Another great 'dollop' of my favourite 'indulgence'. Reading these two Concorde threads, especially this one - even though it makes my brain ache and my eyes wobble.
Dude wrote;
To find the root cause of a surge required a fair bit of forensic analysis; unlike AF, BA had a superb Plessey PVs1580 digital flight data acquisition and recorder (AIDS) system that monitored all the intake parameters; this enabled us to find the cause most of the time, by reading data from the Quick Access Recorder after the flight. (A fair bit of Midnight oil burned though; I still have bags under my eyes ). I remember that originally the singular most important parameter, inlet void pressure, was only sampled once every four seconds by the AIDS system, but once we showed that this was like an ETERNITY when you were trying to track down an engine 'hiccup', we got the sampling rate increased to once per second. Although even this was not ideal, it generally did prove to be sufficient for us.
This raises a couple of observations, one is really a question and is this; The Plessey Data Logger you coveted Dude, was surely only as good as the thermocouples, strain gauges and pressure transducers to which it was connected? Also the quality - or validity - of the data acquired from them was really only as good as the
locations decided upon by the engine/intake group? Does it then follow that the production Concorde (BA
and AF?) was routinely fitted with a whole outfit of sensors that were not normally monitored unless you and your mates needed to know something specific? (I've just realised there are about four questions there, but you probably know what I'm getting at?
)
The observation is; a picture is beginning to emerge of one airline who cherished and took care of an extraordinary asset, while another, broadly speaking, did not.
Yet another remarkable aspect of Concorde, that the same aeroplane should have been held in such diametrically opposed regard.
Dude also wrote;
the final Tornado intake was a very poor design, with excessive levels of fuselage boundary layer ingestion and shockwave control. The RB199 engine (a totally 'political' design, with a never to be repeated, for a supersonic engine that is, 3 shaft layout) was already down on thrust, but now had even worse Mach 2 performance due to a wholly inadequate intake design. (MBB had the design principles thanks to BAC, but were totally out of their depth when it came to applying these principles into a practical intake).
This highlights yet another example of how British Industry/ government have habitually managed to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory, especially in aviation. I am currently re-reading
Genesis of the Jet - the story of Sir Frank Whittle and the struggle he had to bring his revolutionary creation to life - and although one is very proud that Sir Frank was one of the good guys ( a Brit
) the story is ultimately quite depressing. The attitude of the government of the day, British Thompson - Houston's reluctance and Rover's deviousness all conspiring to delay what should have been a war winner.
One thinks of the TSR2 which, on the limited amount of flight data acquired by the single flying airframe, appears to have been an aeroplane in the same astonishing mould as Concorde. With later digital electronics the TSR2 would have made an unbeatable bomber, allowing the money and effort 'squandered' (?) on MRCA to be spent on an agile interceptor replacement for the 'Electrifying' Lightning.
One also thinks of the P1154 and later, the offer of joint development on a supersonic AV8B succesor. All of these and many more until even
reading about them becomes too depressing and frustrating.
Finally, Dude wrote;
This particular thread I think deals with one of the most mystical and definately most 'clever' of all of the various 'Concorde Magic' aspects; that is how a 14' long box can end up providing 63% of the 'welly' pushing you through the air at Mach 2. After nearly 37 years of my own personal involvement in the project, it still fascinates the hell out of me.
I completely agree and what is more, your fascination mirrors my own with
my day job. Although MRI scanners are my day job, I still - after more than twenty years - look at some of the images it can produce and think; " That is bl00dy clever!"
I still haven't got over the 'novelty'.
Thanks once more to all the Concorde respondents - amazing stuff.
Roger.