Concorde question

[DonH]

CliveL;
Re, "I suspect the zero bypass Ol 593 would take less time to spool up than todays high bypass engines. "
Yes, I think so. The A333 (RB211s) had a specific technique at high-altitude airports to ensure the engines were stabilized at about 1.1EPR before taking the thrust levers into the FLEX/MCT or TOGA detent. The thrust levers were taken to their detents 'gently', even as FADEC did control the acceleration. Even then, some surging was experienced, again at high-altitude airports, (CYYC for example).

[DozyWannabe]

The engine was electrically signalled, but it wasn't FADEC; the control system(s) were analogue.

Or FAAnEC, if you will...

(My god, that makes an awful acronym! :rolleyes:)

[EXWOK]

'Dry' thrust was used for a go-around, except in the case of wind shear when 'contingency' was used. (A bit more than full thrust and reheat).

[dowot]

Hi all, slowly working my way through this thread, 3 days and up to page 15! Should be finished by Christmas. Hehe Absolutely fascinating reading, so good to have memories of the people who made, flew and maintained this incredible aircraft. My only reminiscence is trying to persuade my parents that they could not hear Concorde go supersonic when living in Bournemouth, OK they could and once being held at Filton, whilst she landed. Has anyone seen the BBC items reflecting 10 years since last flights. Which includes something from page 5 or 6 of this thread. The SR71 asked to wait for Concorde to proceed! I am sure these pages are far more interesting than the books, as one can ask questions, I just hope it is being saved somewhere for reference or for sale to help maintain this very informative site. Thanks to all the professionals who give their time and all the questioners for such interesting questions. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_clap.gif

[MrSnuggles]

Thankyou.

Thankyou all, EXWOK, Bellerophon, CliveL, ChristiaanJ, M2Dude, Brit312 and landlady for providing these wonderful stories directly from "the horse's mouth". I love it. Please, since landlady is already publishing her piece of history, maybe you others could at least join forces and use this excellent, brilliant and awesome thread as inspiration?

I have read this thread for breakfast every day the past week and finally catched up and never got this sorted out.... HOW is it possible that Airbus now "operates" (weeeell, you know what I mean...) Concorde?

I have tried to follow all clues, looking up companies on Wikipedia and who was subcontractor to whom, but it's just a big mess and I need help to sort it out. Is there anyone who might help shed some light onto this?

Sorry if my post is long, but this is such an amazing aircraft and since I come from Sweden where all we have is a tiny (but hugely effective!!) SAAB Gripen I am in awe to you who have created a milestone in aviation.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

How was the aircraft operated for base training? I imagine it was a 'rocket-ship' with no payload and little fuel.


It was indeed! I have spoken to many Concorde pilots and most confirm the unexpected phenomenal climb rate at light weight in base training. They were briefed to level off at 1,500 feet but on their very first flights on the real aeroplane (it'd been all sim prior to that) some went way beyond. I'm told the record was 4,000 feet! One told me "I used to get it turning - that cooled things down!".

My one and only Concorde flight (G-BOAD) was Manchester to Paris via the Bay for 60,000 feet and M2. I was lucky enough to be in the jump seat for the entire flight so didn't suffer 'small window' limitations! My most memorable view was about 50,000' over South Wales looking through the windscreens. The whole of SW UK was visible on that glorious August day in 1999, with the scattered occasional cu looking as if they were on the ground! The bright yellow of the beaches around the coasts of Wales and England stand out in my memory, as well. As do other aeroplanes flying west-east very far below us!

At 60,000' the sky was amazing - dark blue fading to very dark overhead. And of course the curvature of the Earth clearly visible.

Despite flying interesting aeroplanes for well over 30 years myself, that flight in AD is a magnificent highlight I will never forget!

For those who want to sit in the P1 seat and try out those lovely cabin seats, come and see our G-BOAC at Manchester!

[beamender99]

My only reminiscence is trying to persuade my parents that they could not hear Concorde go supersonic when living in Bournemouth,


Dowot.
Well the following may be of interest to you.


When working with the guys at Alderney the boom from Concorde rattled the windows. On enquiring I was told that the AF Concorde usually ignored the noise restrictions and opened the throttles early so it was a regular event and to hell with the complaints.


I was at Heathrow and a guy I worked with said he heard the boom in the Bracknel area. This was confirmed as the AF Concorde and the boom was bouncing off the clouds hence him hearing it at Bracknell.

[ruddman]

Considering there is a thread going regarding an aircraft flying some distance with an engine shut down, what was possible with the Concorde?

If it lost one at cruising altitude? If it lost another could it fly on only two?

[Slatye]

This (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-78.html#post6991029) post mentions that on three engines, dropping to subsonic, Concorde would lose 30 - 35% range. Much more of a reduction than subsonic planes, but still enough to get to a safe airfield.

On two engines it'll still fly, although with a further reduction in range and possible loss of some hydraulic systems (depends which engines failed).

If I remember correctly, there was some mention of a possible single-engine (plus reheat) go-around, which suggests that at landing weight it might have been able to maintain flight on only one engine.

[garylovesbeer]

I was speaking today to an aircraft engineer who had been working at Christchurch airport in NZ when Concorde visited.

He recalls Concorde suffering damage on the ground and a repair having to be made to a wing skin.

Anybody have any details about this incident?

[LurkerBelow]

I understand it fell victim to the dreaded Canterbury Nor'west wind. From memory, a servicing platform got blown about and punctured a fuel tank. It was reported in the local papers at the time but there was very little fuss made about the incident at the time.
There were several Concorde visits to Christchurch, all very popular to the locals (including myself). However, Concorde suffered at least two incidents that could be attributed to the Nor'west wind at Christchurch. The other one that gained more publicity was when it lost part of its rudder flying across the Tasman sea. There was some evidence that when parked overnight at Christchurch airport, the wind came up and started slamming the unlocked rudder about...

[garylovesbeer]

This totally corroborates the account given to me. Didn't realise that the rudder problem was caused by the same phenomenon. Who would have thunk it!

[EXWOK]

..... not convinced that theory's true.....

The PFCUs will offer a lot of damping, even while unpressurised. I've never seen a control surface 'slam' side to side on a hydraulically powered aircraft for tis reason.

The cause of the rudder failure was internal corrosion brought about by a mod which added a fillet to the trailing edge.

I suggest the surface winds were a red herring.

[LurkerBelow]

EXWOK ...well it was some time ago and my memory may not be what it was...
Anyway, pprune was not around then so the only rumour network speculating about such events was the local newspaper and the comments about the wind have stuck in my memory.
I wouldn't dismiss the Canterbury surface winds too lightly - they can and have caused a lot of damage especially to property and trees. Sitting in a 737 in a Nor'wester at Harewood at departure time can be a shaky experience.
However, I take your point about back driving a PFCU. Thinking about it, I would doubt that ground wind forces would come anywhere near the forces experienced in supersonic flight

[bertpig]

Superb aircraft, superb thread :ok:

I would like to know how susceptible both the clever intakes and the Olympus engines were to damage from bird ingestion, and if it ever happened in flight. I assume the answer might lie in the positioning of the ramps at takeoff and bird inhabited altitudes?

Also, a theme throughout the thread has been that the two projects of the era that people wanted to work on were Apollo and Concorde. My question is; were there any companies (and particularly individuals) who were lucky enough to work in some part (large or small) on both of these marvels of engineering?

I would also be very interested to hear:
i) From the pilots - what the "worst" (both subjectively and objectively if you like) situation or failure was that you trained for in the sim or on a real aircraft.
ii) From the engineers - the "Concorde factor" aside, how was she to work on and how did her systems compare in terms of ease of maintenance to regular passenger aircraft of the day? What were the jobs/events most and least looked forward to?
iii) Any more about the de-tune facility in some of the pictures posted earlier - was its sole function to hold the bird in place and quieten the engine noise, or did it serve any other purpose (e.g. did it contain any measuring instruments).

Disclaimer: Not a pilot/engineer.

[peter kent]

Were the primary nozzle spade silencers mentioned in this Flight article used on production aircraft?

Also, again in this article, was it a production feature to open the primary nozzle to reduce noise?

Thank you.



1972 | 2644 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202644.html)

[NHerby]

I'd like to add a few words to the discussion a few posts earlier about the reasons of the commercial failure of Concorde.
http://le.pointu.free.fr/historique/large/01_match_1972-12-30_couverture.jpg
Concorde killed by Americans.
This is an article published in a very famous french magazine in 1972. This article describes the various measures taken by the american to stamp down the european aeronautic industry and more particularly the Concorde.
According to this article, it started with a campaign to warn the US Congress about the supposed stratospheric pollution that SST would create. The danger was off course exaggerated but nevertheless the congress refused to vote credits for the american SST. That is the main reason why Boeing stopped the development of their own SST. Harold Johnson, from the university of Iowa, even affirmed that the SST would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere and, as a result, decimate the humanity with uncurable skin cancers and retina burnt.:D
Also, US firms proposed to South American companies to buy back all their Caravelles at catalog price if they promise to buy only boeing aircrafts for the next 10 years with credit over 8 years and only 2% interest.
And, finally, the Export Import Bank (Eximbank) whose many arilines's cash depends on, announces that they will not give any loans to buy european aircrafts. On top of that, some political pressure were also used to discourage some countries that could be interested in buying european aircrafts.

Under those circumstances, Concorde, despite its incredible technological advance, had almost no chance to become a commercial succes.

It is intersting to note that Concorde came to life thanks to political decisions but also never really took off partly because of political reasons.

[Reverb_SR71]

@ msbbarrat I agree with your viewpoint but i'd like to clarify a few points. analog circuits use a continuously variable signal where as digital circuits use an interrupted signal . both analog and digital circuits can be INTEGRATED Circuits or DISCREET Circuits . Both do the same job . Both use transistors capacitors etc . The difference ofcourse is as you stated in a discrete circuit you can swap out individual components like transistors or capacitors . In an IC Integrated circuit however the manufacturing process in microscopic and its all on one chip . so its physically impossible to figure out what transistor has blown , some will fail during the life of the circuit but there is an acceptable amount of multiplexing going on to keep things chugging along smoothly . Unless ofcourse some critical part fails in which case you have to replace the entire board / chip etc. IC offer much more redundancy , weight savings , efficient power use and ease of repair-ability when compared to discreet electronics. Now the switch to digital circuits took place because it is much more difficult to engineer analog circuits and analog signals are prone to interference/ noise , much more precise signal control is required .

[CliveL]

msbbarratt

I often wonder though; given that all flight dynamics on all aircraft types can (presumably) be expressed by systems of differential equations, are we missing a trick? Implement the equations in analogue but have a digital wrapper around it to provide the modern supervisory functions? If it could be done it would save weight, power, cost; an analogue circuit could be made really, really small these days.

That of course is essentially what was done on the intake control system. The basic analogue "inner loop" was retained to do the actuation but it operated to non-linear laws and limits defined by a digital system.

[AirborneAgain]

The problem with software systems is that [...] you cannot prove them to be correct
Yes, you can (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods), and in safety-critical applications you frequently do. (See e.g. this presentation from Airbus (http://www.slideshare.net/AdaCore/formal-method-for-avionics-software-verification) and this one from Rockwell-Collins (http://www.jaist.ac.jp/icfem2012/Cofer-ICFEM2012.pdf).)
hence the triplication, heavy emphasis on configuration control and high cost.Triplication (or duplication) doesn't help against software problems unless the software itself is triplicated (which happens).

[DozyWannabe]

Safety critical analogue control systems are far easier to maintain and repair over extended periods of time than their digital equivalents.

Hardware-wise, maybe. In most other aspects, absolutely not - otherwise the transition from analogue to digital would not have happened.

There's also no need for triplication for a start, at least not from the point of view establishing correct system output.

"Triplication"? I'm unsure as to what you're referring to. If you're referring to the two disparate software implementations used in the Airbus FBW systems of the A320 and her descendants, then there were only two - not three - distinct implementations, and they were not so much a necessity as a "belt-and-braces" failsafe, given that the A320 was the first implementation of its type.

All that an analogue control system is doing is implementing a series of differential equations.

Software likewise, as AirborneAgain alludes to.

The problem with software systems is that they're way too complex

Not necessarily - see AirborneAgain's post.

Analogue control circuits are also largely immune to component selection ... a capacitor is still a capacitor. Obsolescence is a significantly reduced problem.

But in a software-based system, the logical functions can be replaced simply by replacing a ROM IC or by re-writing to an EPROM IC - a much less problematic process than re-jigging discrete hardware across hundreds of airframes.

We won't be seeing A380s, etc. flying once the spares run out.

Airbus/Boeing FBW systems use hardened versions of obsolete commodity hardware - the suppliers won't stop making them as long as there's a demand.

[aterpster]

NHerby:

No doubt the nuts were already influencing the radial political agenda in the U.S. by then.

The beginning of the slow decline of the U.S. Having said that Europe, for the most part, is seriously screwed up as well.

Alas, the moderators will likely delete both your message and mine.

[tdracer]

Airbus/Boeing FBW systems use hardened versions of obsolete commodity hardware - the suppliers won't stop making them as long as there's a demand.

IC Part obsolescence is actually a big problem in aviation - our market is too small to justify keeping these components in production when they are decades obsolete in consumer products.
The best option is 'life time buys' - where the vendor stockpiles what they hope is a life time supply of the critical components (IC chips, ASICS, basically any logic devices). Of course, life time buys are not foolproof - not only is it dependent on accurate forecasts of need, but other things go wrong - crates go missing, warehouses burn down, bean counters dispose of what they think is excess inventory, etc.
The second option is to periodically certify hardware packages where they update components and re-certify. This is difficult and expensive - it takes extensive testing and analysis - even subtle changes in things like throughput timing can turn a digital system on it's ear. But it is done (in the last 10 years or so we've had FADEC parts obsolescence updates on both the PW4000/94" and CF6-80C2 FADEC controls - which date back to the mid 1980s).
The third option is just do a clean sheet of paper new device - really expensive and difficult, and often means having to update the associated s/w as well (this is what Pratt did with the PW2000 FADEC, coming out with completely new control - hardware and s/w - around 1995 to replace the original that dated back to about 1980).


But in the end the airplanes keep flying http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[NHerby]

Alas, the moderators will likely delete both your message and mine. It would be a pitty!
I don't want to slide in a political argument here, that is not my point at all. I just want to highlight that lobbying against SST, even with totally foolish pleas, had a very negative impact on the commercial outcome of both Concorde and the Boeing SST. Put on top of that what has to be called an economic war between USA and Europe and the fate of Concorde was sealed, no matter how beautifull, technologically advanced and fantastic was the plane. And I think this is the main resaon why no other airliners but BAC and AF bought Concorde.

[tartare]

R.e the Concorde damage in NZ... it was actually caused by a set of HS-748 air-stairs blown across the tarmac by the Canty Norwester.
Many red faces at Mt Cook - and apologies to BA.
The jet was on a charter flight full of American millionaires.
It was left leaking fuel from a puncture underwing.
They towed it around to the Air NZ maintenance hangar and fixed it within 24 hours from memory.
Requests from the local meeja to cover expert Air NZers patching the world's fastest pax jet were bluntly declined by BA's man in London.
The millionaires departed on a charter 767 for Sydney.
And late the next glorious summer evening - a slightly younger Tartare heard the unearthly roar of 4 Olympuses - and watched the Speedbird depart to the North, leaving four trails of soot over the garden city.

