Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Concorde question

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Concorde question

Old 16th Sep 2010, 21:54
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dazdaz1
If one of these a/c became airworthy again, who would be current to fly them?
Perfectly pointless question, I'm afraid, dazdaz1....

Concorde is a rare, and maybe unique, case.... Out of the eighteen surviving airframes... eighteen are now in museums.

But all of them are now exactly that, museum exhibits, and none of them are even remotely likely to ever become airworthy again.

And even some of the magnificient flight simulators that are around today (like the flight sim at Brooklands, or the current PC flight simulators, such as SSTSim or the new FlightLabs one) do not allow anyone to become "current" again on Concorde.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 12:50
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uranus
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Good Video.

BBC - Bristol - The story of the final Concorde
Shaft109 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 15:15
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OMG that takes me back!!!!
Alan Radford and Wally Chapman at Fairford, it seems like a million years ago. I've never even seen this one before (and I thought I'd seen them all).
I FEEL OLD
A really great piece of nostalgia.

Dude
M2dude is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 15:24
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dazdaz1
If one of these a/c became airworthy again, who would be current to fly them?
At this moment in time no one is current. But as unlikely as it now seems, if someone came up with enough $$$$$ it is, in spite of enormous difficulties, TECHNICALLY possible to return at least one aircraft to an airworthy condition. Having said that, it would not be easy, it would certainly not be quick and it would most definately NOT be cheap.
If you were to ask my personal opinion, I would say that to return a Concorde to a flyable condition is extremely unlikely. But absolutely nothing in the world of aviation is impossible, nothing. (It's just usually so darned hard though!!).

Dude
M2dude is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 16:26
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by M2dude
OMG that takes me back!!!!
Alan Radford and Wally Chapman at Fairford, it seems like a million years ago. I've never even seen this one before (and I thought I'd seen them all).
I FEEL OLD
A really great piece of nostalgia.
Same here, Dude.....
So you knew Wally Chapman too....

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 19:11
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh yes ChristiaanJ, I remember him. Wally was one of those unique characters that Concorde seemed to attract; a larger than life, fiery, driving character whos only objective was to get THAT test flight up in time (And once THAT test flight was completed all his fire and energies went into the next. And woe betide anyone who did not give 200% to that very aim.

Dude
M2dude is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 19:11
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shaft109,
Thanks for your link for a start...

But it also lead me to this one ... a true gem.. I hadn't imagined it still existed.

Trubshaw on tests

The cutting of the cake after 002s first flight... many familiar faces, including André Turcat, and John Cochrane, of course
Brian's comment about the "damn furriner" and Turcat's grin alone makes it a "must-watch"

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 21:20
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shaft109
In your superb video link that you posted there is another 'face from the past'. Without naming the man there is the same production manager featured in the video that was directly responsible for G-BOAA sitting on its hind quarters that I mentioned in post #238.
To further clarify my post; the fuel was NOT being transferred from the front of the aircraft into tank 11 as I previously stated, but it was being pumped directly into the 'broken down' fuel transfer pipes and then into the tank. The forward trim tanks were in fact EMPTY, and that soiled underwear wearing Mr Thomas was little more than a spectator in the flight deck, with not much that he could do. (But he at least had a much closer view of the assembly hangar roof than most people ever did).
Thanks again for the video link, it was superb.

Dude
M2dude is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 21:55
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I worked as a contractor for BA in 1999/2000 and was lucky enough to have the desk in the very south-east corner of the 10th floor of TBC. With a south runway 09 departure, the LHR-JFK Concorde service would be about level with the 10th floor as she came by TBC (building speed before increasing her rate of climb presumably). Everyone, everyday would stop what we were doing and watch her climb out.

For fun, on our coffee break, a colleague and I would have a look at the res system to see who was on board. The most frequent names we saw at that time in seat 1A and 1B were ... George Michael and Geri Halliwell!

