supersonic.

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

megan
August 17, 2021, 07:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11096476
It did stilton, paper on a NASA in flight evaluation.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...0000025077.pdf

Subjects: None
megan
August 17, 2021, 23:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11096927
They did retract, you can see the mechanism here.


Subjects: None
megan
January 22, 2023, 00:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11371174
My guess would be charter, they were made from a number of UK cities.

Subjects: None
megan
January 28, 2023, 00:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11375438

Subjects: None
megan
March 21, 2023, 05:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11405789
CA , manuals can be found here, you may have to sign up to access, no fees involved though. There's enough info there to build one.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...srm-ipc.58385/

Subjects: None
megan
November 11, 2023, 04:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11537083
My question is why couldn't they maintain altitude
They never managed to attain the V2 of 220kt td , highest speed reached 211kt, not helped by having to avoid the holding 747 which they flew over missing the 747 by a matter of feet according to the cockpit crew. Last airspeed recorded was 136kt immediately prior to the crash.

For the weight they were at the zero rate of climb speeds were,

Gear Retracted - 0ne engine out 193kt - Two engines out 262kt
Gear Extended (the condition they were in) - One engine out 205kt - Two engines out >300kt

They had two engines effectively out.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air France 4590  V2

megan
November 11, 2023, 11:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11537268
Amazing that they managed to (barely) fly at 140 kt
They weren't flying, the last data point showing 136kt airspeed they had a fraction over 108\xb0 left bank and had turned from the take off heading of 267\xb0 to 193\xb0, the aircraft then impacted the ground practically flat with little forward speed on a heading of 120\xb0.
So all things being equal two engines out would "need" 80kt to maintain VZRC (give or take)
They would have needed something in excess of 300kt to maintain level flight.

Subjects: None
megan
May 23, 2024, 03:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11661070
luoto , don't know specifically re Concorde but aircraft under test often have a parachute in case testing in the low speed regime turns to worms, given the nature of delta platforms in low speed flight my guess is the chute was to give the aircraft a nose down moment, a delta wing doesn't stall in the traditional sense.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awrj...MKpFtn_fcB77o-

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

1 user liked this post.
megan
June 22, 2024, 06:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11681646
A paper on a subject I doubt many would think a problem and its resolution, vibration in the cockpit.

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/69...a-concorde.pdf

Subjects: None

Page Links: Index Page