[john_tullamarine]

Alas, the moderators will likely delete both your message and mine.

This mod errs on the side of leaving things alone .. unless they be quite out of order.

a slightly younger Tartare heard the unearthly roar of 4 Olympuses

June 72 we first saw the bird in Oz.

I was a UniSyd final year engineering undergrad at the time. The lot of us nicked off from lectures that day to watch the departure .. forget how it was organised but we stood about where the 16 GP antenna is located now in front of the international terminal construction work.

The bird's takeoff was to the south (our left to right) .. lots of mach diamonds and the visceral excitation was not at all comfortable ... but, what a hoot.

The aerodynamics lecturer - one of whose lectures we absented ourselves from - opined at the start of the next lecture that we should study independently for the finals in his subject and walked out ... nice chap but a rabid greenie and more than a tad anti-Concorde.

C'est la vie ... vague memory suggests I think I scored an HD for the subject and we all passed anyway .. the power of fearful heads in the textbooks in the absence of lectures in a subject.

[Mike-Bracknell]

Airbus/Boeing FBW systems use hardened versions of obsolete commodity hardware - the suppliers won't stop making them as long as there's a demand.

To add to this, there's also the ability to create a hardware abstraction layer (similar to virtualisation) which allows you to swap out the underlying components whilst maintaining a uniform look and feel to the systems they support. I would expect (if it's not already being done) this to be one of the drivers for newer aircraft, as they can then forklift the proven systems from one aircraft type to the next, and provide redundancy/resilience and obsolescence-proofing.

[AirborneAgain]

But there's no CPU on the planet with a formal proof of its design.Actually, formal proofs are used extensively in the design of microprocessors. The need for this is something the microelectronics industry learned the hard way after the Pentium I floating point division bug.

And, yes, there has been at least one case of a completely proved microprocessor design. The reason we haven't seen more is presumably because complete proof has turned out not to be necessary to achieve sufficient assurance of design correctness.

[ThreeThreeMike]

This wonderful thread about the birth and operation of Concorde is a fascinating read.

Unfortunately the last few pages have been filled with off topic drift and discussions regarding the commercial aspects of the aircraft's operation.

I'm sure those that have spent so much time answering technical questions would appreciate it if the thread could continue as originally conceived. It would be a shame if those contributors lost interest in the thread due to the thoughtless prattle of some posters.

[Slatye]

Getting somewhat closer to the topic - does anyone know what the Tu-144 used for computing? The NASA report on the Tu-144LL says that they had a digital controls for the engines, but since those were new engines the control system was probably a good deal more modern than the original. I can't see any mention of how the intakes were controlled, or what the original engines used.

And really on-topic, was there any work done towards updating this for Concorde-B? Or did they never get that far? Or was the plan to just keep using exactly the same stuff, since it was already working so well?

[Hapsen]

Great thread - and it inspired me to buy Ted Talbot's book.

I used to work with a design engineer who worked on the intake controls team - many an hour at work was spent listening to his stories!

But back to the thread....

In T. Talbot's book he mentions that above Mach 1.6 (?) Concorde was certified as a twin-engined aircraft due to the common intake.
As I don't know how in those days the equivalent of ETOPS was - how were the diversion airfields worked out? As today (say) ETOPS 180 is somewhat different if you're at Mach 0.83 or 2.02 :-)

Thanks!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've noticed static ports under the fuselage at the back, between the engines. Are these just additional ports for the aircraft's general static pressure measurement system, or do they have a specific function?

[ruddman]

Here's a question or three from a non-pilot:

Evidently most modern airliners use around 3 x height plus whatever to slow on approach etc.

1. Being that the Concorde looks like a slippery sob, how were the descents planned?

2. Did you just pull the throttles back to flight idle?

3. Or was there a little more engine management and more gradual handling of the engines and descent?

4. And I'm guessing the approach speeds were fairly high so hitting the touchdown zone was pretty important?

5. So if things got out of shape a little, and a G/A was required, how do you handle what looks like 4 rockets on the wings and applying the right amount of power?





Ok, more then 3 questions sorry. :O

Simple questions I'm sure but since I'm probably never going to able to fly one myself, getting these questions answered will allow me to sleep again at night. :p

[CliveL]

Static ports

SSD

I'm afraid I can't tell you what they actually do, but I am pretty sure they aren't part of the anemometry because those static ports are "pepperpots" mounted on specially machined and jigged flat plates. This was necessary because static pressure at Mach 2 is sensitive to local skin waviness.

Do you have a photo?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thanks Clive, I did wonder why the static ports near the doors used those plates.

I'll look for a photo. If I can't find one, I'll take one next time I'm with G-BOAC (next week).

There are others as well, as in the pictures below (but these are not the ones I'm referring to):

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=concorde+static+ports&rlz=1C1GGGE_enGB553GB554&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&imgil=tvd9KQEdWVWSlM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRSVOy2oy UvU5nOcwqO-fqzJgeVxHaqE7sBr3v9Dg0msSZoUttlqQ%253B3912%253B2599%253Bymps Yl6uaI6RKM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.flickr.com%25252 Fphotos%25252F54775891%252540N06%25252F5658501644%25252F&source=iu&usg=___kZmbXX8ecHG_J6EK5ldMaJDnyw%3D&sa=X&ei=stUFU_7tGqaA7Qbq-YGwCg&ved=0CFcQ9QEwBQ&biw=1280&bih=685#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=tvd9KQEdWVWSlM%253A%3BympsYl6uaI6RKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F% 252Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%252F5268%252F5658501644_37ff6e2e9 b_o.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252F5 4775891%2540N06%252F5658501644%252F%3B3912%3B2599

[Linktrained]

Concorde Descent.
Further to ruddman's 1, 2 & 3 ( above)


After a small number of years of operating, there was a press report that AF had altered their descent on NY - Paris, which allowed them to carry 2 more passengers ( high revenue). Does anyone recall what this was ?

[Bellerophon]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

...I've noticed static ports under the fuselage at the back, between the engines. Are these just additional ports for the aircraft's general static pressure measurement system, or do they have a specific function?...

I'm not the right person to be answering this, and the reference diagram I'm looking at, whilst very detailed, is not particularly clear - at least to a pilot!

However, from your description, I wonder if they might possibly be the two pressurisation static ports that are located in that area?

[Bellerophon]

ruddman


...Being that the Concorde looks like a slippery sob, how were the descents planned?...

The distance required to decel/descend from M2.0 in cruise/climb down to 3,000 at 250 kts was obtained from a checklist chart. Entering with the (expected) FL at Top of Descent and then correcting for the average wind component expected in the descent and also for the temperature deviation from ISA gave the required track miles. It wasn’t used a lot, because generally the more critical descent requirement was to decelerate so as to be (just) below M1.0 at a specified point on the arrival route, for noise reasons, to avoid booming land.

There was a second chart, utilised in the same way as the first, which provided this information. Sometimes this distance might need to be increased a little, as, if a subsonic cruise was expected before continuing the approach, the engines were “warmed” up at M0.97 and after passing FL410, by the application of power, for one minute, by the Flight Engineer.



...Did you just pull the throttles back to flight idle?...

Only if you were willing to run the risk four pop surges from the engines and the near certainty of a clip round the ear from your Flight Engineer.

Usually the pilots handled the throttles from “Power Up to Gear Up” and from “Gear Down to Shut Down”. The Flight Engineer generally did all the rest, which, thankfully, left all the tricky drills and procedures as his responsibility.



...Or was there a little more engine management and more gradual handling of the engines and descent?...

On a normal decel/descent, the handling pilot would select ALT HOLD and then ask the Flight Engineer to reduce power to 18º TLA (Throttle Lever Angle). The speed would decay to 350 kts IAS (Indicated Air Speed) IAS HOLD was engaged and the descent flown at 350 kts IAS. The next power reduction (32º TLA) came when, still flying at 350 kts IAS, the Mach number reduced through M1.50.


...And I'm guessing the approach speeds were fairly high so hitting the touchdown zone was pretty important?...

In terms of not running off the end of the runway, touching down in the correct spot was as important on Concorde as on other aircraft types.

However, due to the geometry of Concorde on landing, the tail, engine pods and reverser buckets were already fairly close to the runway. Add in a “firm” touchdown, or if the wings are not completely level, and ground clearance becomes marginal, so a prolonged flare and floated landing, with an increasing aircraft attitude, was not acceptable. The risk of a pod, tail or a reverser bucket scrape on Concorde was greater than on most conventional jet aircraft.



... So if things got out of shape a little, and a G/A was required, how do you handle what looks like 4 rockets on the wings and applying the right amount of power?...


Disconnect the autothrottles.
Apply FULL power without reheat.
Rotate to 15º and level the wings.
Check for Positive Climb then call for the Gear Up.
Maintain 15º and accelerate (you will accelerate!)
Passing around 210 kts, reduce power to 95% N2.
Approaching 250 kts, engage Autothrottles for 250 kts
Reduce Pitch Attitude, aiming to achieve 2,000 fpm RoC.
Do not miss the level off altitude for the GA profile.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thanks Bellerophon. Here's a picture:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/concstatic1_zps04423a50.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/concstatic1_zps04423a50.jpg.html)

[EXWOK]

For the AICUs perhaps?

[Bellerophon]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

S14 and S15 decode as "Pressurisation Static Ports".

Anything more than that and I'm afraid I'm out of my depth, so you'll need one of our resident engineer experts to chip in. The one I'm thinking of might be at sea at the moment!


Here's the page from the Flying Manual:

Concorde Static Ports S14 and S15


http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn142/Bellerophon_photos/Concorde-StaticPlates.jpg

[CliveL]

SSD

I know they aren't anything to do with AICUs but seeing where they are located and looking at Bellerephon's diagram I would think they are reference static ports for the air conditioning system - needed to monitor differential pressure.

Dude where are you when we need you?

[ruddman]

Thank you very much sir. Appreciate it. :)

[TURIN]

By a process of elimination, as my AMM discs seem to be corrupted in CH 31 & 34, those ports could be the sense ports for the Ambient Pressure Switch & the CAU Outlet Overpressure Switch.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Many thanks Bellerophon and others. It seems these ports are concerned with cabin pressurisation.

[neprendo]

Hey Guys,

I'm attempting to optimise corconde wings for drag reduction as part of my thesis. My question for you is: do you know what type/name of the wing profile Concorde had.

[CliveL]

Sorry Nick, you are out of luck on that one. It was tailor made to optimise cruise drag. Varied from 3% thick at the root to 1.8% near the tip, but the camber and twist don't fit any recognisable standard section.

PM me and I will send you something that might help

[NHerby]

Hi,

I found on a blog a curious information. It says that in October 1964, UK wanted to leave the project. But, since the agreement signed between France and UK didn't allow any of the party to give up the project, thay stayed onboard the boat. It is the first time I hear that. Does anybody here knows if UK at some point really wanted to give up on this project? And, if this was really the case, what was the reason for this decision?

Another thing:
Earlier in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-4.html#post5885515), Bellerophon gave a pretty good explanation of the ATC clearance for Concorde's block altitude. How did ATC managed Concorde while approaching big airports like LFPG, EGLL or KJFK? She was flying faster than any other jets, even during approach. Did the controllers had to apply specific procedures for Concorde, like bigger spearation with other planes or higher priority for landing?
Also, what was the correct pitch angle at touchdown? I guess it must be around 9 or 10 degrees but would like to know the exact figure.

[roulishollandais]

@CliveL
It was tailor made

BRAVO L`ARTISTE ,MERCI :D

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My understanding (may be wrong) is that Julian Amery (a British politician) had the 'interlocking' clause written into the Anglo-French contract because the Brits thought the French might want to pull out. Harold Wilson did want to pull ou, but couldn't because of that clause. Were the French ever prevented from pulling out by the clause?

If both parties had wanted to pull out, presumably they could have re-negotiated the contract to allow that.

[semmern]

I am certainly glad neither of them did. It resulted in a piece of engineering art.

[gaunty]

I've been trolling these forums for many a year and this has been or hopefully will continue to be the most fascinating, absorbing and educational thread I have ever seen.

Thank you gentlemen for your insights. 👍

[Dont Hang Up]

I've been trolling these forums for many a year and this has been or hopefully will continue to be the most fascinating, absorbing and educational thread I have ever seen.

Hopefully you mean "trawling". We would not want the moderators to get the wrong idea!

[consub]

I have flitted through the threads, and have a few comments that might be of interest.
There were no classified components in the AICU, however there was company confidential in that we did not want the competition to have our lead, also there was an American embargo on delivering equipment with the 5400 series TTL logic integrated circuits which were milspec and chosen for their environmental screening.
Some of the printed circuit boards were 8-layer.
The program was contained in 512 lines of 24 bit instructions.

[consub]

Hi Christian,I was a development engineer at Filton working on the AICU at first but ending up in charge of avionics test.
So as far as your AICU is concerned - I have handled all the boards extensively.
I first worked on the "A" model - the first manufactured box, followed by "A bar" (logically, not "A").
These did not have the doghouse connector on the front, and in order to see what was going on in the program, we made a strobe unit hard wired to the digital boards, this was followed by the connector on the front and an AICU test box.
When first switched on the whole unit rattled at high speed as all the relays chattered.
I spent several days adding decoupling capacitors on all the boards.
The birds nest chassis wiring was chosen to prevent cross- talk.
This was at the start of 1972, but I can still remember a lot of it.
Someone mentioned a prom change at Casablanca, I carried out a prom change there just before the C of A flight.
I am a volunteer at the Bristol Aero Collection, and we have just received a drawing cupboard with the AICS drawings.
We are at the moment documenting archives. One of the volunteers is Ted Talbot who I used to work with, and has been mentioned in posts.
Feel free to ask questions, I may remember the answers!

[ChristiaanJ]

consub,
Slightly amazed about your note re the 5400 series TTL being embargoed.
I pulled a random board from "my" AICU, and all of it is 5400 series, datecodes 71 and 72.
I hope you can tell us some more...
I've been sniffing round the boards, but I haven't found the CPU or the clock... and yes, I know the AICU dates from before the arrival of the microprocessor!

[consub]

Hi Christian,I was a development engineer at Filton working on the AICU at first but ending up in charge of avionics test.
So as far as your AICU is concerned - I have handled all the boards extensively.
I first worked on the "A" model - the first manufactured box, followed by "A bar" (logically, not "A").
These did not have the doghouse connector on the front, and in order to see what was going on in the program, we made a strobe unit hard wired to the digital boards, this was followed by the connector on the front and an AICU test box.
When first switched on the whole unit rattled at high speed as all the relays chattered.
I spent several days adding decoupling capacitors on all the boards.
The birds nest chassis wiring was chosen to prevent cross- talk.
This was at the start of 1972, but I can still remember a lot of it.
Someone mentioned a prom change at Casablanca, I carried out a prom change there just before the C of A flight.
I am a volunteer at the Bristol Aero Collection, and we have just received a drawing cupboard with the AICS drawings.
We are at the moment documenting archives. One of the volunteers is Ted Talbot who I used to work with, and has been mentioned in posts.
Feel free to ask questions, I may remember the answers!

[rodlittle]

Quite true about 5400 ttl, you had to sign that it wouldnt be exported when you bought it, however no one ever checked. the us govt were very touchy about "state of the art" ics in those days, mind you 5400 was only 7400 that passed more stringent temp tests;)

[MFgeo]

@rodlittle

Not just more stringent temperature tests. 5400 was also tolerant of twice the variation in supply voltage as 7400 (+/- 10% rather than 5%) and came in ceramic packages with hermetic seals rather than post-molded plastic packages (which could, over time, allow fluids to reach, and corrode, the active components and/or bond wires).

