I think you misunderstood the posts made on this thread with respect to radalt being more "accurate" than Pressure altitude.. Here they are again -
skwinty - post 4 -
The cause is that they are two different types of instruments that operate on totally different principles and measure two distinctly different parameters
MadFLT - post 14 -
Radalt measures distance to an object giving a radar return.
Altimeter uses pressure data to infer height above a reference datum.
You really can't compare the two. they aren't even really measuring the same thing. Depending on what you actually want to know, either may be better/"more accurate".
When you offered the speed on page 4 -
skwinty - post 63 -
If the computer performs the calibration in flight, then the speed envelope should cover at least Mach .8 so the graph would show that as the upper velocity range.
ChristiannJ aka CJ - post 65 -
But one well-known phenomenon on Concorde occurs when 'breaking the sound barrier', or better expressed, when accelerating past Mach 1.
A shock wave then moves from the nose along the fuselage past the static ports.
It's barely visible on the altimeter, but there is a very noticeable 'twitch' on the VSI (there are videos of that, and we've even managed to simulate it on the Brooklands Concorde simulator).
(added bold above)
Me - post 66 -
the static systems on large transport aircraft are rated to the Mmo of that aircraft and corrected by the air data computer. This is why you will read a calibrated airspeed on most large transports and not an Indicated Airspeed. So the staitic system would be rated to .86 mach. To understand the reasons for Vmo/Mmo click here...
Boeing 757 Boeing :: Vmo/Mmo Limitations Review
Me - post 68 -
(added bold above)
CJ - post 69 -
My back-of-the-envelope says M=0.74, assuming ISA.
Seems to be too far below M=0.86 to really matter
(added bold)
skwinty - post 73 -
488 knots at 500 ft is completely outside of the normal flight envelope.
This, as confirmed by A320slave, does not imply that the pitot static was out of its calibration envelope.
(added bold)
Gravity32, if you feel the static system was experiencing error at M0.74, why wasn't the airspeed experiencing some type of error when Ram air is used to measure against static pressure for an airspeed indicator? According to you, the airspeed indicator should have disintegrated (or perhaps shown some type of error) at such high dynamic pressure. Unlike the Altimeter and VSI, the airspeed indicator has
RAM AIR pushing directly into the system. But yet, it is working fine and correlates with groundspeed. It is working fine because the Pitot-static system is rated to M0.86.
Finally, you failed to answer my questions gravity32.
Please respond to these questions.
Do you agree with Frank Legge that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition? Specifically thermite? Yes or no.
Is this you gravity32? Yes or no.
OpEdNews - Articles - Author's Page for Gravity32
Do you agree with Frank Legge that the pressure altimeter was in error when approaching ORD, LAX, MCO and IAD? Yes or no.
Have you figured out that when the aircraft is over the touchdown zone at the above airports, there is no "altitude divergence" (as described by Legge) between pressure altitude and Radalt? Yes or no.
The above questions only require a Yes or no answer. Please respond to them and stop your tap dancing.