DERG; Good point about the tyres. The problem was that Concorde (like any other practical SST) was a delta design, amd of course the wheels are going to be totally covered by the wing. Without any flaps or slats. complete reliance is placed on the lift characteristics of the delta. This requires relatively high take-off speeds (typical VR of around 200 KTS and a V2 of 220KTS). This necessitated high pressure/high speed tyres. Also due to the large wing area involved with any delta, relatively thin wing alloy thickness has to be employed due to weight concerns. This applies to any SST. If only Kevlar sheeting had been available from the early days, then critical areas of the wing tanks could have been protected. (Any idea of armour plating here would have been a non-starter for any SST design). As far as tyres go, with the technology available in the '70's & 80's, the only real available units tended to be relatively fragmentive when punctured. All you could really do was minimise the chances of tyre failure, and protect vital systems from damage. Note that after 1993, modifications to the BA fleet prevented any further wing damage due to tyre failure. It is arguable that the advent of the brilliant Michellin NZG design should have been available earlier, but such is the pace of technological progress.
LOMAPASEO; whether you consider me an expert or not is irrelevant here. (You do not know me, what do you know?).
These issues are not a matter of opinion, they actually happened. Copying and pasting is easy to do. Oh, and as far as the expert witnesses for the defence goes, you may welll find their opinions generally similar to mine; wait and see.
SFLY the patches issue, as you say relates to the whole question of the AF engineering standards in regard to Concorde. Do you understand? The hydraulic contamination post was the reply to the previous one.
SLFinAZ; Problem was here that the A/C required full length of the runway. Because of a tech' delay, the captain wanted to get airborne ASAP. In all fairnes to him, wrong as his decision of not requesting another runway (This runway condition was of course known by all, and remember the tailwind issue also) he was en extremely experienced pilot who is not here to defend himself. Maybe he was the victim of commercial pressures I guess, we'll never know. Irrespective of ANYTHING else, this was such a tragedy.
STICKYB; I think you will find MOST of my points will be aired in court by expert witnesses. I know personally two of them and they are incredibaly respected and knowledgable gentlemen indeed.
ATCWATCHER The U/C distortion issue is a perception, due to the lack of lateral control of the A/C on the runway (16 to 22 degrees of right rudder applied with little effect on the path of the A/C), coupled with a major component being missing from the U/C, due to a major error of maintenance. So many people (not suggesting for a second that yourself is included here) with little knowledge of the Concorde U/C makeup seem determined to disagree with this point. As far as the thrust issue goes, #2 engine surged and recovered, the theory being that the surges were due to massive fuel ingestion by the LP compressor. It was still producing thrust when shut down. But point well made sir.
GOBONASTICK Airport firefighters are professional people, not just members of the public. Your comments are an insult to their professionalism. You think that you should discount eveidence supplied by these very brave folks?
CHUKS; I completely take your point regarding the difficulties involved in the 'shutting down engine' case. With Concorde, Just like most other fleets, an engine shutdown should only be carried out ONLY when safe flying speed was obtained. Not the case here, ever.
Last edited by M2dude; 7th Feb 2010 at 16:13.