Concorde's Last Flight (Merged) [Archive]

BEagle

12th Jul 2010, 21:37

The programme will need to be updated once the ongoing trial has been completed.

STILL not enough focus upon the Air France mindset which allowed the captain to attempt a take-off outside the limits of aeroplane scheduled performance regulations....:ugh:

Excellent comments from Brian Walpole, John Hutch, Jock Lowe, Porky Bannister et al....

Sir Terence Conran summed up everyone's thoughts brilliantly.

What a shame that ba rolled over in such a spineless way to the French ultimatum. For all her faults, Maggie Thatcher would never have allowed such a thing to have happened......:(

N707ZS

12th Jul 2010, 21:47

Has this programme been on before on a diffrent channel?

callum

12th Jul 2010, 22:06

@ beagle

Indeed, it sent tingles up my spine when Sir Terence Conran was talking about the last flight.

What a brilliant piece of engineering at its best, though likely never to be recreated due to the economics of things! Although one day a millionaire with a passion for her could make her grace the skys once again for airshows ect...

M2dude

12th Jul 2010, 22:10

Has this programme been on before on a diffrent channel?

Nope, this was the first airing

M2dude

12th Jul 2010, 22:15

Will it reveal how a risk-taking Air France crew, operating an inadequately maintained Concorde, ignored Perf A rules and commenced a take-off way over RTOW, attempted to rotate below Vr and whose flight deck disciplines allowed a FE to shut down an engine producing thrust without him having been ordered to do so.....

I think it covered MOST of those bases.. if anything the prog was quite gentle as far as 'Take a Chance' goes. (No mention of the initial runway conditions, oh and the AF guy reckoned that the automatic fuel shut offs could not be over-ridden!!!). :ugh:

hurn

12th Jul 2010, 23:24

Although one day a billionaire with a passion for her could make her grace the skys once again for airshows ect...I've fixed that for you. ;)

Watched the programme which didn't really tell me anything I hadn't already heard about the crash, but still kept me interested nontheless. Loved the old colour footage of the prototypes too.
Just a shame that BA crippled them all once retired. At least one should have been kept as a ground runner imo.

TheChitterneFlyer

13th Jul 2010, 06:50

Good comment BEagle; however, the excess RTOW was actually relatively small and wouldn't (shouldn't) have been a causal factor. Despite the fact that many of the holes in the Swiss Cheese were 'lined-up' for an accident it was (sadly) the F/E who drove the final nail into the coffin. Had he not been 'too eager' to do something the outcome 'might' have been very different i.e. an immediate return to plant it on the runway where all of the airport services would have been on-hand.

TCF

Capetonian

13th Jul 2010, 07:01

Just a shame that BA crippled them all once retired

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the crux of the matter was that Airbus/Aerospatiale pulled the plug on maintenance and spares, no doubt under pressure from AF, and there was therefore no chance for Concorde to maintain her CoA? I note that this was not mentioned on last night's programme, which contained more sentiment than fact.

Flying Lawyer

13th Jul 2010, 07:39

TopBunk
nothing more than a pile of propoganda by self agrondising tw@ts like (run out of fuel) Walpole, (nutter) Lowe

Nutter?
Jock Lowe is one of the brightest men I've ever met. Not only academically clever (Ph.D) but, unlike many academically gifted people, also exceptionally shrewd.
He was my first choice as an expert witness in aviation cases when I was a barrister. Over the years, I saw very good barristers try to get the better of him in cross-examination. They all failed - without exception - and several went on to use him as their expert in other cases.

Self-aggrandising?
He isn't, and doesn't need to be. He has nothing to prove.
Chief Pilot Concorde, Chief Pilot BA, Director of Flight Operations BA, Commercial Manager Concorde, the GAPAN Brackley Memorial Trophy for his outstanding contribution to air transport operations, one of only two people ever to be elected Master of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society, two Honorary Doctorates from different universities for his contribution to aviation to add to the Ph.D. he gained as a student etc etc. Not bad for a "nutter".
He now spends his time playing golf, travelling (usually involving golf) and flying his Chipmunk - and, when he wishes, accepting some of the consultancy/expert witness work offered to him.

Brian Walpole wasn't popular in BA, and his career ended embarrassingly, but without the fantastic work done by Walpole and Lowe who were given the opportunity by Lord King to try to turn the then loss-making Concorde fleet to profit - which they achieved within the deadline set - BA would have had to chop Concorde in the 'streamlining' process before privatisation in 1987.

FL

.

JEM60

13th Jul 2010, 08:24

Self agrondising twats.?? Oh, really?I got 24 questions right on University Challenge last night, so I must be heading in that direction then!

AndoniP

13th Jul 2010, 08:44

i thought it was a good programme.

for the general public there would probably be information in there that they have not seen before, hence the claim. people in aviation will know considerably more than the public, hence there not being much new information.

there did need to be more air france bashing though.

the pilots and engineer interviewed seemed truly gutted about the demise of the aircrafts service.

i have to say i nearly got emotional when terence conran started blubbing :sad:

capetonian - this was mentioned near the end, just after the 9/11 bit came the reasons for her being brought out of service 17 months after her return.

also, i got the impression that the extra weight was not noted on the manifest? or have i got that one completely wrong?

a beautiful aircraft, she will be sorely missed.

p.s. it was nice seeing how they got round the JFK noise measuring exercise :E

Basil

13th Jul 2010, 08:58

Flying Lawyer,
Thank you for that insight. (or should I say: "I am much indebted, m'lud." ?)

Capetonian,
the crux of the matter was that Airbus/Aerospatiale pulled the plug on maintenance and spares, no doubt under pressure from AF, and there was therefore no chance for Concorde to maintain her CoA? I note that this was not mentioned on last night's programme
I seem to recollect that they did mention that Airbus had announced an increase of £40m in maintenance charges. They also noted that, following upon 911 when forty of their regulars were murdered, transatlantic Concorde traffic declined and AF discontinued operations.

Perhaps Jock Lowe could weigh in (suitably disguised) with some definitive comment.

