Biggles78
Mate, if you could have seen my jaw drop when I read the T/O burn you would probably hurt yourself laughing to much. That is just incredible but the cruise flow seems like stuff all especially considering the speed. The idle flow was also a bit of a jaw dropper.
I know these fuel flows seem crazy (If take-off fuel flows had been maintained the endurance of the aircraft would have been about 55 minutes!!). But as the majority of the flight was carried out at Mach 2 and above, with the relatively miniscule fuel flows, you can see how we were able to cross the Atlantic with relative ease. It was the subsonic bit that was the pain.
Was surprised, yet again, that Mach 2 was achieved without reheat. They really were/are an amazing powerplant.
The powerplant was as you say truly amazing. We had an, as yet, unmatched engine/intake combination, with a variable primary and secondary nozzles. The variable intake allowed supersonic operation with maximum pressure recovery, minimum aerodynamic drag, as well as extreme operational stability. (Extreme temperature shears, that would have caused surge/unstarts in military installations) were dealt with as a total non event). It's astonishing to believe, but at Mach 2 cruise, the intake provided approximately 63% of the powerplant thrust. It was controlled by the world's first airborne digital control system. (The system computers were built by the Guided Weapons Division of what was then BAC). The combination of the variable intake, plus the LP and HP compressors gave an overall compression ratio of 80:1.
The engine itself, being supplied with air at an ideal pressure, could run at an almost conststant TET, thanks to the variable primary nozzle. This also allowed N1 and N2 (corrected for total temperature) to be controlled more or less independently and run as close as possible to their separate surge lines throughout the entire flight envelope.
The variable secondary nozzle (wide open above Mach 1.1) allowed the jet efflux to gently expand against a cushion of air that was passed over the rear ramp of the intake, through the engine bay and into the annulus of the nozzle itself. This prevented thrust being wasted by the jet efflux widely splaying as it met ambient air that was at a pressure of as little as 1.04 PSIA.
It was this integrated powerplant that made true supersonic cruise possible
On my list of regrets, not getting a flight on Concorde would be in the top 5. If they hadn't grounded them what sort of life did the airframes have left in them?
The airframe life issue was sort of like 'how long is a piece of string?'. The airframes are lifed in supersonic cycles, (which had been extended before, with modifications) and studies were always underway as far as further life extensions were concerned. (Basically the airframe was as tough as a brick outhouse in structural terms). The only real area of concern was the crown area (the roof
). There was a design flaw here in that the structure had not been designed fail-safe (allegedly by designed a Korean designer at Aérospatiale who, it was said, went a bit loopy). When the FAA evaluated the design (in order for the aircraft to be registered in the USA, for Braniff operations out of IAD) they wanted 'crown planking' to be fitted externally, which would have added over a tonne to the weight of the aircraft, as well as producing some not inconsiderable drag. Fortunately a compromise was reached and additional NDT inspections were carried out, as well as more limited structural modifications. There was a long term, cost effective solution being studied, which would have cured the problem altogether. (The changes would have been mandated, over new requirements for ageing aircraft)
Nick Thomas
Nick, the whole expansion issue was one of the biggest issues that had to be addressed. Wiring looms would 'snake' in some underfllor areas to take up expansion, but the biggest difficulty of all were the mulitudes of hydraulic lines. These required sliding expansion joints, with of course seals to prevent leakage. When a seal deteriorated YPU GOT A LEAK!! (Fluid at 4000 PSI tends torun for freedom very quickly
). As far as fittings go, ChristiaanJ is quite right, you tried to anchor at one end only. I seem to remember that the passenger seat rails travelled over a roller afair. Fuel lines wer less of a problem, because their relative lengths were less.
I also agree wholeheartedly with ChristiaansJ's explanation about the 'friction' thing, I never really liked those stories. As a matter of interest, 127 deg's, for Mach 2, that would be at ISA +5 (-51.5 deg's C). Any warmer than that and we could not achieve Mach 2, due to the Tmo limit of 127. I remember one year, for several weeks we had unusually high north Atlantic temperatures; these impacted both the flight time AND the fuel burn. The further away you were from Mach 2, the higher the fuel consumption. (The faster you flew, the less fuel you burnt. How's that for a paradox?).
At ISA (-56.5 deg's C) temperatures, the total temperature was at around 118 deg's C.
ChristiaanJ
I remember the 17.5 degree position on the nose; it always looked as if the aircraft was trying to eat ants to me
. I can not recall personally anyone removing the 12.5 deg' stops for access, although this could of course have been done on your side of the 'puddle' I guess.
As far as the APU ducting issue goes (hee, hee, not often we disagree Christiaan
) we are just going to have to agree to disagee about this, although I accept that two 4" diameter pipes (PLUS THERMAL INSULATION) might have done it, BUT I still stand by the other points.
Stlton
Not to beat a dead horse, but, on the choice of location for APU, the 727 had a problem with this but for different reasons. Because of the location of the engines that were all mounted at the rear, the Aircraft was quite tail heavy and adding more weight with an APU in the tail section was not desirable.The solution found that I have not seen in any other Aircraft was to mount it in the wheel well transversely across the keel beam with the exhaust out and over the right wing. Quite unusual but it worked fine with the restriction that it could only be operated on the ground.
Its all academic now but, just out of curiosity could this have worked on the Concorde
Unfortunately not; the keel beam area was extremely thin and there was not anywhere near enough room. Interesting solution on the 727 though, I never knew that one.