[consub]

Hi Christian,
We chose the components for their environmental tests, and all the AICS components were subjected to acceptance testing when received, which was a bit of a problem sometimes because the BAC goods inwards system was so slow that some of the expensive ADC/DACs that were not quite good enough were returned to Harris, but were out of warranty by the time they were returned. The embargo was not just the 5400 TTL I/Cs but all milspec. components.
Its stretching my memory, but AICU1 was the ADC board, 2-5 were the processor, 6-10 were the prom boards. There was a bought in board (AICU 17 I think) that was supplied by ?????, that processed the sensor unit data.
The AICS was filled with redundancy, as well as the obvious 2 AICUs per intake, and 4 sensor units, the program calculated the output data with dummy inputs - twice, and if these were correct, the proper inputs were used and the result was output to the doors. On the analogue bit there were two channels for each output and at the end one output was compared with the other and if different a fail was produced.
We haven't opened the plan chests with the AICS drawings yet.
As well as the 8 AICUs on G-BOAF, we have the prototype AICU that was used on the AICS systems rig.

[flying lid]

Nice Vid of the old girl at Liverpool

Concorde landing and taking off at Liverpool Airport (Part 1) - YouTube

[peter kent]

Reading for a second time to see what I missed the first time.

On p86 he says 'It followed the idea of multi-vane auxiliary air inlets into history."

Anyone know the story on these inlets?

Thanks.

[CliveL]

On p86 he says 'It followed the idea of multi-vane auxiliary air inlets into history."

Anyone know the story on these inlets?


They were an attempt to avoid the mechanical complexities of the prototype double hinged 'barn door' combined dump door/auxiliary intake by having several 'blow-in' vanes set in the door which were locked when the door was operated as a dump door.
Had their own set of mechanical problems and the idea was abandoned in favour of a single blow-in door (production solution)

[ross_M]

I think this article is pretty wacky but the source seemed legit (Duke University / University of Toulouse Professors writing in Journal of Applied Physics) so thought I'd put it out there for discussion. Caveat emptor!

Law of physics governs airplane evolution (http://phys.org/news/2014-07-law-physics-airplane-evolution.html)

Law of physics governs airplane evolution

Researchers believe they now know why the supersonic trans-Atlantic Concorde aircraft went the way of the dodo—it hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac. In a new study, Adrian Bejan, professor of mechanical engineering and materials science at Duke University, shows that a law of physics he penned more than two decades ago helps explain the evolution of passenger airplanes from the small, propeller-driven DC-3s of yore to today's behemoth Boeing 787s.

The analysis also provides insights into how aerospace companies can develop successful future designs. The Concorde, alas, was too far from the curve of these good designs, Bejan says. The paper appears online July 22, in the Journal of Applied Physics.[snip]

In the case of commercial aircraft, designs have evolved to allow more people and goods to flow across the face of the Earth. Constructal law has also dictated the main design features needed for aircraft to succeed; the engine mass has remained proportional to the body size, the wing size has been tied to the fuselage length, and the fuel load has grown in step with the total weight.

[snip] The chart shows how the ratio of mass to speed of animals follows the same general rules as airplanes. Note that the Concorde is way off of the historical trend.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2014/lawofphysics.jpg

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2014/1-lawofphysics.jpg

[DozyWannabe]

It's a fascinating posit, and one for aviation nerds to discuss at length down the pub - I'll give it that!

The general trend follows, but he doesn't spend much time on external factors (such as the 747's degree of success being aided significantly by the tribulations of Lockheed's L1011 development and MD's reaction to the DC-10's flaws).

It's interesting that the article writer seized on the paragraph about Concorde to frame his article though - it's almost a footnote in the original journal piece!

[JohnFTEng]

This sounds similar to a parametric design process used at BAC Warton in '70s. Used data of size, weight, power, etc to predict features of future aircraft. No idea how far it went as I was flight test and this was in design dept, Explained by a colleague at the time.

[mustafagander]

Comparing subsonic jets with supersonic jets is comparing apples with oranges. They both grow on trees but there the similarities end.:ugh:

[G0ULI]

What this article shows is that the most efficient design will win out in the long run. Being the best in an evolutionary niche is no guarantee of long term survival. Being the fastest animal on earth doesn't help if there is no prey left to hunt. Having a slow metabolism that enables an animal to lie in wait for extended periods before ambushing unsuspecting prey works better. Or moving more slowly but capable of travelling large distances in order to find more food is also a successful strategy.

There will always be outliers in any system that appear to enjoy great success by specialisation, but in the long term the non specialist, adapt to anything creatures are the ones that survive.

Look at the types of cars people drive for an everyday demonstration of this fact. The majority of cars on the road are optimised to carry a reasonable load, at a reasonable speed and with reasonable fuel consumption. Evolutionary (economic) pressure has resulted in moderate increases in performance, comfort and safety, but we are not all driving around in cars that are hyper efficient and capable of 100mph+ performance while using a teaspoon of fuel per mile. We have gas guzzling monster 4x4 off road vehicles, exotic sports cars and small efficient city cars, but the majority of vehicles on the road fall into the distinctively average category.

If road surface conditions get much worse in the UK, then evolutionary pressure will drive up sales of 4x4 off road vehicles to cope with the atrocious driving conditions. Increased fuel costs will drive up sales of small efficient city cars where people don't need to drive long distances. Just what appears to be the current situation in the UK.

Efficiency trumps everything in nature and so it should in engineering. Get the most bang for your money and it is difficult to go wrong. Being in the top three of everything is far better than being first in one thing and bottom of the table in everything else. Specialisation is a poor long term survival strategy.

[ross_M]

Look at the types of cars people drive for an everyday demonstration of this fact. The majority of cars on the road are optimised to carry a reasonable load, at a reasonable speed and with reasonable fuel consumption. Evolutionary (economic) pressure has resulted in moderate increases in performance, comfort and safety, but we are not all driving around in cars that are hyper efficient and capable of 100mph+ performance while using a teaspoon of fuel per mile. We have gas guzzling monster 4x4 off road vehicles, exotic sports cars and small efficient city cars, but the majority of vehicles on the road fall into the distinctively average category.

I'm not sure I buy that argument entirely. Yes, the non-specialist compromise design might capture a major chunk of the market. But that doesn't mean that the niche market doesn't exist: Monster cars are being sold for decades. So are RVs & bulletproof cars & gigantic mining earthmovers.

There's a tiny market for a gigantic transport plane or the behemoth seagoing barge that can transport mega machines. But doesn't mean that's a dead market or money can't be made there.

[FE Hoppy]

Perfect example of nonsense theory!
The geopolitical factors are completely ignored in order to make the analysis work.

[G0ULI]

FE Hoppy

The theory is perfectly sound, but the application to a given situation might be inappropriate. The universe in general seems to run on using the minimum effort to achieve the maximum effect. Entropy will ultimately rule, but in the meantime efficiency and conservation of energy is what keeps everything going. That being the case, the most efficient design for a given circumstance will ultimately win out until the circumstances change and a better design is called for.

The laws of physics dictate that there is a rapidly diminishing return as the size of supersonic aircraft increase. It becomes too hard or too enviornmentally damaging to displace the air for very large craft. This is less of a problem at subsonic speeds, where even quite large increases in aircraft size are not accompanied by disproportionately large increases in drag or wing loading. In fact overall efficiency can be improved in many cases.

Geopolitical factors are just one of many things that need to be taken into account with analysis of this kind and it is right for you to point out that not everything is necessarily measurable as a physical quantity.

[DozyWannabe]

The laws of physics dictate that there is a rapidly diminishing return as the size of supersonic aircraft increase.

Well, the theory as presented *could* be argued to encompass that, but as far as I could tell from the original journal article, that's not what it was about - it did not distinguish supersonic from subsonic in terms of the conclusions drawn. This is why I pointed out that the mention of Concorde was almost a footnote in the original article, but for some reason bumped up to headline status in the phys.org article linked above.

Concorde was only mentioned in the original journal piece as it was (naturally) an extreme outlier on the general trend.

Geopolitical factors are just one of many things that need to be taken into account with analysis of this kind and it is right for you to point out that not everything is necessarily measurable as a physical quantity.

Of course - however the original journal article was not intended to be a historical precis of relative success of airliners - it was a purely scientific theory which showed that various equations regarding airliner specifications could be used to plot a trend showing how commercially successful they were based on the historical aspects (and presumably extrapolated for future reference if desired).

[pattern_is_full]

I just have a problem with studies that try to analyze human activities with reductionist statistics and math. Most of human achievement comes not from the masses (which perhaps can be studied that way) but from the outliers, the screwballs, the few who, through enhanced human cussedness and stubbornness, decide NOT to stay with the obvious, efficient or safe thing.

Concorde was a political animal, heavily subsidized because someone want it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

But then, ALL advances in transportation have been - and often still are - political animals, subsidized because someone with money and power wants it to happen, regardless of efficiency.

Columbus and Magellan were subsidized, to head straight out to sea when everyone else was sticking close to the coastlines. Look up the land grants to U.S. trans-continental railroads. Or the Air Mail contracts that supported the fledgling American air transport industry (and if you think "that was then, and this is now," - consider the budget of the FAA and NTSB and TSA, and the military contracts to Boeing and its suppliers.)

Cars? Consider how much tax money goes to build and maintain highway systems.

And consider the man who stood up in the U.S. Capitol and declared, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Concorde failed because it lost political support** - just like Apollo and the Space Shuttle. But most of the other aircraft on those charts would also be, or have been, far rarer in the skies (or never appeared) if they lost (or never had) their own political backing and subsidies, direct and indirect.

**If the French government had felt it was in France's interest for Concorde to continue, I'm sure money for, and political pressure on, Airbus would have been found to keep her flying.

And Concorde also faced substantial political opposition - its market viability would have been much higher if U.S. authorities had been as lenient with its "furrin" sonic booms as they had been with our own home-grown booms ("The Sound of Freedom!", it was called.)

Now - Concorde's technology was pushing 40, and no doubt that particular airframe would have faded away, just like the 727 and the other designs from the 1960's. To be replaced with something newer. But the future of supersonic transport in general was cut short not because of some statistical failing, but simply because it no longer shared the same political support as subsonic aviation.

[fizz57]

Well if you leave out that bunch of points on the graph that presumably represent the post-Concorde slowpoke moneymakers, the remaining points would fit a line sloping upwards that passes quite close to the Concorde point.


Hindsight is wonderful, innit?

[Hobo]

ross_M

today's behemoth Boeing 787s

787s are hardly 'behemoths'

[AreOut]

totally agree with @pattern_is_full, but I wonder here why noone of those rich Arabs invests in one Concorde plane instead of endless goldening of huge hotel-like planes like A380 etc.? Sure it would be a sign of prestige?

Concorde size limits would still be enough for one man and his suite so that wouldn't be a problem, and coming anywhere in the world in 4-5 hours would come handy as time is something he couldn't buy with any money. If he does, say, 30 long flights in a year it's like he gets 6 totally free days.

[Mozella]

But the future of supersonic transport in general was cut short not because of some statistical failing, but simply because it no longer shared the same political support as subsonic aviation.

It's not that simple. Political support didn't diminish for no good reason. When you talk about Concorde, or any supersonic vehicle, you cannot ignore what used to be called "the sound barrier".

In a sense, it really is a barrier; not so much physical, but financial. If the drag curve between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.8 was just a similar extension of the drag curve between Mach 0.5 and Mach 0.8 (i.e. a simple V squared relationship), then the political support along with the economic viability of supersonic airliners would mean rich folks could still buy a fast ride across the Atlantic. And, if there were no sonic boom either, then these fast airliners would be flying everywhere and be even more viable.

But that huge spike in the real-world drag curve as you pass through transonic air-speeds and the steep power-required curve beyond that forms what amounts to a really big spike in the money required to operate at high Mach numbers both from an initial hardware point of view but, more importantly, in the money required to both fuel and maintain such exotic airplanes. Pile the sonic boom issues on top of those costs, and it's no suprise very few people have ever gone supersonic.

Political support for the Concorde didn't simply go out of fashion. It faded for very good reasons, mostly related to good old Mother Nature and the odd shape of the real-world drag curve.

[Bull at a Gate]

Nice to see this thread still active!

I wonder is there is a Concorde expert who could help me with a question please. I have booked some time in the Concorde simulator at brooklands in September and was wondering how I should best use the time I have (30 mins). What do you think would be the most interesting and enjoyable use of my time? I have read most of this thread, and gather that the JFK departures were spectacular. Is that what you think I should try?

I have spent a bit of time in other simulators (purely for fun), so what I am hoping to try in the Concorde simulator is something unique to Concorde.

[pattern_is_full]

@mozella

I guess my point would be that the same problems of supersonic flight existed in 1963-1976 as did in 2003. It was a technological challenge, and it was expensive.

The physics of the sound barrier did not change over that time. Nor did the constituent gases in Concorde's exhaust plume*, nor did the volume of the sonic booms.

However, in 1976, going supersonic was considered worth the costs, and in 2003 it was not, and that was a political (or if you prefer, cultural) calculation.

*Actually, I think the engines were tweaked to be less "smoky", but that may have been before commercial ops began.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I wonder is there is a Concorde expert who could help me with a question please. I have booked some time in the Concorde simulator at brooklands in September and was wondering how I should best use the time I have (30 mins). What do you think would be the most interesting and enjoyable use of my time? I have read most of this thread, and gather that the JFK departures were spectacular. Is that what you think I should try?


I think you should try an outside loop, I'm sure Kennedy One departure, CRI climb will pale in comparison.

[TURIN]

Evolution: Survival of the fittest.

An often misunderstood expression.
Fittest does not mean the most athletic or physically strong, it means fit for it's environment.

When the environment changes the animal/plant/aircraft needs to evolve to best fit that changing environment.
Living organisms take many generations to change due to the randomness of genetic mutation. Aircraft design, in comparison, changes relatively quickly as new technology and ideas develop.

The environment changed in the seventies, fuel prices exploded. The 747, and continued lines of fuel efficient wide bodies thrived, Concorde only continued due to political will. If the price of fuel was still $20/barrel Concorde (and probably a couple of successors) would be going strong as it would still "fit" the political and economic environment. (The greens may have put a bit of pressure on though:eek:)

Simples eh?

[AreOut]

I see that average figure for planes is 49 mpg per passenger and Concorde is at 17, although it's almost 3 times more I can't see it as drastical figure as I thought it would be? Especially since it's very similar to a business jet.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Wasn't Concorde extremely fuel-efficient at M2 and 60,000', but the horrendous fuel consumption getting up there more than offset that?

Smokey engines were a feature of the pre-production machines. The production Concordes with a change in combustion chamber design had a much cleaner exhaust.

Turin has it on why Concorde didn't sell - massive increases in oil prices and perhaps more importantly, the advent of the wide body airliner in 1969 that changed the airlines' focus from speed to per-seat operating cost reduction, where it remains today.

[AreOut]

oh well, make bigger Concorde then :)

[aerolearner]

Dear all,

I am looking for a .pdf copy of the AD issued at the time of the return to service of the Concorde, describing the package of modifications.

CAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 001-09-2001 of 5 Sept 2001
and
DGAC Consigne de Navigabilité N° 2001-390-144(B) of 3 Oct 2001

I have already found a summary of the contents here (http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27757/27757000100.pdf), but I would like to have the documents in their original format.

If anybody has any of those, I would appreciate if he/she could send me a copy (please contact me via PM for the email address).
Thanks in advance!

[ask26]

For those willing to search out a podcast:
166 ? Flying the Concorde | omega tau (http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/02/166-flying-the-concorde/)

This time we talk with former Concorde pilot John Hutchinson about flying this Mach 2 airliner. We discuss the cornerstones of the design and construction of the aircraft, its operation (mostly with British Airways), flying characteristics as well as the infamous accident in Paris in 2000 (on which John has some very specific opinions).

[roulishollandais]

After the crash a former president of the French Women Pilots association requested from the French Minister Gayssot to allow flights again, and to have a first French woman qualified on the type. That was done between may 2001 and the end of the flights.

Doing that, French women pilots wanted to express their confidence in Concorde and their wonderful British/French teams.:D

[No Fly Zone]

Duh? Is there a button to start PLAY?:ugh:

[John Lush]

Scroll about a third of the way down the page and you will see a bar with the "Play" triangle on the left.

[BN2A]

It's over two hours long... Probably best downloading it!!

Then look around the site, similar on the SR-71 and U-2 as well as the space shuttle..

[stilton]

Curious to know what drills were followed with a rapid depressurization at it's normal cruising levels between FL500-600.



Was it possible to go to idle power prior to starting a descent, and with no spoilers would reverse have been used to achieve a higher rate ?

[EXWOK]

Just happened to look in, and saw this thread was active again.

No trouble getting down from the CRZ:

Idle power would be used (the ramps should cope with the change of airflow). Idle power at M2 resulted in a most impressive rate of deceleration (anyone standing in the aisle would probably find themselves sitting), which translated into a very high RoD. Well over 10 000fpm initially.

As such, reverse would be neither needed nor desirable; you would be well outside the envelope of idle reverse use anyway. (This function was quite rarely used as it was a bit of a faff).

The pilots would select the fuel fwd transfer override switch initially to cope with the decel, and the FE would set the fuel panel up shortly after the descent was steady.

All very dramatic, and never needed in pax service afaik.

[stilton]

Thanks Exwk, is it accurate that FL600 was the Concorde's regulated ceiling due to the time required to descend in the event of a depressurization or were there other factors involved ?


It sounds like you could get down pretty quickly when needed. I believe it was capable of higher altitudes and sometimes reached FL600 in cruise, I forget the highest achieved during flight test although that is probably in this thread !


Incidentally what was the envelope for using reverse ? Your description of it's operation makes it sound less than practical ?


Why was that ?


Best wishes.

[EXWOK]

Time for descent may well have been a certification requirement for max FL - others will know better than I…

I don't believe the ramp schedules were designed to operate far above FL600, I vaguely recall that FL635 was the highest reached during testing but, again, others will know better. A typical LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR would get to between 570 and 590 depending on weight and OAT, LHR-BGI almost invariably ended up level at FL600 due to lower weight and much lower outside temps.

As for reverse inflight, off the top of my head the limits were; Max FL300, speed 250-380kts, max use 4 mins. It didn't make a vast difference to RoD, although it was noticeable.

Inflight rvs was limited to engs 2 and 3 but to enable sufficient air to deploy the reversers, engs 1 and 4 spooled up slightly (in fwd thrust) to help deployment. While this is going on the primary nozzles open fully (for the same reason) but after reverse position is reached, the 2 and 3 primary nozzles have to close to 15% otherwise you get a 'CON' light which means reverse has to be cancelled on that engine (this was not a rare event).

Common sense and airmanship also dictated that you had an escape plan if one or both the engines didn't get the secondary nozzles out of reverse, so you didn't want to do this if fuel was tight.

All-in-all it was far better to make sure you didn't need reverse inflight!

[EEngr]

EXWOK (http://www.pprune.org/members/193959-exwok):
The pilots would select the fuel fwd transfer override switch initially to cope with the decel,Did they have to pump the fuel forward? Or did it just move on its own due to the decel?

[EXWOK]

……it was pumped.

Tank 11 also had two hydraulically-powered fuel transfer pumps to cater for other failures which may deprive you of elex power to the usual pumps, just to cover all eventualities.

[stilton]

Did LHR-BGI always tech stop in SNN ?

[EXWOK]

Nope. Don't remember ever doing that.

Occasionally tech stopped ANU or SMA if tight for fuel.

[a_q]

After about a week of 3-hour nights (not much on the telly) I have finally got to the end of this thread. Let me echo others in praising the patience and technical openness of the main engineering contributors, along with the excellent recollections of the pilots, cabin staff and many others.

I am afraid I have only been on Concorde around a dozen times, and as I live a few miles from Duxford, you'll probably guess that's 101 now in Hangar 1. Standing in the cabin I can only imagine the experience of actually flying in her, but you guys have certainly bought her back to life in my mind at least.

While reading the thread I came up with many questions (around ten or so) and these have been answered in later exchanges on the thread, however I do have a few left over:

1. The speed freak in me always wants to know "how fast"? Notwithstanding the principles outlined on p.55 by CliveL and M2Dude, if the intake system were somehow made "more leaky" and reheat were applied, in theory at least, how much more thrust could the 4 engines produce, in "ideal" conditions (I saw somewhere that -80C had been encountered)? If you then extrapolate the drag, what sort of peak Mach number might be attainable in short bursts (ignoring for now the detrimental effect on the airframe?)

2. There was a discussion or two of the (highly theoretical, expensive and unlikely) prospect of restoring one of the airframes back to flight around p22. However I don't think I saw 101 or 102 mentioned in any of these discussions, are these even further 'gone' (101 having sat outside for 20 years)? On the other hand, would the lack of sponge-like insulation mean less corrosion might have set in?

3. Again on p.55 there is mention of (naff) paint schemes and their bad effect on skin temperature. Was the paint on Concorde specifically chosen to radiate infrared (for example) to help cooling? The SR-71 (which I also visit at Duxford regularly - how lucky am I!) of course is matt black, which presumably radiates even better? When the airframe attained thermal equilibrium at the top of the cruise, what were the relative contributions to cooling of: radiation, cold uncompressed air passing over parts of the skin, the internal aircon (cooling from the inside), etc?

4. M2Dude referred a couple of times to robbing spares from other airframes. Spares that may have been 5-8 years old? What sort of testing regime must these spare parts go through to ensure they are still fit for flight? Is it labour-intensive?


If I can opine (at the risk of having M2Dude chastise me if he still reads this - as I am not staff) the computer he mentioned on page 37 sounds to me very much like a "bit slice" computer. These were typically constructed from discrete logic and quite often had very long words - 64 or 128 bits. I only ever saw one of these in my 30-year career in computing, a rare beast indeed. And yes I remember that Mil Spec TTL - back in the day I used to pop the lid off the ceramic packages and you can look at the gates, and even watch the silicon glow if you apply a bit too much Vcc! But I digress.

Thanks again for a fascinating thread.

[CliveL]

@EXWOK


There was a certification requirement for descent time from FL600 down to FL100 if I recall correctly. Can't remember the value though. In flight reverse was developed to trim some fraction of a minute off the time to get inside the requirement


@ a_q

Not sure what you mean by a "leaky" intake. At about 2.2M the first shock would hit the intake lower lip and from that point on the total intake mass flow was frozen. Increased engine mass flow could only be obtained by reducing bleed flow and that gave higher engine face flow distortions driving the engine towards surge and lower intake recovery. So engine mass flow was effectively fixed also.
Then the amount of "dry" fuel which could be added was limited because the higher Mach number increased the engine entry temperature but the maximum turbine entry temperature was fixed.
You could add thrust by using reheat, but you would not get as much as you would like because the final nozzle, being designed for 2.0M would be too small for optimum efficiency at higher Mach numbers.
Overall, IIRC we got to 2.23M in flight test. If you pushed me I would say it might be possible with reheat etc to get to 2.25 or 2.26M, but it would be a blind guess!

[ruddman]

Did Concorde have Autobrakes or manual? What was typical stopping distance and did reverse play a big part once it was back on the ground?

[a_q]

Thanks CliveL,

as you said on P.55 a fair few moons ago:


Dude also says quite correctly that 101 flew to 2.23M but the production aircraft was limited to 2.13M. Now you may not believe this, but 101 could fly faster than the production aircraft because she (101) leaked like a sieve!.
I doubt I will get away with that without some explanation....


Your engineering "finger in the air" seems quite reasonable, so that answers one question, thanks.

I have a new project, on my next visit to Duxford to find out if the front wheel brake disk is the vented style, or solid. For on one of my cars I have Cortina solid front disks, and on another the vented ones, and I'd like to know which one has a "Concorde" front brake :) Do I have to look in between the front wheels?

[MrSnuggles]

This thread is absolutely amazing and blimey me if I wouldn't buy it as a book!

[CliveL]

@a-q


Ah yes, page 55 from 4 years ago ...... It's my age you know!


What threw me was your reference to a leaky intake - on 101 it was all the nacelle aft of the intake that leaked not the intake itself

[EXWOK]

Ruddman -

No autobrakes.

(And - with my pedant's hat on - no 'manual' brakes either. Pedal brakes, yes. I know that the 'manual brakes' has become an accepted term, but the nonsense of it just bugs me….)

Stopping distances were good; from a higher Vapp we stopped rather shorter than a 'classic' 747. Filton was tightish, Bournemouth was worse….

First gen carbon brakes did not like being 'feathered' so we used them pretty firmly on every landing. At Filton, Bournemouth, E Midlands etc. you'd put the pedals to the floor after nose wheel touchdown. Allegedly no more wear doing this than feathering them along a long runway.

Reverse was pretty effective - more so than a modern bypass engine. We idled the outboards at 100kts and the inboards at 75kts so they weren't in play for the whole landing (reverse is most effective at higher speeds anyway).

It was a good 'stopper'. Thankfully.

[ZeBedie]

Was pilot selection purely on seniority?

[stilton]

Great information Exwk.


Didn't the early prototypes have a braking parachute ?

[CliveL]

@stilton


Yes they did. I tried to post a photograph but the Dropbox link doesn't seem to work any more (neither does the "quote" icon)

[ruddman]

Much appreciated. :ok:

[dazdaz1]

May I assist........

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b9/dazdaz1/Firstlanding_zpsir7n35aw.jpg (http://s16.photobucket.com/user/dazdaz1/media/Firstlanding_zpsir7n35aw.jpg.html)

[CliveL]

Thanks dazdaz; that's the shot I was trying to post.:ok:

[Volume]

How was the procedure for re-packing that parachute?
Has it been done to the same strict requirements which apply to pilots/ejection seat paracutes, meaning only specifically trained and licenced personnel could do it?
For how many landings was that parachute good? Was there a life limit or has it been an on-condition item?

Was the Concorde design somehow based on the Caravelle parachute, or a specific new design?

[Bellerophon]

ZeBedie

...Was pilot selection purely on seniority?...

Fortunately, Yes! :)

It was (almost) exactly the same process as pilot selection for any other aircraft move in BA.


There had to be a vacancy on the type.
You had to be "unfrozen" and free to bid.
You had to be senior enough to obtain one of the vacancies.
You had to pass the conversion course.


There were two minor differences to the normal BA process that applied once you had been notified of a successful bid and allocated a course date.


Before starting the course, if you changed your mind, you could voluntarily withdraw without penalty and remain on your existing fleet.
If the Chief Pilot on your existing fleet felt there were clearly defined technical reasons why you would be unlikely to complete the Concorde conversion course successfully, you could be denied the course.


Over the years, there were a very small number who were denied a conversion course on technical grounds, one of whom I knew personally.

There were several people who voluntarily withdrew from a course they had been allocated. Often this was after a look-see trip and a chat with crewmembers about the conversion course and life on the fleet. This was not uncommon, and I got my conversion course, at shortish notice, after just such a voluntary withdrawal by a more senior pilot.

Finally, often people are surprised to learn that - for various reasons - most BA pilots never put in a bid for Concorde. The year I got my course, there were around 600 captains in BA senior to me who had declined to bid.

[DozyWannabe]

@Bellerophon:

Interesting info - cheers!

As a sort-of tangent, as an aviation-mad nipper I watched and recorded the 1988 BBC Concorde Special, and pretty much wore the VHS tape out. The skipper on that flight was Hutch (who also just-so-happened to be a BBC aviation correspondent on the side). The reason I bring it up was that the FO was Chris Norris, who mentioned that he was just about to be made Captain - and regretfully that meant he'd be leaving the Concorde flight deck, most likely for a subsonic short-haul type (he reckoned it'd be the B757).

As I recall, I think I remember reading that Capt. Norris did end up returning to Concorde as a captain before the type was retired - so I'm guessing that previous experience as FO did count when making the bid. Was that the case?

[Bellerophon]

DozyWannabe

Chris Norris did indeed return to the Concorde fleet as a Captain, later becoming the last Training Captain to be appointed on the fleet.

He was one of the most able and respected Captains on the fleet, as well as an excellent instructor, and his signature appears in my licence when he was the instructor on my last Concorde simulator check in June 2003.

Once back on Concorde as a Captain, his previous record and experience as a Concorde F/O would undoubtedly have weighed heavily in his favour on selection for the Training Captain appointment (which was a merit-based selection) however it would have had no bearing on his being offered a return to Concorde as a Captain, which, as described above, was a seniority-based selection.

The annual postings and promotions process in BA, whilst sometimes lengthy and tortuous, had the virtue of being highly transparent. Every application, from every pilot, was listed, along with the results and reasons for the results, and this document was available to any pilot who wished to check!

[CliveL]

@ Volume


Sorry for slight delay; I hadn't a clue and had to ask an old friend who was directly involved in Flight Test. This is his verbatim reply:



I remember the Concorde braking parachute quite well and as I recall the parachute door indicated open during the first flight of 002 although the chute functioned normally on landing.


As I recall the parachute was used quite a bit in the early days even during the 1972 overseas “Sales Tour”. Remember the prototypes were operating well above their max landing weight because of the amount of test equipment on board.


The parachutes were repacked by our own Safety Equipment people who were fully qualified on all the safety Equipment we used on Concorde and on the Canberra.


I don’t recall ever having life problems with the parachutes. I imagine the total number number of deployments would not be that high. I think it would have been an on-condition item.


I can’t see that the Concorde parachute would bear any relation to the Caravelle system. Concorde was a much heavier aircraft with higher landing speeds. I feel sure that Concorde had a specific new design.


Having been on board several times when the chute was used I think the crew liked the initial deceleration which the chute provided . Although I do recall landing at Bombay in very bad weather when the parachute was deployed and immediately jettisoned since it was pulling the aircraft off line.


I think that is about as much as one could hope for after all this time

[ruddman]

Was there anything written up if it accidentally deployed in flight? Could it?

[NigelOnDraft]

Normally contain a weak link, so would break away if deployed anywhere above a typical landing speed.

[CliveL]

I suppose there might have been a combination of system failures that would have caused it to deploy, but AFAIK it never did, so there was nothing to write up.

[Octane]

Can anyone help with this question? What was the highest low level speed reached during testing? I'm assuming generated heat would be the limiting factor?

[vapilot2004]

I'm betting low altitude limits for Concorde are less about hull temps and possibly more about Vmo (airframe) limitations. (...and surely not thrust!)