Concorde14

13th Jul 2010, 10:13

This could be a complete illustration of the rumour mill in full swing, but one of the reasons touted for the imminent closure of the AF exhibition at Filton for 'maintenance' reasons is to allow for a thorough inspection to see if the airframe could fly again for the 2012 opening ceremony.

There's an outcry currently as no one is being told how long the aircraft will be out of display for and its all very secretive but the above is one of the strong rumours doing the rounds and I'm tempted to believe it!

We may see her back in the air again!!

Regards

Concorde14

BEagle

13th Jul 2010, 10:14

Good comment BEagle; however, the excess RTOW was actually relatively small and wouldn't (shouldn't) have been a causal factor.

I query the professionalism of any crew which does not check the effect of the actual wind velocity on the previously calculated RTOW.

Figures I have heard are that the aircraft was around 5 tonnes over RTOW. Any professional airline crew will know that to attempt a take-off with ATOW>RTOW is illegal as it puts the aircraft outside scheduled perfomance regulatory requirements.

The CVR gives the impression that they knew full well that they were overweight, but gave the fact a Gallic shrug and hoped to get away with it....

FL - well put. Jock is indeed a top bloke!

crashtest

13th Jul 2010, 11:44

Anyone else watch this on the verge of tears for the whole programme? :{. I had just come off a night-shift though, & was maybe a bit tired & emotional...

Feathers McGraw

13th Jul 2010, 12:08

I think I'm correct in saying that the tank 5 rupture could never have happened as it did if the tank had had the mandatory air space above the fuel, the air would have compressed slightly and the tank should have remained intact.

Accepting that having a large lump of rubber thrown off a failed tyre is not something that should be allowed to happen, the fuel leak was the fundamental reason for the crash. Whatever action the crew took after such a fierce fire started the options were very limited.

One thing I didn't notice last night was any mention of the need to cram in as much fuel as possible due to the more marginal range when operating CDG->JFK. I know it's difficult to fit in all the facts and make them hang together coherently, but I think that would have been a worthwhile addition.

It surprises me that the BEA report did not examine all of these details more closely, I heard very loud and clear the unspoken opinion of the AAIB investigator about what was not pursued.

breakadjuster

13th Jul 2010, 13:04

I think your words for Capt Walpole a bit harsh, I bet you couldn,t calculate your fuel consumption as accurate as he did, so as to land without any left. Can you imagine the cost to BA of a diversion just to refuel, not to mention arriving late into London.
Also to have such confidence in your calculations as to override the First Officer and Flight Engineers concerns
Come on credit where credit is due

dc1968

13th Jul 2010, 13:49

crash...didn't actually see the programme so I don't know if they mentioned this...

BBC News - Work starts in £15m plan to get Concorde flying (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8712806.stm)

Work starts in £15m plan to get Concorde flying

The engines on a French Concorde are to be examined as the first move in a £15m project aiming to get the supersonic passenger jet back in the air.

My understanding is that it is intended to return her to flying in time for the 2012 Olympics?

barnstormer1968

13th Jul 2010, 15:36

Didn't see the programme, but did see the last flight and landing!

I did get very emotional as it touched down too

JEM60

13th Jul 2010, 15:52

DC1968. Don't hold your breath for this. It ain't going to happen. May get to taxi, no hope of flying. Sorry. Ex Concorde pax.

Saint-Ex

13th Jul 2010, 15:56

Very moving programme. Great clips, interviews and music. One of the best aviation documentaries I have ever seen.

aviate1138

13th Jul 2010, 16:25

I was lucky enough to do quite a few Atlantic trips both from Heathrow, CDG, Dulles and JFK and on one occasion the Flight Engineer told me that BA had modified the debris guards on the undercarriage to try to stop any damage to the underside of the wing. He added that Air France probably wouldn't bother. Was that true or not? My usual seats were 10A or D depending which heading we were on.

Some real characters flew Concorde. A very pissed Truman Capote was one highlight. A texan multi millionairess and her pal who flashed their massive diamond 'knuckle dusters' [many, many carats] in the sunlight and lit up the interior with multicoloured shafts of light.

The best flight was one from JFK that took less than 3 hours [just] and landed in an Easterly direction [which helped].

Only problem with the documentary was all those commercial breaks! There were so many! One of the pilots [the one who said it was the safest aircraft he had ever flown] was the one who gave me the bumpiest arrival ever into Heathrow! :rolleyes:

TheChitterneFlyer

13th Jul 2010, 16:58

To plan to continue with a flight accross the Atlantic and (knowingly) land with near-empty tanks is hardly a professional way to operate an aeoplane; not to mention the risk involved in delivering your passengers (safely) to their destination.

That particular Air France Concorde was a 'known' gas-guzzler (as compared to the rest of the fleet), which is why the crew didn't wish to forfeit any additional fuel burn. It was a known 'gas-guzzler' because of a previous heavy landing which 'bent' the u/c; which contributed to the heavy tyre-wear by having to input a known ammount of rudder during the take-off roll; thus compounding the tyre temperature on that side of the aircraft. Was it a contribution? Will we ever know? Speculation will continue for many years to come. The fact remains that the F/E should not have shut-down any engine without the clear and concise order from the Captain. Extreme fire or otherwise; the engines should have been left to do the job being asked of them; at the very least until the gear had been selected UP!

It's only 'too easy' to criticise, after the event, from the comfort of your own armchair; however, Air France appear to be 'lax' in providing any cause for blame to their crewmmbers in not adhering to standard procedures. It 'might' have been recoverable; but we'll never know for sure.

TCF

hornet1068

13th Jul 2010, 17:14

watched this program with interest, did learn a lot about the history of concorde and its operations, but was a bit surprised by the eyewitness who stated that concorde was on fire before it run over the metal strip, did find it strange that of all the people and "planespotters" who were probably at the airport at time of takeoff, only two forms of photographic evidence were shown, eg the video from the lorry cab, and the photo from the plane waiting for concorde to take off, surely there must be more out there ??

Saintsman

13th Jul 2010, 18:18

A couple of things from the programme that caught my attention.

High level US Spyplanes being asked to move out of the way by ATC as Concorde came through. Them in their pressure suits and those in Concorde drinking champagne and when the baying crowds in New York saw it being wheeled into the hangar for the first time and saw it was a thing of beauty and not the evil machine it had been portrayed.

flying lid

13th Jul 2010, 18:35

Just a few of my thoughts.