Love this thread!
zachUK is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 01:26
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: BRA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello again!

I went on Thursday to one of the few aviation libraries in Brazil, and found a very rare book on Concorde. Once they take copies of the items I requested, will share here.

The book in question was edited in 1969, French and English, and shows all suppliers of the protoypes, with some interesting ads.

Well, just recycling my questions, lost on the previous page:
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?

And a new question:
3) Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?

Thanks again for all your posts, about to watch the BBC videos!
BlueConcorde is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 10:40
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BlueConcorde

...Haynes' book on page 23, says about an increased MLW of 130 tons instead of the famous 111,13 (sic) tons. I NEVER, ever, heard/read about this, can anyone shine a light on it?...

I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.

It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing.

BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.

In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.


Best Regards

Bellerophon
Bellerophon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 10:43
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
would i be right in `guessing` that unlike a certain `tin triangle` even the likes of SD flying again is simply a fantasy? the vulcan arrived straight from display with a hangar full of spares , of which nothing like that is available for concorde? and whilst `doable` funds would a slight factor..
HalloweenJack is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 14:28
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
would I be right in `guessing` that unlike a certain `tin triangle` even the likes of SD flying again is simply a fantasy?
I would say so.

I agree with M2dude who said earlier it was not technically impossible, but the immense cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure (which no longer exists) is out of all proportion to the final result of a few 'heritage' flights at airshows.

What also is forgotten far too often, is that BAe accepted to maintain legacy Design Authority for the Tin Triangle, which was a pre-requisite for the Permit To Fly.

Airbus, on the contrary, returned the Type Certificate to the CAA/DGAC and thereby basically "washed their hands" of Concorde. Even if they were willing to transfer the necessary technical information to a third party, it's extremely unlikely they still would be capable of doing so.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 15:39
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vortex Lift

There have been a couple of references in this fascinating thread to vortex lift.

I'm sure we've all seen videos of Concorde arrivals and departures where you can see those huge 'wing tip' vortices. It's pretty obvious that at supersonic speeds the airflow must be very different.

Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?

If you decelerated through that speed in level flight did you get a sensation of a sudden increase in drag or need to increase attitude significantly?
Jo90 is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 16:37
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thank you for comfirming what i thought Christiaan , that the vulcan is sadly a `unique` example - as even teasin` tina is in a better state that SD (no disprepect - XM715 is kept in taxi condition) , and even so , the wonderful team who look after her have said she wont be flying in displays anytime soon (read ever);

i have read about `SCG` - and yes i have seen your opinion on them elsewhere - they did seem to `big up` the engine testing earlier this year - then went silent , any word on the results?
HalloweenJack is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 17:10
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is there an aerodynamicist in the house?

Jo90,
I'm no expert, so I cannot answer fully.

On a conventional wing, with a conventional profile, at subsonic speed, everything is done to keep the airflow 'attached' to the wing as long as possible, and for as high an angle of attack as possible.
Such a wing stalls because above a certain angle of attack the airflow 'breaks away' from the upper surface of the wing, leading to a sudden loss of lift.

On a very thin slender delta, the airflow already is made to detach right at the leading edge, even at low angles of attack.



Rather than "ruining" the airflow, hence the lift over the entire wing, the result is a vortex that rolls up and re-attaches the airflow to the wing.



At high subsonic speeds, hence low angles of attack, the vortex is located just behind the leading edge, and the rest of the wing produces "conventional" lift.

With lower speeds, hence higher angles of attack, the vortex grows, and ends up covering most of the wing during take-off and landing, as one sees in some photos.

So there is no real sudden transistion from "conventional" to vortex lift.

At no time does the vortex 'break away', so there is no stall in the conventional sense. However, drag increases rapidly, and controllability doesn't improve either, so there are still angle-of-attack limits, even on Concorde.

At supersonic speeds, the entire flow is totally different, and totally unlike the vortex flow.

