CliveL
Dude, Do you know how the #2 system was exhausted if it wasn't through another thrust recovery nozzle? We were never going to throw away 600 lbf thrust every other flight - not on Concorde where we sweated blood to get the parasitic drag down!
Any chance that there was a common discharge point even if the two packs were used alternately?
The dual pressurisation systems each had two discharge valves, one just aft of the nose undercarriage and the other at the rear of the aircraft. The forward valves would carry away the electronics rack discharge air, where the aft would vent the underfloor area. There was no common discharge point Clive, no. The #2 system forward valve would just throw the air overboard, without the sophisticated 'nozzling' of the #1 system. So I guess we have to go figure just how useful the thrust recuperation system was, but I personally think that EXWOK got it right.
ChristiaanJ
Any chance of a pic or a drawing, M2dude?
It seems almost impossible to me that it was 'something' between inner and outer wing, since it would have had to 'jump' over the bathtub covers.
The stiffenersd did not go over the bathtub joints my friend, , they were inboard.
Mike-Bracknell
Since a picture's worth a thousand words, if you guys would like to point to the strengthening straps/spars/thingies on this?
Unfortunately Mike your photo is a little too far outboard to show them. We need to go a little more inboard and slightly further aft. I've been through my photos and can't yet find one. (Honest CliveJ, it is the truth, they DO exist
).
A very happy Christmas to everyone here; Personally I am working right through Christmas AND New Year (darned aeroplanes)
Dude