Unfortunately, I have never flown on Concorde, but I have been on board the Man airport BA exhibit (brilliant), and the 2 (test) Concordes at Duxford and the Fleet Air Arm museum, Yeovilton. The latter had her engine panels open & engine illuminated last year, I spent 1/2 hour in utter amazement gawping at the complex engineering. Even the bottom drop-down access panel doubled as a liquid holding tank.

Superb machine - But, like my old 1973 3.5 litre V8 Rover P5, Concorde was "of its day". Both are void of todays complex electronics, and both are known "gas guzzlers" !!!. I sat in the engineers seat (at Man - a couple of years ago), and again was amazed at the cramped complexity of the engineers panel. Hundreds of switches laid on line diagrams. 1960's science fiction stuff.

Yes she could still fly today, but circumstances are 100% against her, HUGE cost, lack of technical backup, and her last cockpit crews probably now mostly retired, but those still flying certainly not "supersonically up to date". As time passes, this skill base will diminish.

The Air France loss was tragic for all concerned, yet BA refitted their fleet, but the triple whammy of loss of technical support, rising fuel costs and 9/11 sealed her fate.

I saw the programme, with wet eyes as the final 3 landed at Heathrow. She had a very grand finale.

Aviation took a huge step backward that day, and, I suspect, we will never fly supersonic, routinely, daily, ever again.

Lid

zero1

13th Jul 2010, 18:36

Watched the programme and despite working for BAe (sorry for that...) I was still amazed at the technical accomplishment made some forty years ago. Makes you wonder if we will ever see a commercial aircraft of this caliber produced again, the cost of such a programme would exceed £10-20b at best.

tilleydog1

13th Jul 2010, 19:02

Whilst watching this I was constantly reminded what an incredibly beautiful aeroplane she was/is.

Chronus

13th Jul 2010, 19:11

To arrive in New York one and a half hours before leaving London for a brief moment mere mortals conquered Time.History repeats itself in irony as depicted in Bruegel`s Fall of Icarus, and the hapless Daedalus now awaits the verdict of the French judges for the death of his son.Will there ever be another Concorde.... I do not think so.

SonicAttack

13th Jul 2010, 20:29

Am i right to think that MR Brandson wanted to get her air worthy again for a 2012 Olympic fly over ???

Also just looked at the concorde website / Forums and some french people are trying to get a rolling concorde.. Granted atm they are just trying to get a engine running but who knows what could come from it, poss an air show plane ????

RealFish

13th Jul 2010, 20:34

Slightly OT, I unfortunately lost the BA 'Hangar Video' that was on this site for a short time after the final flights. It was a wonderful 5 min tribute to Concorde and its people. A real lump in the throat job.

I did ask BA if it was avaiable for donwload. A nice guy from the museum referred me on to someone else...who never responded.

Anyone got any ideas of how it can be accessed?

JEM60

13th Jul 2010, 20:51

SONICATTACK,
No, Mr. Branson was not involved in this. Please don't get your hopes up for an airworthy one. If you think for a minute of the enormous problems it is simply a dream that will not happen. Next pie in the sky project, how about the X.B70 Valkyrie as an airshow act................

If you explore Pprune, you will find many similar replies to mine, with more explanation. [Welcome, by the way, we are not always cynical, only about this project.] John.

BEagle

13th Jul 2010, 20:59

On 29 Nov 1962, I was at prep school. Great excitement when we heard that the Concorde agreement had been signed.

In the mid-1960s, at my public school we had a presentation from BAC about the Concorde. A little later, the 'test' supersonic bang flights took place with Lightnings. The genpub was Not Amused!

On 2 Mar 1969, I was just about to go flying in a Cherokee from Weston Super Mare aerodrome when the news came through that Andre Turcat had just taken off in 001.

On 24 Mar 1976, I'd just finished my TWU course with 234 Sqn when the first scheduled flights to Dulles landed - Air France and ba landed simultaneously on parallel runways.

Whilst at Brize for nearly 20 years, I saw Concorde on several occasions. I remember once saying to the U/T USAF exchange officer co-pilot "Have you got many of those in the US?"....;)

On 25 Jul 2000, I'd just left the Farnborough Air Show and was driving home when the news of the AF4590 crash came over the radio.

In 2001 I was sitting in another PA28 at Brize (G-BPAF) with a student when G-BOAF was towed past during the 'return to flight' trials. "'AF from 'AF, good to see you back!", I said.

And then the worthless ba rolled over to French pressure and announced that they were killing off their Concordes.

On 24 Oct 2003 I could barely believe it when I was sitting at home watching the final Concorde arrivals at London Airport on TV. Jeremy Clarkson's words “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap backwards for mankind." were very apt.

4 years later, the spineless ba even removed their model from the Concorde roundabout at London Airport..... Whereas passengers in the Long Term Car Park bus would always gaze in admiration at the model, nowadays no-one gives that hideously ugly A380 model a second glance, nor cares which foreign airline it's supposed to be advertising. It's still the 'Concorde roundabout' to everyone, even though it isn't a roundabout and no longer has a Concorde model.

Concorde - when once we had an aviation industry with ambition....:uhoh:

SonicAttack

13th Jul 2010, 21:06

No no problem. dreamed 1day of getting on her, iv been to duxford but its not the same as a real flying machine.

Iv just started my ppl training last week so thought ill join up to see what goes on in the world of aviation forums.

Just a link from where i got the story from

Concorde may fly again for 2012 Olympics (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-06/4/concorde-may-fly-again-for-2012-olympics?page=all)

Flying Lawyer

13th Jul 2010, 21:36

If anyone missed last night's 'Concorde's Last Flight' documentary and would like to see it, it's available here for the next 28 days: Concorde's Last Flight - 4oD - Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/concordes-last-flight/4od#3105076)

________________

RealFish

Here's the BA Hangar Video -

Pnzj6qYYv78&feature=related

.

barnstormer1968

13th Jul 2010, 21:42

BEag's

As you have listed some of your Concorde moments, I would just like to add that
as a non military flyer, I did once get to fly the Concorde simulator at Filton and
it was an awesome experience. The cockpit looked dated, but it was just such a
great experience to even get close to flying something THAT special.