Meanwhile, I await the truth as you do Octane, from our resident experts, to whom I offer warm thanks and have the greatest admiration!

[EXWOK]

I've no idea about testing, but in line operations the Vmo peaked at 530kts, having started off rather lower depending on alt and mass. (Normally 380-400). I'm pretty certain there's at least one flt envelope earlier in this thread.

VAPILOT is spot on regarding the reasons for Vmo, of course.

Doesn't answer your 'during flight testing' question, I concede. Sorry!

[CliveL]

At low altitude think 455 ktCAS.
Tmo was a long exposure structural limit
Mmo was an intake limit
Vmo was a structural (flutter) limit

[vapilot2004]

Not to hijack Octane's question further, but are these speeds attainable with dry thrust?

[CliveL]

Sorry, you will have to excuse my confusing statement as I am writing from. hospital bed and not at my sharpest!

To be clear, the original question related to maximum speed which I took to be Vd - 455 kts from about FL 60 up to about FL 360
This was the flutter clearance and was usually acheived in a dive. Vmo was thenwhat you got by backing off to give the statutory margins. Not strictly a flutter limit though limited by flutter! Vmo of course could be flown dry

[vapilot2004]

Many thanks and best wishes on a quick recovery!

[E_S_P]

Same here in wishing you well!

[dazdaz1]

Wishing you a speedy recovery and back to full health soon:ok:

[rjtjrt]

CliveL
You have many loyal followers of this thread, all of whom I am sure wish you a speedy recovery.
As others have said a fascinating thread, much of it due to your input.
Also, thanks for Concorde - what an aeroplane!

[CliveL]

Thank you everyone - much appreciated

[roulishollandais]

Dear CliveL,
Accept please our admiration reading you in PPRuNe's forum in your difficult condition giving us an example of courage and dynamism who where ingredients of your professional success with your skills and work. :ok:
Best wishes, Thank you,

[semmern]

CliveL, Bellerophon, EXWOK and others; THANK YOU for an immensely interesting thread! Surely the best thread ever here on PPRuNe! Reading what you have written, I can sense the pride and satisfaction you display, even through the forum, from having been a part of the Concorde story. It must have been intensely interesting, challenging and rewarding. I've been at Duxford a couple of times and been inside and around 101, and what an experience it is just to stand next to one! What I'd give to be able to fly the Concorde instead of the 737s I plod around in now... At least I get to enjoy the other end of the speed range in Tiger Moths and Chipmunks :)

I'd love to see one of the ex-BA ones in the UK at some point. It's on my to-do list!

[tj916]

Repeating others I know, but speedy recovery and Thank you to yourself, and others who have made this my favourite thread on PPrune.
Get well soon and again many Thanks.

[E_S_P]

Dear Mods, given what this iconic aircraft represents, the commitments to those who have spent their lives either designing, building, flying or supporting this aircraft - and to those same special people posting their own personal experiences on here, could we please have this unique thread placed somewhere safe and visible where it won't become 'lost' ?

Thank you

[BN2A]

"Sticky" it??

[john_tullamarine]

Too many stickies gets untidy.

Thread now linked on the URL summary thread (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/66205-useful-website-document-references.html#post626409) .. must make the time to tidy that thread up sometime ...

[leb001]

Hi
Forgive me for interrupting the thread but it seemed a good place to ask my question with all the knowledge posted even though mine is not a technical query. I have a painting of Concorde in prototype or Development livery I believe, painted in 1982. The numbering on the wing is I believe 1-GEE. I am trying to find some history on the actual Concorde in the painting however after researching for many hours I can find no information on any Concorde bearing these markings. Would anyone have any ideas? The artist was normally meticulous in detail and would not normally paint something that had not existed. Any help would be much appreciated thanks.

[ChristiaanJ]

leb001,
I'm afraid 1-GEE is a nonsense registration. A British Concorde registration would be "G-" followed by four letters.
But, if you can post a photo of the painting, it may be possible to determine which aircraft it is.

[pattern_is_full]

Here's a link to the six development aircraft, with pix of all of them.

CONCORDE SST : PROTOTYPE FLEET (http://www.concordesst.com/prototypes.html)

Several had different paint schemes throughout their history, so that may not be definitive. But there are variations that can narrow down which might be in your painting: long or short tailcone, and small window or large greenhouse cockpit visor.

Three of the six are British G registrations, and three have French F-numbers. Three have "...01" production numbers. As ChristiaanJ says, none would be registered "1-GEE" - but that might have been something added for a specific test flight or for some other reason unrelated to registration. They were repainted occasionally (including one painted in BA livery on one side and AF livery on the other, for a time.)

[AC560]

What a great thread to have stumbled upon, spent the better part of this week reading it and wanted to share two of my Concorde stories.

I was up at KOSH when Concorde visited in 1994 and while you can still go on the flight line today, back then you could really get close. I remember walking across the camping area right along the northwest end of 18/36 as she came back from a tour, she was so close you could almost touch her. Coming in it was eerily silent but as she slipped past the noise was deafening and she touched right on the numbers. About two seconds later her wash settled and every tent and loose object in a 100 yard area blew all over the place. It is hard to describe in words but the picture is so visual in my mind today.

The best though was later that day I was departing in the great AC560 on 27 at the same time Concorde went out for another tour on 18. We turned crosswind to the south just as she started her roll. Maximum continuous on the GO-480's as we raced her down the length of 18 where obviously she passed us about half way and vaulted into the sky. Shortly after rotation we were both at about the same altitude and we had almost cleared the end of 18 (Concorde was maybe 1-2 miles in front of us) and she did a magnificent I am guessing 30-45 degree bank to 270 and cut across our windshield in full splendor afterburners and all.

To this day I love telling about the time I flew the pattern with Concorde once. How many can say that (an I am guessing there is only two Concorde pilots who can attest to flying the pattern with an AC560 ever!).

Thanks to all those who made this and many other Concorde memories BA/AF both for me!

[megan]

Remember the occasion well AC560. Was standing at the barrier paralleling the runway during one of her take offs, right where the main gear broke ground. Thought we were insanely close, seemed you could have reached out and touched her, and don't mention the noise. Beautiful, beautiful, what an experience. I'm sure the nanny state that prevails today would have the barrier so far back you would need binoculars.

[NineEighteen]

Former Concorde Captain Keith Myers was one of my IR procedural instructors around 13yrs ago at Redhill. He had some fascinating stories about the early days of operations. Flying circuits at Shannon for example.

I recall a story about timing from break release to Supersonic, I think, from Shannon. Would 9 minutes be realistic? I forget the detail.

[atakacs]

For what it's worth I vividly remember Concorde flying circuits in Marrakech (AF training)... Was quite a sight!

[EXWOK]

NineEighteen -

9mins brake release to M1.0 sounds about right from SNN; out of JFK we consistently achieved M1.0 10mins after brake release and that was with a noise-abatement departure which added a little time.

[BN2A]

10 minutes to Mach 1?? What rate of climb was obtained once everything was stabilised and climb speed was reached (obviously without any step restrictions)?? In my world (and everyone's now, unfortunately) a full contingent of passengers would be lifted to maybe +/- 20,000 feet in that time, not supersonic territory at that altitude without government instructions and an enemy!!

I take it Barbados was similar? 3 2 1 Now, and the next touch of the throttles was at top of descent at the other end??

Been stated before, but John Hutchinson's interview on the OmegaTau podcast, and the video of Dave Rowland and Roger Bricknell going to JFK and back are essential for any self respecting enthusiast... I don't suppose they are the real names of some of the experts contributing to this thread are they?

:ok:

[leb001]

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj578/leb0059/Concorde%20crop_zpsdhjytbo2.jpg (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/leb0059/media/Concorde%20crop_zpsdhjytbo2.jpg.html)

Many thanks. I have posted a photo and waiting for it to be approved by a Moderator but I am unsure if it is too big in size

[pattern_is_full]

@ BN2A

I'm sure the real experts will "adjust" my understanding - but I believe Concorde, loaded for the transatlantic "Sierra" routes, could hit about 5000 fpm peak VS when climbing at 400 KIAS between ~10,000 and ~28,000 feet (wherever 400 KIAS = M 0.99). Leaving a coastal airport (New York, Barbados, Dakar), she would quickly be clear of land and could more or less transition directly through Mach 1 as soon as she reached 28-30,000 feet.

Those 4 Olympus engines could maintain Mach 2 with no afterburner at 50,000+ feet, so they had tons of excess power down low. Again my understanding is that they stayed at 100% dry thrust from brake release until TOD (except for subsonic cruise segments), with the AB added for takeoff, and when accelerating from Mach 0.96 through Mach 1.7.

Mach 2.00 was reached in about 30 minutes @ ~51,300 feet, depending on atmospherics - a relatively long slow slog compared to the initial climb and acceleration.

From inland airports such PDG or Heathrow, there was a "pause" for level subsonic cruise (M 0.94-0.96) in the high 20s until clear of the coastline by 20 miles (over La Manche or the mouth of the Bristol Channel.)

@ leb001 - greenhouse visor, BA livery, and short tail - probably G-AXDN (aircraft 101). Although I'll defer to the experts, as always.

[Bellerophon]

NineEighteen

Try this link: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-44.html#post6129540

[leb001]

Many thanks :-)

[ChristiaanJ]

leb001,
While it's a nice pic, the artist has been taking a fair amount of artistic liberties....
For instance, the door located at the forward end of the wing, just forward of the emergency exit, is pure fiction.
The tail is something between proto and production.
As said, the registration is a few paint smears, and does not correspond to anything real.
AFAIK, G-AXDN (01) never had a British Airways livery.
I'd suggest the picture could have been inspired by DG, or SA (but in that case the BA livery is on the wrong side), or one of the production aircraft delivered to BA in the period that livery was used (such as G-BOAC).

I would consider it as a generic British Airways Concorde from the early days. I don't think there was an attempt to carefully depict one particular aircraft.

Hope this helps!

[leb001]

Many thanks for all the help. During my research the livery seemed closer to G-BBDG, The Brooklands Concorde. I really do appreciate your help guys....it seems the artist may have been having a fun day taking liberties! Thanks again

[garylovesbeer]

Supersonic breakthrough: Concorde could fly again within four years | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-breakthrough-concorde-could-fly-again-within-four-years)

[amf1966]

Long time lurker - I was addicted to this thread real-time from late 2010 - I guess I must have broken away at some point and didn't realise the posts were still coming.

I re-read most of it mid-2011 and came back recently to read all over again.

I have a question that I don't think has been covered (but will happily stand corrected).

But first, my love of Concorde has been life-long - each time I go to Barbados I visit the exhibit there and it brings a tear to my eye every single time without fail -- and, I didn't design, engineer, maintain or fly her -- so I can fully appreciate the emotions the beautiful lady must evoke in those that did.

in about 2002/2003, I was finally in a position to financially support a flight on Concorde, but it never happened in time before the shutdown - honestly, this is one of the biggest regrets of my life.

This thread is my favourite read of all time - absolutely and totally priceless and the full and generous contributions from the people that were there are so very much appreciated.

And now, to the question.

Concorde was limited to 60k feet and M2.04 for all the reasons stated.

Just suppose for a moment, that these restrictions were removed.

I've read of her attaining 68k feet and M2.23 (from memory), but what could she have achieved in the opinion of those qualified to judge such things.

If all altitude and speed restrictions were removed (and related issues solved), then what could have been the result - I am assuming that range would have gone up quite considerably?

Thanks again to all for this stupendous thread.

[CliveL]

Bit of a hypothetical question requiring a judgemental response!
My short answer would be not much more than the certified limits - at least not without significant modifications.
FL680 was achieved at the end of a zoom climb, so the Mach No was a lot less than 2.0
M2.23 was in a shallow dive. The object was to demonstrate sufficient margin to avoid surge following the worst temperature transient specified in the TSS regulations. To that end both the intake laws and engine operating lines were tweaked as functions of Mach No to minimise intake flow distortions and maximise surge margin. The result was a long way from the performance optimum one would need for steady cruise.
The power plant was being pushed to its limits at this Mach No.
(As an aside, the subsonic rules make no mention of temperature transients as a cause of Mach exceedences. Some recent incidents suggest this could usefully be reviewed)
The altitude limit could perhaps be more readily expamded. The aircraft normally flew a cruise climb bcause at Concorde cruising altitudes there was no ATC conflict. The altitude was very sensitive to ambient temperature and aircraft weight. FL600 would be associated with end of cruise on a coolish day.
To usefully increase cruise altitude would require more engine thrust, but this could only be obtained by increasing engine TET which would screw the engine fatigue life.
Increasing Mmo from 2.04 would need an increase in Tmo (400 deg K) at any temperature above (from memory) ISA. This in turn would affect the airframe fatigue life unless the structural material were changed. Even then, there were a lot of nonmetallic bits (seals etc) that would also have needed replacement.
Sorry if this is a gloomy assessment, but that is the way I see it!

[amf1966]

Thanks CliveL - not gloomy at all, just realistic.

It certainly helps to better understand the context of the FL68 and m2.23 figures.

I had assumed from these figures and other comments that she had more speed, more climb and was held back by operational parameters, when in fact she flew close to her limits as a matter of course. In my mind, this is yet more proof of the incredible engineering and design.

I was interested to read, some months ago, of attempts to recreate the texture of shark skin in a paint in order to reduce drag on "the bluntys".

This made me wonder how much engineering/materials time was spent on reducing drag due to texture, fairings and so on - in fact, how significant that actually was.

Would rrivets, wheel bay doors etc have any sort of significant impact on drag? Does localised flow disruption actually reduce drag under some circumstances?

I would imagine that much attention was given to ensuring the nose droop mechanism was as seamless as possible, especially in the zero position - can anyone comment or elaborate on these aspects please?

Or, am I over-emphasising the significance of these aspects.

[CliveL]

There was a lot of work devoted to minimising drag of surface discontinuities etc, but almost nothing on skin surface changes. I'm not sure we understood enough about supersonic skin friction with kinetic heating added to really be qualified to speculate on the effects of varying the surface.
The most troublesome parasitic drag items were leakage losses, especially from the powerplant

[ex_matelot]

A question please:

I have listened to Mike Bannister on Concord's last ever flight. On the transcript he requested takeoff clearance at a specific minute and seconds - I paraphrase: "In a perfect world we'll be wheels rolling at 10:30 and 16 seconds.."

Can somebody explain the accuracy required there please?

[TURIN]

This made me wonder how much engineering/materials time was spent on reducing drag due to texture, fairings and so on - in fact, how significant that actually was.

Would rrivets, wheel bay doors etc have any sort of significant impact on drag? Does localised flow disruption actually reduce drag under some circumstances?

I remember the paint job underneath was as rough as the proverbial bear's rear. The painters were forever trying to keep it nice and slick after the leaking fuel had done it's magic. :ok:

[amf1966]

Thanks for the replies CliveL and Turin.

Well, going to BGI tomorrow, so will sure to give everyone's best regards to Alpha Echo...

[FraserConcordeFan]

How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section.
M2dude?

[gums]

I do not think the Concorde INS had a data transfer unit for route planning, but it could have.

Even the early F-16 in 1979 had no such doofer. They came about in early-mid 80's. The Shuttle probably had data transfer cartridge that the crew could use, otherwise previous platforms prolly had their stuff loaded via a hardwire connection to another computer or via a data link RF system, as we did with Apollo.

In late 60's and until early 80's, we high tech pilots and navs would type in the the stuff!! 'course, the A-7D had the projected map and we could slew it around and enter coordinates using it without having to type. That was late 60's, and nobody else had that until the 80's.

