Landroger
Which brings me to my questionette - given that Bristol-Siddley created the original design when jet travel was still quite novel, what was it about the Olympus that made it so capable in so many guises and for so long? Not only Concorde of course, but TSR2, warships and fixed electrical generators.
The great thing about the OLY593 was the high specific thrust (in relative terms the Olympus is a tiny, compact design), it's growth potential/high potential mass flow. A bypass engine is not really ideal for supersonic cruise, and given what was available in terms of two-spool turbojets in the 1960s, the Olympus was the obvious choice for both the TSR-2 and Concorde alike. As far as for ships and power stations, well a turbojet is always going to be favourite, as all the gas energy is contained in the jet efflux; this can be efficiently transferred to the load in question by a gearbox coupled to the HP spool.
howiehowie93
The Olympus - nowt ! Two Spools and a Fuel Valve thats your lot. nothing to go wrong and being an Aeroderivative all the ancillary equipment is either bolted on underneath or away from the engine outside the enclosure.
Well the 593 did require a primary nozzle to match N1 against N2, bur apart from that she was a study of deceptive simplicity and elegance.
Was it all still BSF on the 593?
No mate, generally BI-HEX AF.
oh ! I forgot about the Hot Shot; when I was ground running installed RB199's there was no jump in TBT/T7, you couldn't sense it fire either, the only feel was either the Reheat lighting off with a big roar or the engine going quiet as the Nozzle opened up until the MECU noticed it hadn't lit and closed it again sharpish.
This really is fascinating stuff Howie, thank you. As I alluded to a few pages back, the primary nozzle on the OLY593 opened in response to the rising P7, kind of 'after the horse has bolted' in a way. To maintain the correct scheduled value of N1, the control system set, via a needle valve, a finite ratio between P7 and P3. As reheat lit as P7 attempted to rise it upset this ratio and the primary nozzle was opened in order to restore the aforementioned ratio. (Nozzle opens, P7 falls). When reheat was cancelled the opposite happened, and the nozzle closed sharply to prevent N1 overspeed.
Tom355UK
How much would it cost, do you think, that IF EADS really wanted to, using a combination of all the knowhow gained through L'Oiseau Blanc and their current lineup could they produce a 'Concorde NG'? Most importantly, would there be a market for such a beast (at the right price)?
Glad you are enjoying our thread, and thank you for your kind words. (But apologies to your good lady wife though
).
Jeepers Tom that is one hell of a question. Assuming there was a market for such a venture (personally not sure right now) I think you are looking at BILLIONS of $, and for this reason alone I think you'd find that a multi-national/continental effort would be required. There is little doubt that technology is not the major barrier here, but economics and political will. (Nice thought though, I do agree).
As far as a powerplant goes, well the PW5000 is a really superb engine, although well down on the thrust requirement for an 'NG' SST. More likely I would have thought would be e development of the Olympus, there was/is still such an enormous amount of potential in this basic design. (But who knows, this is all pure speculation anyway).
And have no fears about posting here Tom, most of us are quite happy to answer away (We've said before that there is no such thing as a stupid question; you are most welcome here
).
DavvaP
Ok, so my question is - BA had to use an airframe as a test for the modifications. However, the choice of airframe seemed a strange one to me, BOAF - which I previously thought to be one of the youngest and best airframe they had (m2dude you explained that BOAF and BOAG weighed less than the previous models). So, why would BA use one of their best airframes, rather than use perhaps the most worn out of their fleet?
It really did not matter what airframe we used for the test flight; the sole purpose was just to find out just what effect (if any) the tank liners had on the performance of the fuel system. (The handsome chap who you see on TV most, installing the liners, Mr Marc Morley left BA and now resides in Australia).
I am honoured to say that I was lucky enough to be onboard G-BOAF for that flight from LHR-BZZ and as far as I could tell, the liners had no impact whatsoever. One amusing
part of the flight was when we deliberately allowed tank 3 to run dry and see just what the indicated fuel quantity was as #3 engine flamed out (we were subsonic at this point of course). The gauge slowly crept down (in order for the tank to to run dry, the tank 7 & 8 transfer pumps were switched off) and we all watched in eager anticipation/dread....... as the counters reached zero weeeeeee... the engine flamed out. I am being completely honest here, the engine wound down EXACTLY at
ZERO indicated contents).
Those 7 aircraft really did look magnificent I know, it was just sad as to the reason they were all lined up there.
Mr.Vortex
I'm wonder that did Concorde has a neutal of stable stability? Did the elevon work out the same job to produce the stability like the elevator and stabilizer?
Well she was a delta without a tailplane, so the short answer is 'yes', but remember that we used fuel to move the CG backwards and forwards for long term trimming.
Also, I have read your post and wonder why when the temp fall below ISA-7, the AICU order the N1 to decrese?
OK, this is a little complicated, so bear with me. The intake had a finite limit, in terms of the mass flow that it could deliver to the engine and so an automatic N1 limitation signal was transmitted from the intake 'box' (the AICU) to the engine 'box' (the ECU) full time above Mach 1.6. Now this limitation was referenced against TEMPERATURE compensated N1, (
N1/Öq) and at normal ISA temperatures this limit was above the 'normal' 101.5% N1 running line. (The lower the temperature, the lower the effective limit became). At ISA -7 the limit now became less than 101.5% N1, and so the demanded value of N1 was reduced to this value. But this limit signal was always there, it's just that at normal temperatures it was effectively ignored by the ECU. If this limitation signal failed for any reason, the AICU would detect this by way of the ramp angle becoming uncomfortably close to it's MINIMUM variable limit (this limit was scheduled as a function of intake local Mach number) and an amber light would illuminate on the associated N1 gauge, along with an amber INTAKE master warning would illuminate (plus an audible 'BONG' from the audio warning system). The only course of action was to manually reduce throttle setting away from the Mach 2 norm of maximum, in order to reduce N2, and consequently N1 and mass flow demand. There was in intake pressure ratio indicator at the top of the intake control panel that would show where the power setting would have to be set to. It was an indirect indication of intake shock geometry.
And the final question. In the early concorde, does the pilot has ability to select the amount of afterburn thrust by rotate the area knob is that right? and why the airline remove it?
This manual N1 datum reset control was only used during flight test trials into just how much N1 would have to be controlled/reduced at low temperatures in order to give optimim intake geometry. It had absolutely nothing to do with afterburner/reheat and had no place in the production aircraft as all the research was complete
Best regards to all
Dude