Ironically, one thing we did during one of the 'flights' was to fly between the twin
towers, with the sim instructor pointing out that it could not be done in real life of
course!

Aeronut

14th Jul 2010, 00:26

For those wanting to pay their respects I can highly recommend visiting Brooklands where they now have a Concorde open to the public.

Brooklands Concorde (http://www.brooklandsconcorde.com/)

Brooklands is a cracking place to visit. In addition to Concorde there is the Vickers Vimy replica, the Hampden fished out of Loch Ness, the Sultan of Oman's VC10 full of gold velour, not to mention many other interesting aircraft, vintage cars and bikes galore.

The place has real spirit, well worth a visit.

West Coast

14th Jul 2010, 05:53

She was a beaut. Those French sure could build 'em.

BEagle

14th Jul 2010, 06:54

Concorde was built both by the French and the British from components made in both countries. This was quite an achievement at the time, given that the UK used imperial units and France used metric units - and the language barrier was pretty significant as well.

But the 'Anglo-French' agreement at least stopped any politicians from trying to cancel the programme.

The aircraft had such iconic status that it was never referred to as 'a' Concorde or 'the' Concorde, just as 'Concorde'.

ba's return to flight campaign had just started when the news came through about the 11 September World Trade Center outrage. At least 40 of Concorde's most regular passengers were murdered by Moslem terrorists and both ba and Air France struggled to find sufficient passengers to justify a regular service. As soon as ba announced that it was killing off Concorde, all remaining seats were snapped up.....

As Jock Lowe said, ba could have flown Concorde for another 20 years.

But some major marketing initiatives would have been needed to ensure that adequate revenue was generated.

AndoniP

14th Jul 2010, 07:35

speaking of revenue

nowadays no-one gives that hideously ugly A380 model a second glance

i do. i love the look of the thing. agreed though, it's not concorde.

i was told that emirates pay about 4million a year to have that model there, that's probably why - they're prepared to pay more than BA are. it's all business at the end of the day, which is what killed off concorde :(

PPRuNe Pop

14th Jul 2010, 07:49

Feathers McGraw

A tyre did not fail. Not in the sense I think you infer anyway. The destruction of the tyre was caused by a metal strip, about 15 inches long by 2 inches wide, which had departed from a DC10 that had taken off before Concorde. The metal had deformed itself in such a way that whatever way it landed on the ground it had a sharp edge uppermost. Concorde ran over it and it shredded a tyre. A piece flew off and ruptured the inner port tank...............later when they returned Concorde to service they placed moulded panels on the base of every tank so that if such an incident re-occurred only 7 litres/sec of fuel could escape.

breakadjuster

I assume you were not being sarcastic about the fuel state in Walpole's Concorde on landing at LHR because in fact it was CRITICAL. It was a requirement that something like 10,000kgs of fuel was on board at landing to avoid a massive change in the CofG. In this case the fuel was much lower than that and it would have sat on its tail if it had gone all the way to the gate and had to be re-fuelled first. The last moments of that flight could have been very serious indeed.

As a matter of fact FL, myself and another PPRuNer were given an incredible insight into the incident by one of Corcorde's Captain's on a table that was a scale version of the runway at CDG. It was a very bad incident but VERY bad luck - nothing else.

Edit: I am prompted to say that the tyre piece that hit the tank did NOT rupture it. But it did set up a pressure wave in the fuel that did! Apologies.

windriver

14th Jul 2010, 09:13

Why was it necessary for the pilots "slam" the throttles open on take off rather than do it progessively?

Basil

14th Jul 2010, 09:32

Re the reports of fire before the metal strip was struck, eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable and really needs to be treated with caution. The witness may not have seen what they genuinely believe to have observed.

For instance, I could have sworn that the infamous World Cup Final tackle by de Jong on Alonso was two footed. Subsequent video review showed that it was not.

Frangible

14th Jul 2010, 10:46

I'm totally with Topbunk. Just a load of recycled tosh with a lie attached -- that they had new evidence on the causes of the crash. Then we had the sentimental ravings of Hutchinson (how does flying it and loving it qualify you to pronounce on its safety?), Walpole, Lowe et al and, the "sheer beauty" bla bla bla cannot get over the fact that all other civil airliner development came to a screeching halt because we were locked into a money pit that sucked in all aircraft development capital.

Sure it was gorgeous, great to fly, lovely to look at, and it was certainly an amazing technical achievement but hang on.... The US looked at it and discovered after sonic bang tests in 1964 that the public would not tolerate them over land: not distant, muffled, blanket-on-the-timpani soft thumps like in the film, but great thunderclaps. We and the French, however, just pretended it wasn't an issue, and ploughed on, heads in the sand, throwing good money after bad, and labelling all sceptics unpatriotic. Heads remained in the sand after the Dulles incident in 79 when they realised that they could not stop tyres exploding, and they just beefed up the rubber and hoped it wouldn't happen again.

It was magnifique, but that is not the kind of guerre taxpayers need or should ever be fighting. What is it about Concorde that causes normally sensible people to suspend their critical faculties?

And yes, previous poster, you did see something nearly the same a few years ago. Concorde, A Love Story, was a Timewatch broadcast in 2003 and covered almost identical ground.

barnstormer1968

14th Jul 2010, 11:20

Frangible.

You said:

"Sure it was gorgeous, great to fly, lovely to look at, and it was certainly an amazing technical achievement but hang on.... The US looked at it and discovered after sonic bang tests in 1964 that the public would not tolerate them over land: not distant, muffled, blanket-on-the-timpani soft thumps like in the film, but great thunderclaps. We and the French, however, just pretended it wasn't an issue, and ploughed on, heads in the sand, throwing good money after bad, and labelling all sceptics unpatriotic."

You are exactly right on the issue of Americans not tolerating the noise levels of Concorde aircraft! That was certainly a major death nail in the project from the start.

Now, as I am clearly one of the people with my head in the sand, you are possibly in a perfect place to explain how, after the tests, the American public were still happy to have the U.S. SST rival land if it had gone ahead, but that would have been louder than Concorde!