That's what Gums remembers.

[roulishollandais]

Goodbye André Turcat !
Thanks

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Good by, Sir!
Mort d?André Turcat, le pilote d?essai du Concorde (http://www.lemonde.fr/disparitions/article/2016/01/05/mort-d-andre-turcat-le-pilote-d-essai-du-concorde_4841813_3382.html)

[tomahawk_pa38]

Having just bought a new computer I have dug out my FS2004 PSS Concorde simulator and thought I'd give it a go now that I have more spare time. However, I realise now that all of the tutorial videos and books I have read about Concorde flights tended to detail westbound flights. I'm just curious about what eastbound routings were into Heathrow where and where the decel point was. Could anyone help or know of any sources of information on the eastbound routes please?

[ngcgliding]

Great to see some facts from an expert. It was a long time ago and memories fade, but one cannot get away from the knowledge that we were on the edge of our operating limits, especially when operating out of Casablanca on the engine surge programme and max cruise.
Sorry to read about Andre'

All the best to you for 2016.

[pattern_is_full]

@tomahawk_PA38

Here's a chart of AF Concorde routings: Concorde route (http://afconcorde.free.fr/SSCroute.htm)

Given that BA and AF used the same "Sierra November/Sierra Oscar" EB oceanic routes, and Paris and London are about the same longitude, the decel point was likely nearly identical as well.

Handwritten note is a bit small, but I believe it amounts to "50nm east of BISKI."

Waypoints change, however, and BISKI no longer exists - the closest approximation to the actual decel point that I see on a current chart looks like it would be MOSIS. Mouth of the English Channel, just west of the Scilly-Ushant line.

Deceleration clear of land then takes you directly up the center of the channel to SSW of Southhampton (roughly, ORTAC), and then hang a subsonic left to Heathrow.

But I'd also love to hear if someone has more authoritative info.

[wiggy]

How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section.

Just an observation and not my aisle but looking at flight deck images the INS display and keyboard looks like those I last witnessed on some older 747 classics in the very late 80s...in that case the "memory mode" was a page or pages on the flight plan containing lots of Lat/longs...

[CliveL]

@tomahawk, pattern is full

You really need an input from a BA pilot, but my memory is that the approach to LHR was up the Bristol Channel not the English Channel.
Original decel point was moved back about 100 n.ml to avoid secondary boom effects over West Couhtry. This put it somewhere south of the southern tip of Ireland

[booke23]

I concur with CliveL. The normal inbound and outbound route was up the bristol channel.

Flying east-west or vice versa along the English channel is generally not possible due to the multitude of military danger areas, although there are north-south airways between the danger areas.

[pattern_is_full]

Thanks, guys - I knew the OB route was out the Bristol Channel (described in detail earlier in this thread), and where the SN/SO eastbound routes rejoined at BISKI.

I see where "hanging the left" further out and decelerating up the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel is almost certainly correct, and makes more sense, for BA.

[notfred]

Yup, I lived in Bristol in the 80's. On a nice summer's day with the wind in the right direction if we were out in the garden we could hear a faint "buboom" followed by the sight of Concorde overhead on the way in to Heathrow.

[asmccuk]

Interesting to see references to the secondary boom here. I lived in Crowborough, East Sussex, close to MAY VOR location, in 70s and 80s, at about 600ft elevation facing southwest. Often at about 2100hr on a quiet evening we would hear a faint boom from the AF Concorde coming up the Channel and turning towards Paris. Local dogs would sometimes bark just before we heard the sound!

[SincoTC]

Ah yes, living in Minehead throughout the entire Concorde operational era, I fondly remember those evening "babooms", usually preceded by the clattering calls of startled pheasants (no, not peasants :) or dogs) in the woods behind us who seemed to get a second or so advance warning, presumably at a frequency range above mine.

There was also a definite difference in the intensity of those secondary booms between summer and winter, with the latter being slightly louder and more reliable than the summer ones.

What a beautiful sight it was too in a clear blue sky, with that gleaming white shape spearheading the contrails that would gradually knot up and disperse as it headed up the Bristol Channel and disappeared towards Bristol. Twice a day in the evenings and another in the afternoon when the Washington flights were operated.

Happy days, much missed!! :{

[tomahawk_pa38]

Thanks for the information guys - very helpful. Were the INS co-ordinates fixed or did they vary flight by flight please?

[Bellerophon]

FraserConcordeFan

... How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section...

Concorde did have a facility to input a flight plan route segment into the INS and this facility was used on most flights. To explain this very briefly, let’s take a typical LHR-JFK flight as an example:

• Press the amber REMOTE button on each INS CDU
• Load the first waypoint (#1), usually Woodley, manually into an INS
• Key WAYPOINT CHANGE and enter and insert “0 to 1” on each CDU.
• Select DSTRK/STS and HOLD
• Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
• Key the DME catalogue number (from the flight log, usually 90 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
• Key WAYPOINT CHANGE
• Key the Route Segment number (from the flight log, usually 10 on a LHR-JFK sector) and insert
• Cancel HOLD

Then the usual checking routine of:

• Checking the lats and longs of the loaded waypoint lats with those given on the flight log
• Checking the INS distances between waypoints with those given on the flight log
• Checking the lats, longs and frequencies of the DMEs against the database guide

Return the displays back to WAYPOINT, cancel REMOTE, select AUTO and check the INS alignment.

Remember, with only nine waypoints available in the INS, this procedure would have to be repeated in flight, sometimes more than once. Takes much longer to write about than it did to do!


tomahawk pa38

... I'm just curious about what eastbound routings were into Heathrow...

The usual Eastbound routing on a JFK-LHR flight would be via track SN to 15°W then on SL3 to BARIX to MATIM to PITEM to NIGIT and then OCK.


... and where the decel point was....

Let me just check we are talking about the same thing! The Decel Point was the point at the end of the cruise/climb, where we first throttled back and started to decelerate from M2.00 and then descend from, say, around FL 560.

The decel point was calculated in order that we would be just under M1.00 at the designated Speed Control Point, and so the Decel Point was obviously further back than the Speed Control Point.

The usual route was up the Bristol Channel, a bit to the South of our outbound route, crossing the Devon coast just to the North of Barnstaple, routing to a waypoint called MATIM, which is around 51°N 004°W.

In winter, on a JFK-LHR flight via SL3, the Speed Control Point was 110nm before MATIM, and we were required to be subsonic at this point. Typically, we would be just under M1.00, and around FL410, when we crossed the speed control point, having started down from FL 560 around 105nm earlier.

The decel point was of no real relevance to those living on and around the coast of Devon and Somerset, but the Speed Control Point was. The position and time at which we decelerated through M1.00 and became subsonic were always recorded on the flight log, along with the altitude and spot wind, in case of any future claims of boom damage due to a misjudged decel.

Best Regards to all

Bellerophon

Dedicated to the memory of André Édouard Turcat (1921 -2016)

[pattern_is_full]

Thank you , sir!

I wish I hadn't "assumed" so much based on the AF chart. :\

[Systems]

Does anybody have an idea of who the supplier and part number for the Concorde Hydraulic Engine Driven Pumps?

I found some great information for the Concorde systems on the heritage website for the RAT and other systems,

Heritage Concorde (http://www.heritageconcorde.com/#!concorde-rat/c5m2)

I appreciate any help you can provide,

[garylovesbeer]

Concorde Enters Service 40 Years Ago Today ? Flightradar24 Blog (http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/concorde-enters-service-40-years-ago-today/)

[Landroger]

I'm not really sure why I stopped coming here, it is one of, if not the most interesting thread on any of the forums I visit - by miles. However, I got back into it a few days ago and realised I was over a hundred pages behind. I have been slowly catching up, but I'm still nearly fifty pages behind.

My first question is; what has become of the Brabazon Hangar/ BAe Filton/ G-BOAF situation? Wikipedia just say its all been sold - the airfield at least - but not what the dispositions of all those valuable items, particularly Alpha Foxtrot.

Second, just to show I really am reading myself back up to date, I noticed something ChristaanJ said that has some resonance with me.

Quote:
Has anybody here read "The Soul of a New Machine", by Tracy Kidder?
It's a pity no book quite like that has ever been written about Concorde... and I can't imagine it could be written today. Too many of the 'actors' have retired, or are not there anymore....

Maybe somebody ambitious could use this thread as a base, and do some interviews, and write "Concorde, From Then to Now" ?



Wow! Yes I have CJ! I only know one other person who has - fascinating book and I know exactly what you mean. Thee are several other books in the same vein; 21st Century Jet - about the conception and birth of the Boeing 777 and Wide Body, the equally fascinating story of the beloved and iconic Boeing 747.

You probably don't remember, but I used to be a "scanner engineer" - I finally retired in July last year - but I was involved in the very early days of what are now common place diagnostic machines. At some point in the early nineties, I realised two things. I could write a bit - not incomprehensibly at any rate - and all the people who made the early scanners, did the development work and worked on them in the field before me, were either retired or passed away. I asked the management at the time if I could have a bit of time, perhaps a half day every week, to do the research and do a 'Tracy Kidder' for the EMIScanner. No answer came the stern reply and it never got done. Now I don't think it can be, so it never will.

I would love to write 'The Soul of a New Machine' for Concorde, but A) I'm probably too old now and B) I was never part of it, so I probably can't put the passion in to it, certainly not the knowledge, that she deserves.

If anyone on here who was part of it who wants to put pen to paper (Oh come on! Who doesn't use a Word Processor - which dates me on its own!) but it doesn't seem to come out right, perhaps we ought to meet?

Few of my close friends are engineers or scientists and although they all agree that Concorde was (and is) a lovely looking thing, they simply don't understand why it is that engineers get passionate and dewy eyed about her. They cannot comprehend the difficulties of flying at Mach 1+, let alone Mach 2 for three hours in a pretty frock and thus, the ability to do so just seems 'normal'. The book is there to write; the book of the people, by the people, for the people.

[balaton]

Hi Dear Guys,


Amazing thread on an amazing aircraft! Red through all the posts. What an immense amount of knowledge/experience on this bird! Your valuable inputs triggerd my curiousity to the extent that I have started to study Concorde manuals trying to understand systems and operating details. Not an easy job! I think a more detailed Traning Manual would help me greatly.
Here is my question:
Going through the FM exterior inspection chapter I have run into tiny details what are really hard to find even on close-up external photos. Just to name a few: "nose gear free fall dump valve vent", "engine oil tank vent" or "hydraulic-driven fuel transfer pump drain". Was there a "pictorial" external inspection guide available on the Concorde for crew training (similar to Boeing or Airbus training aids)? If yes, could somehow, somebody send me a copy of that?


Appreciate your help.

[pegasusaj]

4May1978 - As the Chief Mechanic of a corporate flight department I attended the annual HS 125 Operations and Maintenance Seminar in Washington, DC. In honor of the sale of the xxx'th 125 all 125 operators were asked to fly in their aircraft for a group photo. The Chief Pilots that did were to get a ride on Concorde. Well, the turnout was less than expected and I was lucky enough to be asked to go on the flight. On that day we were given a talk and then Q and A by Captain Brian Walpole. Interesting stuff to all of us technical types.

That afternoon we went to KIAD to board the incredible machine. All previous posts on this thread describe my feelings as well on the entire flight experience. We flew over Nova Scotia, a bit at Mach 2 and back to KIAD. Capt. Walpole was on the PA from engine start, throughout the flight, to shut down, describing every movement going on up front.

Unforgettable experience for all of us, topped off by the seamless cabin service, smoked salmon, etc., etc. Finally, cognac and, I couldn't believe it, a choice of cigars. Not a one of fired one up then but what a wonderful, old world touch on this state of the art aircraft.

Tonight with a Manhattan and a cigar, I want to express my appreciation and say how humbled I am by the experience, willingness to share and the deep love of Concorde and aviation shown by the experts and other posters here.

[Planeaddict]

Apologies if this isn't entirely relevant to the thread, but here's some videos of Concorde I have. First is the tour at Manchester Airport:

/watch?v=b9u4rNv1kEE

And a take off from inside Concorde from Birmingham:

/watch?v=yBEtIdY_u98

[GBOAH]

Hello all, great thread!
I was just reading a few of my Concorde things and I have seen mention of several other manuals used by the crews other than the flying manual, like the performance manual, cruise control manual and navigation manual.
I believe (perhaps wrongly!) that the performance manual contained the take-off data for weight, V speeds, noise time, TLA etc and I'm guessing the cruise manual had all the tables for cruise performances. Am I correct in my guess work?
What kind of info was in the navigation manual as I think airfield charts were separate?

Any info would be great!

[Uplinker]

Some years ago I travelled to France to crew for my Dad who was bringing his small sailboat back across the channel to the UK.

About halfway across, Dad had gone below and I was sailing along in the middle of nowhere, with nothing anywhere near us.

Suddenly, I heard a very loud "ba boom" and thought, hmmm, I wonder what that was?

Dad came running up the steps from below saying "what have we hit, what have we hit" (thanks for your confidence in me Dad). Nothing I said, very offended. We both looked around seeing nothing and eventually I looked up to see the beautiful sight of a Concorde miles above us flying Westwards in a clear blue sky.

I guess the " ba boom " was the two shock waves of the nose and the leading edge sweeping past us.


Terrific sight. Terrific machine.

[riff_raff]

Most people are familiar with the space race between the US and the Soviets, but there was a very interesting race between the US, Europe and the Soviet Union to build a supersonic passenger aircraft. Europe built the successful Concorde, the US had the unsuccessful Boeing SST, and the Soviets had the unsuccessful Tu-144.

Somewhere there is a taped phone conversation of President Kennedy raising heck with someone over the fact that the US does not have a supersonic passenger aircraft program to compete with Concorde.

[Don'ttouchthat!]

As so many have already said: what a wonderful thread. Please please keep it going.

Given the high quality of expertise and experience here, please accept my apologies for any ill informed inaccuracies. I never flew in Concorde, but I did 'fly' her thanks to the late John Cook.

In the late 1970s I was in the RAF section of the school CCF with his son Richard (tragically later killed in the Mull of Kintyre accident) and John (one of the first BA Concorde pilots) arranged for a minibus load of us to go to Filton on what I wish I'd realised at the time was an exceptionally privileged visit. Passage of time blurs the memory, but it still sticks in my mind as an extraordinary day.

The first 'Concorde' we saw was the full scale marketing mock up, essentially the left side of an external Concorde attached to a hanger wall, with a full interior cabin. I still remember being surprised how small it was - the windows especially - and the mix of different seats and trims inside, presumably to show options to potential buyers.

Next stop was the simulator and - in the analogue days of the 70's - the enormous, detailed 3D model of Heathrow and what looked like the surrounding 10 miles, mounted vertically on a wall. A huge gantry on rails ran back and forth, up and down, so a camera with tiny periscope lens could take off, fly around and land as per the simulated flight, with the resulting pictures projected for the pilots in the sim. The size of the thing - and the attention to detail of the model - was incredible. Off to one side was a large rectangular shallow dish painted light blue. It's sides were raised - like a saucer - and edged with fluffed cotton wool. We were told that once the flight in the sim reached a certain height, it would 'go into cloud' (fade to white) while the camera trundled across to the blue dish. The flight would then 'emerge' from the 'cloud' and the camera went round and round in circles, giving a very plausible impression of high altitude flight until it was time to reverse the procedure and descend, back to 'Heathrow'.

