Concorde's Take Off Performance Falsified?
December’s edition of Scientific American magazine contains the following letter from one Jon Modrey, an MD11 FO with Gemini Air Cargo from Orlando, FLA.
“…masks the inherent reduced safety permitted by the Concorde’s government certifiers. Any other four engined transport aircraft could have sustained the Concorde’s damages and made it back for a safe landing. In order to permit the Concorde to operate on existing runways, it’s certifiers redefined it’s take off safety speed, or V2, to a speed so low that the loss of two engines would not permit the aircraft to climb without first diving a few thousand feet to build up speed. Other four engined transports have not been afforded this convenient definition of V2 and can in fact lose two engines on takeoff and still climb and maneuver to a safe landing.”
Contentious stuff that! If we can ignore the drivel about diving thousands (!) of feet and any other aircraft flying with all that damage I am curious about his main thread, the assertion that Concorde’s V2 figures are unrealistically low. This seems to be a most serious charge, and I am keen to see if there is any factual evidence whatever to back up Mr Modrey’s accusation.
1) Can Concorde genuinely climb with the loss of two critical engines at the published V2?
2) If so, is the climb performance acceptable, or marginal, or only possible under ideal test conditions, as opposed to normal operating parameters?
3) Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise of collusion amongst the certifying authority(s) in the matter of Concorde’s V2?
Concorde pilots, technical or performance experts, or anyone else with a view, can you clear the waters?