Now from my head in the sand position, it looks to me like the American public had been persuaded that Concorde was an evil or ultra loud aircraft (or you can just read that as 'not built in the U.S'). But that the louder U.S. proposed SST (or their then currently flying but louder aircraft) were OK.

I would also be interested on your take on the current battle between two refuelling tankers proposed for the USAF. It seems that Americans don't like one of the bids in that contest too, and don't want it as it is rubbish (despite the reality of it flying and working already):confused:

Feathers McGraw

14th Jul 2010, 11:28

Windriver

The engine control on Concorde was entirely electric/electronic, there were various inhibitors for N1 as the engines accelerated, in particular No. 4 engine had to have N1 held down until 60kt because while all four engines rotated in the same direction the four intakes were mirror images down the centreline of the aircraft and the inner and outer inlet pair had a different shape leading to different flow patterns and hence surge margin. The result was that the engine control units sorted it out on a per engine basis as the power came in. The reheats were also pre-selected and lit once all engines had stabilised in dry power. It was thus possible to bang the throttles open without needing to worry about engine parameters, normally this was done by the captain who started the stopwatch simultaneously with his other hand, the time on this being used for timing the noise abatement procedure.

PPrune Pop

When I say tyre failure, I was referring to the fact that a cut (possibly exacerbated by other factors) caused a large piece of tread to be shed. I've read before that the tyres used by each operator were different in this respect, maybe a similar piece would not have come off from a BA Concorde tyre. What I saw stated that one type of tyre tread would break up into small pieces, the other would not.

As for the tank rupture, try as I might I can't see how a hydraulic shock wave could happen unless the mandated air space in the tank was not present. Why that would happen I shall not comment on further.

Frangible

14th Jul 2010, 11:29

My point was simply that the US abandoned development of their own SST when they found out that the sonic bangs would be unacceptable. That, and the eye-watering cost, killed the SST project. In 1964 they flew military jets in test flights across the continental US mimicking the routes that any SST -- US or otherwise -- would take and found the public wouldn't wear it. We found that out too during the west Britain supersonic test flights, but by then it was too late -- we had already spent the money. Everyone knew what a sonic bang was -- it is simply amazing to behold that no one had thought that part of it through. Condemned to flying over Mach 1 only over blue water, the economics were completely screwed.

Feathers McGraw

14th Jul 2010, 11:39

A thought about the matching cut tyre tread piece and metal strip found on the runway - would one not expect a tyre cut in this manner while inflated to split apart completely at the cut? I've always been surprised that the tread piece found was still intact at the edges of the cut, which suggested to me that it could have been partially deflated at the point where it ran over the titanium strip.

Cunliffe

14th Jul 2010, 11:59

I'm left wondering why Concorde was susceptible to fuel tank rupture from tyre debris. I have not heard that this applies to other types? Sorry if I am showing my ignorance but I am sure somebody will point out the obvious to me.

PPRuNe Pop

14th Jul 2010, 11:59

It wasn't a hydraulic shock wave, it was a pressure wave - don't ask me to explain it but someone on here can and I expect there is a good write up on it in Google too.

THIS is a good link.

CONCORDE SST : LATEST NEWS (http://www.concordesst.com/accident/latest.html)

Groundloop

14th Jul 2010, 12:04

My point was simply that the US abandoned development of their own SST when they found out that the sonic bangs would be unacceptable. ... In 1964 they flew military jets in test flights across the continental US mimicking the routes that any SST -- US or otherwise -- would take and found the public wouldn't wear it.

So why did they continue development work on the Boeing 2707 until 1971 then?

Feathers McGraw

14th Jul 2010, 12:42

I found an interesting thread from 2002, here http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/60157-af-concorde-accident-another-view.html

In it, NW1 states:

"There are manufacturer approved procedures to increase fuel loading to above the nominal "full" levels. This adds a tiny amount (usually about 12-1500 kgs, or about 1.5% of the total fuel load). It is a documented, tested and fully approved procedure - the Concorde's fuel tank venting system works as published even when this "extra" fuel is loaded."

That makes me a bit happier about the whole "pressure wave" phenomenon.

Despite searching I can't find anything that gives any real detail on the Concorde fuel system, I'd like to know how the switch selections affect the configuration of the transfer pumps, fuel galleries and valves and how they were normally configured. If anyone knows of a good reference, please let me know.

barnstormer1968

14th Jul 2010, 12:45

Groundloop.

I also wonder (well, I don't really lol) why the U.S. were so happy to have the Tu 144 Charger flying over the U.S. now that the whole threat from foreign SST's is over! It seems NASA like SST's and found them a valuable asset.

I have to say, that although I ignored West Coast's comment, but found it funny, I just wish his sense of humour would still function when talking of refuelling tankers or VIP choppers!

NazgulAir

14th Jul 2010, 13:29

Feathers McGraw

14th Jul 2010, 14:19

Cunliffe

Concorde had a large wing surface area containing fuel immediately above the undercarriage and a very high tyre rotation speed, so any debris thrown off was travelling more rapidly than on other aircraft.

In addition, the Concorde wing produces essentially no lift until rotation, so the downward component of the control forces rotating the aircraft increases the load on the tyres just as they reach maximum rotation speed.

At the last count, Concorde suffered at least 57 incidents where tyre debris hit the airframe. I don't know if that number includes the Gonesse crash.

JEM60

14th Jul 2010, 18:43

Barnstormer. I knew the US co-operated in returning a TU144 to the air for tests etc., but was not aware that it had flown in or over the US. Can anyone elaborate on where it visited?

John Farley

14th Jul 2010, 18:58

JEM60

I agree it was my understanding that all the NASA tests were flown in Russia.

JEM60

14th Jul 2010, 19:22

Many thanks JF. [ It was a delight to have attended one of your after dinner talks.]

Bronx

14th Jul 2010, 20:17

Frangible
What is it about Concorde that causes normally sensible people not to agree with my opinion?

Life's a bitch sometimes. :)

RealFish

14th Jul 2010, 21:52

Thanks FL.

That's the one! and the lump in the throat is still there.