Incredibly, they let us fly the sim, two at a time up front, for a few minutes each. It was simply too much to take in and was over far, far, far too soon. But I can claim a (very poor) approach to Heathrow before the instructors called us off - apparently a crash landing didn't do the camera any favours as the lens would plough into the model. I can see why they were nervous.

(Is this the sim cockpit - without the model I presume - that is now at Brooklands, by the way?)

Final stop was a gantry overlooking one of the hangers where a solitary Concorde nestled amongst (what fuzzy memory recalls as) three VC10s being converted to tankers for the RAF. The Concorde seemed tiny by comparison, but also startling in that it was still largely in green primer, access panels were open and inspection hatches missing and vulnerable areas were covered in what looked like flattened cardboard boxes for protection. Presumably this was one of the 'unsold' numbers before BA took it on (?). Nose down, it looked very sad.

We weren't. I suspect we were insufferable for weeks afterwards.

What I'd give for a time machine to revisit that afternoon...

[riff_raff]

For those of you who never got to take a ride on Concorde, there is a start-up out of Colorado called Boom Technology (http://boom.aero/) that is working on a 40 passenger commercial supersonic aircraft (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/news/newsvirgin-galactic-to-buy-10-supersonic-aircraft-from-boom-technology-4850608). The company is still quite small, but it seems legit. Their technical staff has significant industry experience, and they are supported by Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic who will provide manufacturing/test capabilities.

Boom Technology says they will fly a demonstration aircraft by end of 2017.

[The Dominican]

My apologies if it's been covered...., I'm curious as to why the #3 engine would have a limiter to 88% for takeoff?

Thank you!

[Espada III]

The answer is buried somewhere in the last 2000 posts! Something to do with the direction of the swirl of the air entering the engine causing a problem, until the speed of the aircraft overcomes it.

[The late XV105]

The answer is buried somewhere in the last 2000 posts!

Indeed, and searching google for Concorde 88% PPRUNE: will find it. (I just checked)

That last colon is important; it limits search to the website of the name preceding it. I usually find this technique more accurate than websites' own search engines as well as the results more easily assimilated.

Have fun.

[Roger_Mellie]

98 Pages - have read them all. Absolutely unique given the tailspin that a lot of threads (not just on this site) find themselves in - this thread is a credit to those who have made it so captivating.

I lived in the UK for 10 years and was lucky enough to (well my wife did) win a return for 2 to NY on Concorde. Courtesy of the Evening Standard. This was June 1997. We sat in 3A/B and as an avid aviation follower (my dad flew in the RNZAF) spent way longer than my welcome in the cockpit when it was our turn. Purely because unlike a lot of other people who pointed and wowed - I spoke to the F/E and the skipper (Mike Bannister) about the flying aspect and marvelled at the engineering and the systems.

My dad broke the sound barrier in 1963 in an F-105 in Thailand somewhere whilst on manoeuvres with the USAF and as a wee chap always remember the mach meter at 1.06. So I asked Capt Bannister if he would take a picture of this for me from the same aspect - and he did. I proudly showed my dad.

So on the way back from NY on boarding I asked the Chief Purser if there was any chance of sitting in the cockpit for landing - a fairly stern no was the answer. No problem - 3 hours of caviar, mango, fillet steak and Krug ensued.

Then lo and behold - about 25 minutes from landing, the purser found me and said (verbatim) - "are you the young chap whose dad broke the sound barrier? Capt Bannister would like to know if you would like to sit on the jump seat for landing." I levitated to the cockpit.

Was strapped in, given headphones - told not to talk unless spoken to (nicely of course). Mike Bannister did say to me that I was one of the few people (of 100) to actually pay any interest to the flight systems aspect - which was why he asked if I was keen to join them for landing.

Oh the good old days!!

At the time we lived in Brockham and as a bonus it transpired that Bill Clinton and Air Force One was in the circuit and as it was explained to me - there was an exclusion zone whilst Air Force 1 was on finals? So we had to do 2 laps of the Ockham circuit. Which as fate would have it was almost directly over my house.

In all a surreal experience - just over 24 hours LHR - JFK - LHR return - didn't sleep a wink.

So not really a contribution to the thread - but a memory of a whirlwind, never to be repeated 24 hours. I think I was unbelievably lucky.

About the only thing I recall about Concorde (by way of a question) that I can't recall seeing here was when Concorde visited Auckland in the late 70's? Was the damage to either the rudder or a stabiliser? Surely at Mach 2.0 the vibrations/difference in control would be marked? From memory the flight crew was interviewed and I'm sure they said they didn't notice anything? Comments?

[stilton]

Anyone able to tell us what the cabin altitude was at FL600 ?

[pattern_is_full]

According to this, 5500-6000 feet/1700 meters

Heritage Concorde (http://www.heritageconcorde.com/#!concorde-pressurization-system/cf1s)

IIRC from one of the previous posts here, the strong differential required also defined the normal descent/deceleration timing and distance.

Power could only be reduced to 94% (N1 or N2, I forget which) or there would not be enough "bleed" air available to maintain the cabin altitude at TOD.
(although I could have misinterpreted that - it may have had more to do with maintaining the oblique inlet shocks, or hydraulics, or some such.)

[stilton]

Thanks for that, very impressive,as if I couldn't be more impressed by this amazing Aircraft.

[JEM60]

Roger. Great first post!. I too have been lucky enough to 'flight-deck' Concorde as a passenger, tho' not for the landing. {Did that as a pax in a Trident, amongst others!] I still have the video that I took!. Like you, I was interested in the flying of it, and asked questions, but didn't have the same luck as you with the jump seat.
I recently flew Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur in an A.380, and whilst driving from Croydon to Heathrow, went along the road at the side of BA Engineering, and there, looking beautiful in the sun, was 'my' Concorde, G-BOAB. Happy memories!. There was, I believe, the occasional rudder skin loss on a couple of Concordes, and vibration was experienced if I remember correctly.

[howiehowie93]

Good day,

Just found this pic on the www and I think the reheat looks a bit ragged compared to the Reheated Engines I have worked on - RR Spey & RB199.

Is this a representative sort of view or a false picture and the real thing is much neater with Mach Diamonds and the like???

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/howiehowie93/13892320_10154518047254101_4613766149186087624_n_zpsvqo3n4v7 .jpg

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/howiehowie93/12494860_10153309080540213_3139974656384116067_n_zpsnybm8e6q .jpg (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/howiehowie93/media/12494860_10153309080540213_3139974656384116067_n_zpsnybm8e6q .jpg.html)

[atakacs]

Nice picture but definitely a fake

[howiehowie93]

Yes - I should have Googles first - but there again it brings this thread to to front page again

[viking28]

Hello,

In the early eighties, Braniff "we'd better be better !" leased (rented ?) Concorde for firstclass flights between Washington and Dallas.

It was a subsonic flight.

Question: Where had the crew (I guess they were Braniff's) been trained , was the training supersonic too ?


What a super thread. Thanks a lot !

[pattern_is_full]

Yep - Braniff crews trained to fly the full envelope. But for BA insurance reasons, there had to be a BA captain and flight engineer riding along in the jumpseats.

Another cute trick - the European airlines "sold" the airframes temporarily to Braniff, with new US N-numbers, so they could fly a "domestic" route without violating cabotage laws. Then "sold back" to BA or AF for the transatlantic legs.

CONCORDE SST : Braniff Concorde Services (http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/braniff.html)

[BN2A]

Braniff Concorde (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAC3M--VDw)

[FraserConcordeFan]

I've got a few little questions about the INS's memory...
So as I understand selecting DSTRK/STS on the CDU and pressing HOLD would allow the flight crew to enter a code to bring waypoints and DME stations out of the memory. So what would this code look like? how many codes where saved? And where would it be possible to find exactly what these codes are?

[stilton]

I may have overlooked this but did Concorde have a flight mode annunciator ?

[EXWOK]

Fraser -


You are correct, the INS's had a access to a separate memory facility in later years of operation. The access method is as you described, and then a numerical entry to access the relevant part of the route (or Flight Plan Segment), which would be numbered between 01 and 87.

The comms log would list the appropriate FPS number. Obviously, it was still possible to enter all waypoints longhand.

It was also possible to access a DME lat/long database using the same system which enabled DME updating and saved a lot of finding/typing Lat/Long for DMEs. (These were numbered between 90 and 99).

FWIW there was a specific Delco variant for supersonic flight (Delco IV-AC). It was permissible to have a 'standard' IV or IV-A in the number 3 position. IIRC the aircraft would be restricted to subsonic flight unless there was a IV-AC in both 1 and 2 positions.

Before my time, I believe there was a card reader system to do a similar job.


Stilton -

It did have a well-disguised FMA..... the Mode Select Panel was also the FMA. Lit button = active mode.

[stilton]

Thanks for that EXWK, doesn't look like there would be any room in that cockpit (while a masterpiece of design) for a separate FMA.

[Bellerophon]

FraserConcordeFan

To show you what EXWOK was referring to when he posted ...and then a numerical entry to access the relevant part of the route (or Flight Plan Segment), which would be numbered between 01 and 87. The comms log would list the appropriate FPS number... this is a photo of a Concorde Comms Log from a JFK-LHR sector in 2003

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn142/Bellerophon_photos/Concorde%20-%20Technical/Concorde%20Comms%20Log%20-%20Copy.jpg (http://s303.photobucket.com/user/Bellerophon_photos/media/Concorde%20-%20Technical/Concorde%20Comms%20Log%20-%20Copy.jpg.html)

Best Regards

[stilton]

Directly above the Captains ADI there are two small annunciators side by side, the one on the left has a symbol I can't quite make out while the one on the right appears to have four separate segments, the upper right of which is amber, there also seems to be a small
white switch to the right of this.


Can you tell me what these are for ?

[johnjosh43]

Is this the section you mean ?-
Heritage Concorde (http://www.heritageconcorde.com/pilots-instruments) - select Item 1 in the Pilots Instruments section.

[stilton]

Thanks for that, J4, just what I was looking for, as amazing, cleverly laid out cockpit
using every nook and cranny in an incredible aircraft.

[stilton]

I understand Concorde had no speed brakes / spoilers but was certified to use reverse in flight.


What were the airspeed and altitude limits on its use ?


Was this done very often in service and was it activated on
all engines or just the inboards ?

[Bellerophon]

Reverse Thrust in the air - Limitations


Inboard engines (either or both) only
Idle power only
Between 30,000 ft - 3,000 ft AGL only
Subsonic only
Max speed 370 kts over most of the allowable range
Min speed 250 kts above 15,000 ft
Min speed 225 kts below 15,000 ft
4 minutes only

The descent profile was planned without the use of reverse thrust, but it was available, and used, when required.

The principal benefit of reverse thrust in the air, in my view, was the ability to reduce speed quickly in a shallow descent, whilst keeping the aircraft attitude (and so the cabin floor) substantially level. Passengers found this more comfortable than using reverse thrust, at a constant IAS, to achieve a very high rate of descent, with the consequent steep nose down attitude.

If a runaway bar trolley, dragging a stewardess behind it, thumped into the back of the flight deck door, you had probably overdone the nose down attitude! ;)

[stilton]

I can imagine !


Thanks for that BP, just to clarify you say inboard engines only either or both, so you might use reverse on only one engine ? any assymetric issues with that ?


Also, why the 4 minute restriction ?

[CliveL]

4 min limitation, of my memory serves, is because reverse thrust blocks off the cooling air flowing over the engine mounted accessories. The limitation is then to stop them cooking up.

Regarding an earlier question, you really need a flight crew member to answer, but looking at the RHS panel on the Concorde Heritage site it looks to me that the symbol is the landing gear indication - nose, two mains and a tailwheel. Haven't a clue what the other indication might be.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

One of my amusing recollections of "The white lady" on 14 th November 1976 Manchester was graced for the first time when G-BOAA was diverted due to fog at Heathrow to Manchester. She arrived in the late evening ( ex Washington I suspect?). She was parked across the end of B pier as we had no tow bar at that time.
One of the local radio stations erroneously reported she would be departing back to London at 1 am. Clearly this was not accurate for two reasons, crew hours and Heathrow's night jet ban.
However at 1am Ringway's switchboard lit up with complaints about the noise. Unperturbed sleeping beauty dozed peacefully on stand 11.
Oddly the next departure was just after 0200 when the Aer Lingus freighter 9213 set forth for Dublin. Ironically operated by an Aer Turas Brittania as the Aer Lingus 737QCs were scattered across Europe in passenger configuration due to weather.
Two of Bristols finest together, one of the quietest and certainly the loudest.
Thank you to all our contributors, finest thread on pprune of the millennium, without a doubt.

[megan]

n5296s has posted elsewhereApparently landing Concorde in a strong headwind could lead to a very nasty surprise because of the huge relative height difference between the back of the wing and the rest of it. So the trailing edge is much more in ground effect than the rest. As it gets very close to the ground, the headwind reduces due to ground friction. At some point the part of the wing that is doing the most work drops out of - well, not the sky, but where it is.

I don't pretend to follow the detailed math/aerodynamics, but the net effect is a "did we land or were we shot down" landing.Can someone knowledgeable relate what aerodynamic gremlins were at work?

[PPRuNe Towers]

Avgas Dinosaur: Thank you to all our contributors, finest thread on PPRuNe of the millennium, without a doubt.

And soon to celebrate reaching its 100 page. Utterly outstanding! :ok:

Rob

[BN2A]

That's because it's better, hard to admit as it is, than an Islander... Or any other heavy jet with lots of glass inside and carbon outside!!!

😉

[CliveL]

Can any of our pilot contributors confirm n5296s's remarks re landing in a strong headwind?
For my part I was never aware of any complaints

[wiggy]

Clive

Must admit I'm surprised as well, I would have thought that trailing edge, so to speak, would have been benefitting from ground effect just before touchdown.

[EXWOK]

I didn't find any problems in strong headwinds.

We used to use Vref+10 instead of Vref+7 if it was windy (which made a bigger difference than the numbers may suggest) and, if anything, this made it easier.

[KayPam]

Yes I would have bet that a higher airspeed would be recommended (not even a problem since headwind will reduce GS, and only GS is a problem in a landing).
However I would have added something like up to half the wind :p

Only 3kt ?? That's a huge surprise

[megan]

Many thanks for the answers folks. Can't beat getting it from the horses mouth.We used to use Vref+10 instead of Vref+7 if it was windy (which made a bigger difference than the numbers may suggest) and, if anything, this made it easierEXWOK, could you expand on the whys and what fores?

[stilton]

Were both BA and AF involved / lend aircraft to the short lived Braniff Concorde operation flying the aircraft subsonic from Washington Dulles to the Dallas Fort Worth airport ?


I read somewhere that the aircraft owner, whether it was BA or AF always had one of their captains as an observer in one of the cockpit jumpseats on these flights ?


Not sure if that's true but any other insights or information on this unusual arrangement
would be welcome.

[CliveL]

This may be overtaken by later postings, but a couple of reasons why n5692s's explanation might not work:-

Most of the lift is generated on the upper surface and is dominated by the vortex lift which is a product of vortex strength and airspeed. The vortex strength depends on the local aoa at the leading edge. As the aircraft enters ground effect the passage of air under the wing is restricted so more has to go over the top and the local LE aoa is increased along with vortex strength. The important bit of the wing for this bit of lift increase is the front half which is in the higher part of the wind profile. But in any case, following our old friend Bernoulli, the upper surface suction will depend on the resultant circumferential velocity as the vortex scrubs its way across the wing upper surface, and I can't see a knot or two of wind making a big difference to the circumferential velocities under those vortices.