My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 17:27
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BlueConcorde
1) Were the flights to Ronivaniemi supersonic?
2) For BA001 and BA003, 2 Concordes were prepared for the same flight, right? Did ever happened some situation that required a ready-for-takeoff Concorde be brought back? How long a cargo and passengers transfer would take? The backup Concorde was fueled?
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).
As far as the BA001 and BA003 go, these flights were not really 'related'. The 001 would depart LHR at 10:30, arriving at JFK at around 09:10 EST. (14:10 UK time). That same aircraft would then be turned round at JFK before returning to LHR on the BA004, which departed JFK at 13:45 EST (18:45 UK time), arriving at LHR at around 22:10. The BA004 was fairly critical as far as departure times went; if you had a technical problem you only had around an hour to an hour and a half to solve the issue, otherwise you risked running into the 23:30 LHR jet ban.
The BA003 departed LHR at 19:00; arriving at JFK at around 17:40 EST (22:40 UK time). This aircraft would night stop at JFK, departing the following morning at 08:45 (13:45 UK time), arriving at around 17:00.
We did try and provide a standby aircraft at LHR for both flights, but this was not always possible; We only had seven aircraft in the fleet and sometimes, because of charter operations etc., a standby was just not possible. The standby aircraft was not fuelled, and would be parked as close as practically possible to the Concorde departure stand. However, Terminal 4 was a very busy place, and the nearest 'practical' stand was often not that close at all. If you had to 'change aircraft' it could take anywhere between 90 and 120 minutes to implement the changeover of baggage and catering etc.

Dude
M2dude is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 17:27
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anecdotal rther than aerodynamic evidence here - but there was a noticable buffet as one decelerated, accompanied by a significant step in thrust requirement. That point was where we (flight crew) decided we were in vortex lift.

Typical speeds would be 270-280 kts at TO mass and about 230-250kts at landing mass.

I'm not naive enough to believe that it was a 'switch' in aerodynamic modes, but the outcome felt like one.

I'd be slightly surprised if there was much of a vortex at M0.95 since the alpha was fairly low here and I would expect there to be plenty of shockwave activity on the upper surfaces which would suggest that a standing vortex would be likely to be badly disrupted.

Anyone know some definite answers?
EXWOK is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 17:33
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
M2Dude and I seem to be forever crossing posts!

The only time I recall that we consistently had a stby aircraft nearby was Saturday morning, when the BA001 machine would be parked next to the BA273 (BGI) machine. The BA001 could theoretically stand in but I doubt we'd have done it.

I have done a ship change when we found a problem with the front-runner (can't remember what it was but it was one of those 'hard to determine an exact cause' issues found in flight-crew pre-flight checks) and even though the spare was on an adjacent stand, as M2D says, it still took an hour. (The delay, of course, was less than this as we found it early enough).
EXWOK is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 17:41
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HalloweenJack
would i be right in `guessing` that unlike a certain `tin triangle` even the likes of SD flying again is simply a fantasy? the vulcan arrived straight from display with a hangar full of spares , of which nothing like that is available for concorde? and whilst `doable` funds would a slight factor..
This is a kind of 'eternal (tin) triangle issue. As I said in my last post on the matter, in my OPINION it will not happen. But there is a but here, quite a big one. This is a purely SUBJECTIVE matter, and NONE of us in the Concorde family can possibly state for sure that this will not happen, or is impossible; we can only give our personal opinions. There are certain spare bits around (for instance Rolls Royce have four unused Olympus 593 engines), but there are immense difficulties to overcome. (ChristiaanJ's point about a design authority is just one of them).
But this is aviation, and we can never say no, to absolutely ANYTHING in our particular 'world'. There is so much money spent on far more ridiculous ventures than trying to return a single example of the finest aircraft ever built to the air.
(But again, what do I know? This is just my OPINION; crystal balls are extra)

Dude
M2dude is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.