RF

DozyWannabe

14th Jul 2010, 22:08

BEagle:
And then the worthless ba rolled over to French pressure and announced that they were killing off their Concordes.
Funny, I could have sworn it was because Airbus (a pan-European conglomerate, including the UK) could not continue making spare parts in a way that was financially viable, and that, at the end of the day, was a final and irrevocable factor that meant her time in the air was up.

Vitesse

15th Jul 2010, 06:28

Twenty odd years ago I was given the job of hand-delivering some electronic components that were made specially for the Concorde fleet. If I remember correctly, they were a custom-packaged chip of some sort. Exact part evades me now.

These chips were the last made from the last certified wafer known to exist.

Just a small illustration of the task that faces any restoration team.

Still like to see it happen, though.

AndoniP

15th Jul 2010, 10:34

with the advances in technology since concorde's production, nothing is irreplaceable, especially microchips of any sort.

breakadjuster

15th Jul 2010, 11:28

Yes PPRuNe Pop, there was slight sarcasm in my statement regarding Walpole. In fact after the event any extra fuel carried on BA aircraft was called "Walpoles"! This incident was well covered up by BA at the time

Vitesse

15th Jul 2010, 12:21

with the advances in technology since concorde's production, nothing is irreplaceable, especially microchips of any sort.While nothing is irreplaceable, the cost of replacement is an issue. You could set up a wafer fab up or re-design the board the component sits on or replace the module or replace the system.

I suppose you could use some parts found in the back of a drawer with no documentation, though.

West Coast

15th Jul 2010, 19:07

Concorde was built both by the French and the British from components made in both countries.

The A380 has a substantial number of parts built in the US, doesn't make it an American plane. Same said of Boeing aircraft, not French aircraft however.

The Concorde was built in France, it's a French aircraft.

BEagle

15th Jul 2010, 19:35

Your facts are incorrect, Westie.

Concorde components were made at the relevant manufacturing site. However, there were 2 productions lines, one at Aerospatiale's Toulouse (France) site and the other at BAC's Filton (UK) site.

There were 20 Concordes, built as follows:

Prototype F-WTSS was built at Toulouse, prototype G-BSST at Filton.

Pre-production F-WTSA, Toulouse, pre-production G-AXDN, Filton.

Development F-WTSB, Toulouse, development G-BBDG, Filton

Air France aircraft F-BTSC, F-BVFA, F-BVFB, F-BVFC, F-BVFD, F-BTSD and F-BVFF at Toulouse.

British Airways aircraft, G-BOAC, G-BOAA, G-BOAB, G-BOAD, G-BOAE, G-BOAG and G-BOAF at Filton.

Anglo-French - half were built and test-flown in France, half were built and test-flown in the UK.

MerchantVenturer

15th Jul 2010, 20:57

I can only think that West Coast is doing a bit of winding up. I can't believe he really doesn't know that Concorde was a British-French initiative.

If he doesn't perhaps there is a general perception in the USA (I assume the West Coast part of his nomenclature is that of the USA) that Concorde is completely French which either says much for the Gallic publicity machine or very little for Britain's.

If he still needs convincing he need do no more than visit Bristol (the original one - in England) where many retired engineers will be pleased to tell him how they built Concorde at Filton which is on the northern outskirts of that city.

JEM60

15th Jul 2010, 21:16

I've met Americans at US Air Shows that are convinced [or have been!] that the AV8B is a wholly American design, including, would you believe, the engine!!! At Oshkosh once, the only way I could convince a guy that this was not so was to take him to the static park, and show him the engine makers plate!!!!! America.....Land of the free, home of the brainwashed......No offence, just that you guys seem to be fed an awful lot of mis-information about stuff.,

West Coast

15th Jul 2010, 23:47

that the AV8B is a wholly American design

The B is an American aircraft, a vast improvement over the A&C. The design came from the Brit's. Happy now?

heated ice detector

16th Jul 2010, 01:46

I used to be involved with the manufacture of Concorde parts during my apprenticeship,
All welded aluminum components that we made still had to be gas welded as electric welding was not approved for Concorde,(early eighties) Finished Items then went to Filton.
Were still making fuel tanks for Canberra's would you believe.

Mike7777777

16th Jul 2010, 07:00

Concorde is probably mankind's greatest technological achievement to date, perhaps eclisped only by AGR nuclear power stations.
It is a golden rule that engineering masterpieces can only be created where bean counter involvement is minimal.

JEM60

16th Jul 2010, 07:59

WESTCOAST. I was always happy to know that the 'B' was American, and a good job they made of it too. My comment was more about the guy who assured me that the engine was also American, which it ain't.
Concorde is French and British. Happy now!:):)

Wander00

16th Jul 2010, 11:54

Don't forget that apart from the first aeroplane, the droop nose and visor was designed by Marshalls at Cambridge and built there

M2dude

16th Jul 2010, 18:42

errrr... no. You are WAY adrift there my friend. Marshalls were initially subcontracted; the primary design was carried out at BAC Weybridge. The PRODUCTION series Droop Nose/Visor was exclusively designed and manufactured at BAC Weybridge. A former colleage of mine, while at Weybridge, came up with the extremely complex visor carriage geometry within the nose. He later became one of the most enigmatic (as well as the most knowledgable) SEO's we ever had on the fleet).

M2dude

16th Jul 2010, 19:10

While nothing is irreplaceable, the cost of replacement is an issue. You could set up a wafer fab up or re-design the board the component sits on or replace the module or replace the system.

I suppose you could use some parts found in the back of a drawer with no documentation, though.

Concorde had this massive problem; in terms of avionics she was streets ahead of anything else flying ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD at the time. She had the worlds very first digital control system (Decision to change design of this system from analog to digital taken in OCT 1970; not actually flying in the British Pre-Production A/C until 1973). When parts for this system (The AICS) started to become obsolescent in the 1990's, replacement IC's had to be specially designed, manufactured and certificated. (The re-designed component boards worked like charm and were infinitely more reliable than their predecessors). I guess in a way Concorde was like a flying electronics museum; from the days of analog all the way to the digital age. (Also the finest aircraft ever built). :)

M2dude

16th Jul 2010, 19:28

Funny, I could have sworn it was because Airbus (a pan-European conglomerate, including the UK) could not continue making spare parts in a way that was financially viable, and that, at the end of the day, was a final and irrevocable factor that meant her time in the air was up.