The undersurface flow is of course restricted. and the lift is more Newtonian in character. A reduction in local airspeed because of the wind height profile could give a reduction in lift due to ground effect near the TE. However, in the normal course of events this additional lift is accompanied by a nose down pitch which is countered by a steadily increasing back stick movement as the pilor maintains the more or less constant pitch attitude "flare" manoeuvre. This up elevator gives an increasing negative lift to maintain pitch control which, since the effective cop of the elevator lift is at the elevon hinge line means that the net gain in overall lift from this part of the ground effect is quite small. If this undersurface TE lift were to be reduced by the wind gradient the effect would. be that the nose down pitch would be smaller than usual and the pilot would have to apply less back stick, but I doubt he would notice this in a dynamic situation (remembering that strong winds are usually accompanied by turbulence).

So I can't identify any gremlin job specification that might support n5296s's argument.

Kaypam: Remember the Concotrde was certificated to TSS Standards not JAR25. The certificated approach speed is Vref, Vref plus 7 if memory serves, was introduced as an approach noise reduction and became anaccepted norm so Vrefplus 10 should be OK for 20 kt winds?

[vapilot2004]

Stilton:

Braniff that the subsonic Concorde flights, IAD to Texas with British Airways or Air France crews handling the subsequent supersonic overseas flights to Europe and the UK.

I understand the observer positions taken up by British crew was mainly due to insurance concerns. I have no knowledge of the Air France arrangement regarding observers, but hopefully one of our good contributors will clear that one up.

[Bellerophon]

stilton

... so you might use reverse on only one engine? any assymetric issues with that ?...

No issue at all, on the one occasion I can remember that it happened to me.


... why the 4 minute restriction ?...

I believe the correct answer has been given by CliveL, but, when asked during ground school, the BAe instructors’ traditional answer was “Noise Abatement”. (as in a Concorde hitting the ground makes a lot of noise!)


... BA or AF always had one of their captains as an observer in one of the cockpit jumpseats on these flights ?...

Before my time, so I can’t say if BA crew flew on the jump seat, or in what capacity they were acting if they did, but I believe there is at least one contributor to this thread who may yet post an answer.



CliveL

... Can any of our pilot contributors confirm n5296s's remarks re landing in a strong headwind?..

Speaking personally, I never noticed any problem, and as EXWOK has said, I found using VREF +10 made life a lot easier.

However, Mike Riley, a well respected base training instructor on the fleet (and a past British Aerobatics team member) discussed this point in his “The Concorde Stick and Rudder Book”, where he says that there was a greater incidence of hard landings when landing into a strong headwind and goes on to discuss some of the possible reasons why and what to do about it.

His main recommendation was to leave the auto throttle in later than usual, down to 20R instead of 40R, and maintain a constant attitude to touchdown.


... The certificated approach speed is Vref, Vref plus 7 if memory serves, was introduced as an approach noise reduction...

Yes, VREF +7 was used for Reduced Noise Approaches that were flown whenever possible, and which were generally considered easier to land from than VREF approaches.

[stilton]

Thanks for that Bphon, yes the noise abatement makes sense now !

[CliveL]

Bellerephon:

Interesting!
About eighteen months ago a MD11 piloting friend and I had a close look at that machine to see if we could identify any features that might explain its poor hard landing record. We came up with a tentative explanation that the shortish tail arm combined with high pitch inertia led to a slight, but significant, increase in the delay between elevator application and flight path response (negative elevator lift effect) and that this could make attempts to make flight path corrections from very near the ground hit or miss affairs (no pun intended!). The response was crisper at higher airspeeds and (with admittedly limited experimentation) he concluded that leaving the autothrottle engaged down to a lower height above the runway improved matters. Avoiding late corrections and just taking the medicine could also be a good idea.

One of the boffins at RAE Bedford raised this elevator negative lift effect as a possible Concorde concern about the time of first flight, but experience then and for some time after suggested this was not a big problem.

Now I am wondering whether the sequence :- increased wind/greater turbulence/more chance of needing last minute (second?) corrections/negative elevator lift effect/more hard landings might be a reasonable explanation of the question posed in the OP.

Did Mike Riley offer anything along these lines? or if not what did he come up with?

[EXWOK]

I'm not sure the 'negative elevator effect' was ever a practical issue in flight (as opposed to on rotation) - the response was entirely normal and I reckon that the increase in lift is near enough instantaneous. Aircraft with tailplanes would have a similar theoretical effect.

I don't recall hard landings being an issue on windy days - quite the opposite.

If there was an influence due to wind I would say it's more likely to be that in the gusts one may be tempted to 'tweak' the attitude: Putting the nose down by half a degree at 50' would have very disappointing consequences....

From memory, we had 4 speeds available:

Vref 'Normal' final approach speed (actually not used that much)
Vref+5 Engine out speed
Vref+7 Noise reducing approach speed (used as often as possible)
Vref+10 If the headwind component was over 25(?)kts

Most were at +7.

Vref was least nice - you had a higher attitude to start with, and needed more flare, which meant tail clearance was tight. It also meant that if you picked up a high RoD at 50' or so, it was VERY difficult to catch. One *could* add a bit of thrust at 30' or not close the throttles at 15', but this was not without drawbacks.

Vref+5 was better - the reason it was used was to give better g/a performance on 3 engines (there are obviously a lot of square laws at play here, because it made a significant difference).

Vref+7 was used off pretty much every ILS approach to a decent length of runway, where we would carry out a noise-reducing approach. This is probably explained elsewhere in the thread. These days it would be called an unstable approach! It gave you more lift margin into the flare and also more room to make pitch inputs (i.e. space for another half- to one- degree of flare).

Vref+10 was for windy days. I liked it! If you arrived at 40' in the right place, you basically just held the attitude and the ground effect did the rest. It did still *feel* like you had flared, as the ground effect would push the nose down and so back stick was still required to hold the attitude.

I hope that has answered CliveL and Megan's questions somewhat?

[CliveL]

@EXWOK

I like your last paragraph - that is exactly the advice we gave Trubbie before first flight!

No problem either with your view that negative lift was never a practical problem, but on paper the time before the cg started to lift was just under 0.5 sec longer than a contemporary tailed aircraft for a step elevator input at approach speeds.
Don't want to sound clever/clever, but the height response at the cockpit would be earlier than the cg movement, which might be why you saw a fairly normal response.
But from Mike Riley's work it sounds as if some pilots had different experience in strong headwinds does it not?

[EXWOK]

It would appear so....but I wonder if Vref+10 came about as a result of earlier experience and that was the source of the story?

I get what you mean about the height response at the cockpit vs flightpath response....but given that we're talking about landing, then it's the height of the undercarriage that matters.

FWIW, like all long-bodied aircraft, a last-minute pull has the capacity to drive the u/c into the ground harder because the pitch change happens before the flightpath change. That could well be exaggerated by 'negative elevator' effect.

A video of a landing could be quite telling if you could see the elevons - there's a very marked and increasing 'up' input to counter the pitch down from ground effect. I suspect that, in ground effect, this negative elevator effect would be swamped by all the other things that are happening.

[CliveL]

I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Since the cg is generally close to the landing gear longitudinally, to all intents and purposes the height changes are the same on most aircraft. Pitch change before flight path change is an essential part of the negative lift effect.
But I agree, there is so much happening that it is difficult to separate out individual effects.

[megan]

I hope that has answered CliveL and Megan's questions somewhat?No, you've just raised more EWOK. :p Why would the +7 approach be deemed "unstable" today. Actually, thank you to all the contributors, fascinating stuff.

[EXWOK]

A slightly tongue-in-cheek comment, Megan.

The BA Ops Manual requires an approach to be fully stable at 1000'R. It used to be slightly more relaxed, but even then a 'reduced noise' approach was an exception to the policy.

Basically we flew at a higher speed (190kts) until 800', then reduced speed to achieve final approach speed at 300'.

This had two benefits - thrust required at 190kts was a lot less than 160kts so flew a quieter and less-thirsty approach, and the portion between 800' and 300' was quieter still.

Vref+7 gave better control and performance margins at the end of this manoeuvre - I'll try to find a reference as to why +7 came about (I recall there was a specific reason for that number, but not the detail).

[stilton]

looking at the Concorde instrument panel lately brings up a couple more questions:

Why is the radar altimeter positioned where the altimeter is normally placed ?
Did the designers decide it was more important for the radalt to have a more
prominent position in the pilots scan for a particular reason ?

While on the subject of radar altimeters Concorde has a fairly unique VSI, at least
for civil aircraft, it's vertical strip presentation is a clever way of saving space in
a compact, crowded panel.

But in the era that Concorde was designed a popular option on other jet transports was a vertical strip radar altimeter.

The radalt, after all is an instrument that is only used very briefly at the final stages of the approach and landing and is
situated accordingly, easily seen but not part of the classic 'T' airspeed, attitude, altimeter, HSI, of primary instrumentation

But in Concorde it literally has the most 'prime location'

For some reason I wasn't consulted on cockpit design despite going to school
with John Cochrane's son but surely a more conventional design would have had:

Altimeter, top right , VSI bottom right in their usual place and a vertical strip radalt
taking the place of the vertical strip VSI.

Curious as to the design choices, anyone with further insight ?

[pattern_is_full]

I'll always bow out to the pros did the actual design and flying - but this book quote may be one insight.

As the flight deck is over 35 feet above the runway on main wheel touchdown, of key assistance in landing is the radio altimeter. Concorde has two radio altimeters, and on this occasion [early test flight] both failed, so the landing at Fairford....had to be done by eye. It was a 'firm' landing. As Brian Tubshaw put it later: 'We arrived about a half second early.'The Concorde, Christopher Orlebar, 2017, p. 55

From the point of view of the most critical phase of human piloting, the radio altimeter was far more important in the scan than the baro altimeter. Baro altitude was generally a problem for the automated part of the envelope, or the FE, while the guys up front needed only spare it a glance (most of the time) only twice a minute or so (or less often?)

[stilton]

Thanks for that, useful information.


Another question, there is what appears to be a fixed red line marked on the airspeed indicator opposite or pointing to around 190Kias.


Anyone know what this was for ?

[pattern_is_full]

It's actually a window, with a red warning annunciator/flag behind it, that flags a problem with the functioning of the Vmo needle (yellow and black "speed-limit" barber pole.)

See section 4 on this web page: Heritage Concorde (http://www.heritageconcorde.com/pilots-instruments)

On the extreme right - microscopic explanatory type (sorry!)

Since one of its triggering events is a loss of electrical power, the red flag will be showing unless the aircraft electrical system is powered up (my guess). So it shows red in most cockpit photos.

[Bellerophon]

stilton

...there is what appears to be a fixed red line marked on the airspeed indicator opposite or pointing to around 190Kias...

Could you please show us which picture you are looking at, as there was no such red line on the ASI on BA aircraft and I can't think what purpose such a line might serve?

The only thing I can think of is that there was a VMO Failure Flag window, cut into the face of the ASI dial, adjacent to 190kts.

When the flag was displayed, this indicated a failure of the VMO pointer, something that was very important on Concorde.

This flag had an all red background and bore the letters VMO on it in black.

I just wonder if perhaps what you are looking at might be the edge of the VMO Pointer Failure Flag which has not fully retracted into its window, leaving just its lower red edge displayed, which could look like a red line.

[stilton]

That's certainly possible, I was looking at the picture of the Captains instrument panel taken in level cruise at FL600.


It appears as a thin red line on the face of the instrument itself opposite 190 knots
approximately.


The picture i'm referring to is on page 4 of this thread reply #66 posted by yourself !
And on further examination I think I can see what you're saying, it does look like
the lower red edge of the warning flag just visible in that window.


Thanks again BP and for the person that did the very useful indexing which made finding that picture a breeze.

[Bellerophon]

stilton

I'd forgotten I'd posted that photo, but now that I've looked at it again, it is indeed the bottom (red) edge of the VMO failure flag that you saw.

A thread you started nearly 7 years ago has now reached 100 pages, generated nearly 2,000 replies and been read roughly 900,000 times. :D

Who knew a question about an APU would start all that!

Kudos

[stilton]

Thanks for the clarification BP and for your many informative and fascinating
replies enlightening all of us on this incredible and unique aircraft.


I didn't think a simple question about an APU would take off into a
delightfully detailed account of Concorde's technical achievements and even
better, personal accounts of operating her 'on the line'


Thank you, I feel fortunate that I asked !


Best wishes

[standbykid]

Couldn't get this to post as an embedded video. May have been posted before and may even feature a PPruner or three. Beautiful...

https://youtu.be/1bjzoh3iQJc

[BN2A]

Only slightly envious of doing circuits in Concorde!! :*

https://youtu.be/ZqCO1qBUY88

Or this little jolly.... :{

https://youtu.be/fB-smagT0O4

[garylovesbeer]

Thanks for the clarification BP and for your many informative and fascinating
replies enlightening all of us on this incredible and unique aircraft.


I didn't think a simple question about an APU would take off into a
delightfully detailed account of Concorde's technical achievements and even
better, personal accounts of operating her 'on the line'


Thank you, I feel fortunate that I asked !


Best wishes

Now if there was only a method of downloading the whole thread as a pdf my life would be fulfilled! :D

[standbykid]

It's not exactly elegant, but if you have Firefox you can select 'reader view' on the right hand side of the url box. This will basically give you a printable version of just text. You could then print and scan.

It's not ideal, but may be of help.

[wiedehopf]

Now if there was only a method of downloading the whole thread as a pdf my life would be fulfilled! :D


PPruNe has an archive where more posts are displayed per page.
So below you can get the whole thread in just 8 pages.

Concorde question [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-423988.html)

Why do you want a pdf, for your ebook reader? Guess it doesn't work with just saved html.

In Google Chrome you can save pages as PDF via the printing dialog.
Font is a bit small though.

There are also some webservices that can convert a web page to pdf. Have never used them though.

[garylovesbeer]

I'm on a mac so I can print pdf directly from the print dialogue box. Brilliant suggestion from both you and standbykid.

Thank you! :ok:

[n5296s]

This may be overtaken by later postings, but a couple of reasons why n5692s's explanation might not work:-

(Well, N5296s, but that was close). I don't often look at this forum, so only just saw this.

I read this in The Concord Stick and Rudder Book, though my summary of the explanation may not do the author justice.

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Evening Stilton, M-2 Dude and others.
I am having a nostalgia evening as 20 years ago today I had a flight in G-BOAC from CYYZ to “no-where”.
Actually, it was down to New York out over the ocean for around 30 minutes at FL 550 and Mach 2. For one in the “industry” it was a real treat to be able to have a flight in such an iconic aircraft.
Things I will always remember going out of “reheat” (a more elegant description then afterburner) after noise abatement from being pushed back into one’s seat to being momentarily weightless, the brilliance of the sky at FL 550, the cabin windows being hot at Mach 2 and seeing the gap between the flight engineers panel and the bulk head at Mach 2 due to the aircraft heating. I could go on about the engineering, observing the crew coordination from the cockpit visit (sadly pre-9/11) and there is a certain story about how our group sweet talked our way into the first-class lounge in YYZ and drained all the bubbly British Airways had in the fridge that day but…….
Reading the thread on this aircraft has been fascinating and thank you to all that has contributed to this wonderful story a sincere thank you.