And yet again, NOPE.
Airbus withdrew product support (hence voiding the Operators Certificate) without a rediculous price hike in support costs. Nothing at all to do with the cost of spare parts, more to do with a way of making it financially impossible for the British to operate the aircraft. (Air France, needing to be privatised, losing money like crazy due to single digit passenger loads, nearly losing another aircraft, AGAIN partly due to poor crew operating discipline, (following an LP pump delivery pipe failure). As AIRBUS had become, and still is now, a French dominated company, the stitch up was put in place!! (By the way, the airlines paid for any spare components that they received from Airbus).
Her time in the air was never 'up', as such, at least not due to any fault of the aeroplane.

M2dude

16th Jul 2010, 20:18

Picture this: beautiful clear skies. Me, enroute to Cardiff, flying at FL080 in Green 1 over Kent. Suddenly, a quintessential British voice on the frequency, announcing that he needed to put the gear down early because of some problem. He was given a lower level. I knew he was going to overtake me. Hell, EVERYTHING in that airway was overtaking my little Arrow. The weather being what it was I got a good sight of them pretty close up. I was having a great time. I thought nothing could top that.
And then Concorde passed underneath my little Arrow.... aaaahhhhhh.....

Must have been awesome. I remember returning from BKK/BAH, having decended from supercruise and flying subsonic over the Adriatic. The ideal subsonic cruise on Concorde being 0.95 Mach @ FL 280 meant that we were UNDERTAKING stacks of traffic above us at a great rate of knots. As it was getting quite dark we had this amazing spectacle of red and green lights going backwards above us. It looked absolutely amazing.

Mike7777777

16th Jul 2010, 20:46

Concorde had this massive problem; in terms of avionics she was streets ahead of anything else flying ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD at the time. She had the worlds very first digital control system (Decision to change design of this system from analog to digital taken in OCT 1970; not actually flying in the British Pre-Production A/C until 1973). When parts for this system (The AICS) started to become obsolescent in the 1990's, replacement IC's had to be specially designed, manufactured and certificated. (The re-designed component boards worked like charm and were infinitely more reliable than their predecessors). I guess in a way Concorde was like a flying electronics museum; from the days of analog all the way to the digital age. (Also the finest aircraft ever built)Developing replacement control systems 2010- 20?? is probably achievable, interfacing with existing and achieving certification within the near future cannot possibly be a realistic objective ....? Too many variables, known and unknown.

M2dude

16th Jul 2010, 21:50

Developing replacement control systems 2010- 20?? is probably achievable, interfacing with existing and achieving certification within the near future cannot possibly be a realistic objective ....? Too many variables, known and unknown.

Not really sure of your point here Mike. This really is all what avionics development is all about; this sort of stuff is done all the time in aviation. I was merely pointing out the difficulties with the first generation digital technology found in Concorde (ie. the problems associated with obsolecence of components). :=

Flying Lawyer

16th Jul 2010, 22:24

Two icons of the 20th Century lost forever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Flying%20Lawyer/Concorde_TwinTowers_850.jpg

(Photo from the roof of the old PanAm terminal 1989 by Hanns Ullrich)

JEM60

17th Jul 2010, 08:22

Lovely pic. What memories and thoughts this must stir.

M2dude

17th Jul 2010, 18:19

Lovely pic' indeed. The JFK 31L take off was always awsome; no other airliner could ever match that manoeuvr. (As many here know, the idea was to 'dump' tha sizable part of the take off noise into Jamaica Bay).
Well done FL. (Reading through some of the previous posts, I totally applaud your comments regarding Jock). I've known him for over 30 years, and I'd like to say that apart from being a wonderful aviator (as well as being an incredibly smart one) he is and always was a real and total gentleman.
I just don't know why some people seem to want to take these pathetic pot-shots at Jock (as well as at Hutch and Brian W; both also are brilliant pilots and total gents).
And once more FL, what an amazing photo!!!:)

PPRuNe Pop

17th Jul 2010, 18:35

The thoughts and feelings that pic provokes are heart breaking.

M2dude

18th Jul 2010, 15:21

They are indeed. And the awful irony is that the moment that those snivelling cowards flew those aircraft into the towers, causing the loss of so many innocent people, Concorde G-BOAF was triumphantly completing a simulated LHR-JFK test flight, (LHR-LHR) readying for her return to commercial service after the Paris crash. This aircraft was completely full of Concorde people (myself included) and our absolute elation after landing turned into total despair as we all heard the terrible news from New York.
Im sure that all crews can still remember lining up on 31L for T/O, the stunning view of that amazing skyline crowned with the majesty of the World Trade Center. (Centre spelled the American way out of respect).
As has been mentioned above, two lost and sadly missed icons; The WTC & Concorde, inexorably and eternally linked.

Mike7777777

18th Jul 2010, 17:24

Not really sure of your point here Mike. This really is all what avionics development is all about; this sort of stuff is done all the time in aviation. I was merely pointing out the difficulties with the first generation digital technology found in Concorde (ie. the problems associated with obsolecence of components).
The point I was not making very well was that complete replacement of the control system is an approach that fully resolves issues of control system supportability with the potential for budgetary control and achieving progamme dates that does not exist with a piecemeal reactive approach, but that the real issues might be the interface with existing, retained systems and certification, particularly if the goal is to fly in the UK for 2012 as per #25 (this seems optimistic ... ) Currently many unknowns, not least the condition and performance of existing systems,

M2dude

18th Jul 2010, 20:49

Mike, I agree about the (unfortunately) over-optimistic aspects of flying a BRITISH aircraft circa 2012, but these are not particularly huge avionics issues. (I would hope that no person in their right mind would suggest a wholesale avionics upgrade for such a venture/dream, no one). There would of course be a cost, in terms of an avionics systems review and complete test and calibration, but apart from the possible worry about power contactor condition, the rest of the airplane should 'fire up' without too much of a problem. Provided certain pieces of test equipment could be obtained, this should not present TOO much of a headache. (Fortunately there is still quite a wealth of expertise around, on both sides of the English Channel).
The REAL problem, as far as a British aircraft is concerned, is a simple one of fluids, namely hydraulics. With hydraulic oil being drained from the Green, Blue and Yellow systems when the aircraft were retired, the systems' seals will likely to have deteriorated, and possibly dried, and maybe even shrunk/cracked. (Although the Viton GLT hydraulic seals that were retro-fitted to the aircraft in the 1980's/90's were a huge improvement over the original fit, in terms of aging deterioration, and proved to be quite resilient in service).
An even bigger issue is that Chevron M2V fluid is extremely sensitive to water contamination; I seem to remember the limit being in the order of 8ppm, and only a small increase above this would render all components useless, due to contamination. So you are faced with the potential cost of a complete systems strip-down and component overhaul, and even if this WERE financially viable, time is not on our side here, in terms of 2012.
We therefore unfortunately have to take a firm grip on reality, in terms of what is possible and what is not. As much as most of us in the Concorde 'family' would love to see an aircraft fly this side of the Channel, it is not really feasible I'm afraid, at least in the immediate future.
(But it costs nothing at all to dream :)).

Mike7777777

19th Jul 2010, 21:34

M2dude, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a British Concorde, or even a French Concorde, I thought they were all Anglo-French ;)
but apart from the possible worry about power contactor condition, the rest of the airplane should 'fire up' without too much of a problem Interesting, how do you know this?

If the 'plane at Le Bourget has been maintained with a view to preserving some operability, then probably reasonable to assume that all fluids are in place.
Can you envisage a return to the air without support from Airbus?

BOAC73

20th Jul 2010, 16:51

Mike,
M2dude knows what he is talking about. There are enough of the "Concorde Family" left to to ensure a safe RTF. As for Airbus.....yes they do have to co-operate. Money and where will it come from........a question which I have no answer to.
Cheers,
B73.

M2dude

20th Jul 2010, 18:37

Thank you for your comment BOAC73, you are very kind. You also make a very good point; we are still mostly 'out here' and have sufficient expertise and all care enough to ensure that any POSSIBLE RTF would be done safely. As far as the money goes, your guess is as good as mine here, but it seems that the people in Le Bourget looking after F-BTSB seem to have found some. (They also have a supply of M2V fluid (goodness knows where they got that from !!), as well as ASTO 555 for the engines.
MIKE: By 'British' Concorde, I meant one of the Variant 102 aircraft from the final assembly line at Filton!!
Interesting, how do you know this?

Over 30 years involvent with the aircraft, at various levels. I must have picked up a thing or two :rolleyes:

Vitesse

20th Jul 2010, 20:17

M2Dude,

Do you have any photos of the production line?

I remember visiting the brab hangar and seeing several part complete aircraft in green primer.

Mike7777777

20th Jul 2010, 20:25

Over 30 years involvent with the aircraft, at various levels. I must have picked up a thing or two :rolleyes:

Oh, right. Did this involve reviving a Concorde after 7 years (virtual) inactivity? I only ask ..

M2dude

20th Jul 2010, 21:16

Vitesse:Do you have any photos of the production line?

I remember visiting the brab hangar and seeing several part complete aircraft in green primer.
None to hand I'm afraid, but I'll certainly dig around and let you know what I find. If you remember from your visit, it was not so much a producion line as a jigsaw puzzle. (There would be a high build and a low build jig, as well as a smaller jig between them, where wing sections were assembled. The low build is where the fuselage and inner wing sections were assebled, passing to the high build jig for fitment of undercarriage and powerplant). All of this mayhem was confined to the centre bay of the Brabazon Hangar.
One of the amusing things about the Filton producion line was that the aircraft never went into a paint shop as such before flight, but were progessively painted throughout production, during overnight sessions in the assembly hangar. (The area would be closed to any other activity that night for obvious reasons). The fuselage and fin were painted first and gradually the wings and engine intakes also. The PROBLEM with this series of rolling paint jobs was that because each aircraft took several months to build, by the time construction was at an advanced stage, some of the earlier painting needed retouching, leaving the 'final' paint job a little patchy at times.
MIKE:Oh, right. Did this involve reviving a Concorde after 7 years (virtual) inactivity? I only ask ..
A little pointless swipe, now play nice dear.:=
And for your information sir, an aircraft was 'revived', in the mid 80's after being stood down for over 3 years. Agreed, not 7 years, but still a long period of systems inactivity.
I gave my professional opinion, that is all, where you made no point at all sir.

Vitesse

21st Jul 2010, 06:58

Thanks M2Dude.

I did consider the term 'production line' for a while. Jigsaw fits better!

I did some googling and found this CONCORDE SST : EVENTS: Page 1 (http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/events1.html)

There are some shots of the hangar in some of the links.

Probably predates my visit (and my memory is in colour!).

Flying Lawyer

22nd Jul 2010, 22:49

M2dude

Very interesting contributions. Thank you for your informed input.

I just don't know why some people seem to want to take these pathetic pot-shots at Jock (as well as at Hutch and Brian W; both also are brilliant pilots and total gents).
Nor do I.

I’ve never met Brian W but Jock is a good friend and I've known Hutch for several years. Neither deserves the pathetic (and offensive) pot-shots; far from it.

.

M2dude

23rd Jul 2010, 07:41

FL
Thank you very much.I totally agree with your point. Perhaps those of tiny minds (or something) have now exhausted their pathetic little tantrums. The fact is that Jock Lowe, Brian Walpole and John Hutchinson are far better people than these little minions will ever be. They are now iconic figures in British aviation history, whereas these sad individuals are really nothing at all:D

Mike7777777

25th Jul 2010, 18:14

Perhaps those of tiny minds (or something) have now exhausted their pathetic little tantrums.
If that's aimed at me then please say so.

M2dude

25th Jul 2010, 21:00

Mike7777777
Actually no, I was not referring to you at all. I may have disagreed with you profoundly on several points here, but that is just debate. (A little heated at times, but nonetheless just debate). You are certainly NOT one that I would regard as such; quite on the contrary in fact. You at least never made personal attacks in this post on people that I have known personally, and respected highly for well in excess of 32 years. The people that made these rather nasty attacks are the ones that I was referring to, not your good self sir.