Concorde at Hatfield

[DeepC]

Can anyone confirm that Concorde has landed and taken off at Hatfield (BAe) any time in its history?

Thanks

DeepC

[jumpseater]

To the best of my knowledge, no it never has, or did, to be correct. It did fly from Luton once with pax on board to make a run past on a Hatfield flying display day, before going off on a Bay of Biscay trip, can't remember the year though!

[DeepC]

I would have thought that Luton's runway was far to short for Concorde. Any thoughts?

Would it have been theoretically possible?

Hatfield Runway was 1823m long. Luton is around 2160m long.

Would love to see a photo of Concorde at Luton.

Thanks

DeepC

[canberra]

lutons runway is not too short for concorde. ive seen concorde at ncl and its runway is approximately the same length as ltn. dont forget concorde has reheat!!

[jumpseater]

Deep, you've completely lost me with your second post,as if you know Hatfields runway was shorter than Luton's and you think Luton's was far too short, it would answer your first question!

Still, October 18th 1983 GBOAE flew a charter for Vauxhall Motors top dealers, (an oxymoron surely), Luton to Bordeaux.
July 1986 previously mentioned BAe charter with fly past of open day, Luton used as Hatfield's runway 'unsuitable'.

[DeepC]

Sorry. My second post was a bit ambiguous. My first line was just a personal opinion not borne out by any hard facts that Luton's runway was not long enough. Therefore I asked would it have been possible from either runway so that I could in future have some hard facts at my disposal!

Thanks for the information anyway.

I found a link on the FAA website to minimum landing distances for Concorde (1825m). That would be OK for Luton but Hatfield would have been 2m too short!

Now a completely bone question. Being a Civil Engineer and not a pilot, aeronautical engineer etc...

What needs a longer surface, landing or taking off?

Thanks

DeepC

[jumpseater]

Deep,thats a very difficult question to answer, as there are significant variables eg. in some circumstances it will be weather dependant, in very general terms, my guess would be take off would need the longer strip for a pub quiz type answer!

[Bellerophon]

DeepC

To take your points in order:

I can't find any record of Concorde ever having been to Hatfield, and personally I don't think that it has been, however as you will appreciate, it's always difficult to prove a negative.

If the LDA at Hatfield is 1,823m, then that would, in fact, make it a slightly longer runway than some that Concorde has landed on.

An FAA website on Concorde, how amusing!

I don't know where the FAA get their minimum LDA of 1,825m from, as technically it is not a limit so far as I am aware.

In practical terms, I would agree it is a pretty realistic figure. To land Concorde on anything under 2,000m requires careful attention to detail and precise handling to accomplish successfully.

For Concorde, if we compare the length of runway needed to land on with the length of runway needed to take-off from, at the same aircraft weight, then the landing case is the limiting one.

Thus if you can plan to land on a runway, at a given weight, then, broadly speaking, you will easily be able to take-off again from that runway, at that weight.

For large transport aircraft there is a usually a significant difference between the maximum landing weight and the maximum take-off weight, for Concorde this amounts to about 74 tonnes. In the sense I think you may have meant your question:

Which requires the longer runway, landing at maximum landing weight, or taking-off at maximum take-off weight?

then the answer is the take-off case.

Regards

Bellerophon

[DeepC]

Bellerophon

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Point taken about being unable to prove a negative.
This is the problem I am having. I have been assured by a colleague of mine that Concorde has landed and taken off (Obviously!) from Hatfield. As I would have thought this would have been a newsworthy event in the dull life that is Hatfield I anticipated someone locally would have remembered it. I therefore challenged him to give me the date(s) of the event(s) and therefore prove the positive.

The FAA website lists many many types of plane. I found it buried in a table of hundreds of other planes.

Thanks very much

DeepC

[NW1]

At the back of Chris Orlebar's book "The Concorde Story" he lists past destinations under various categories, and under UK charter destinations he lists Hatfield - so I think Hatfield has had at least one visit from a Concorde, but I know nothing of the details.

<<careful attention to detail and precise handling>> is always required irrespective of LDA. But 6000' is about as short as you'd want to get, though, but you simply use the Perfomance Manual and work out the numbers.....

[Just out of interest, the landing page for Humberside r/w 21, LDA 1950m, shows nil wind max weight of 107.5 tonnes and an increment of 600kg per knot headwind, so a six knot headwind would give you the ability to mand at max. structural landing weight (rarely needed) on a 1950m strip. RTOW on the same runway on a nil wind ICAO std. day would be about 148 tonnes, which would lift a full aircraft and about 58 tonnes of fuel - more than enough for a supersonic "round the bay" charter (for reference a typical fuel load LHR-JFK would be about 92-94 tonnes). I just offer this for a general picture of the perfomance figures - I'm sure the page I have for Humberside is well out of date by now.....(!)]

[Bellerophon]

DeepC

I've just looked at the reference that NW1 mentioned, and Chris Orlebar does indeed say that Concorde has visited Hatfield.

No dates given, but his book is generally very accurate, and so I think I may have to change my mind on this one!

Regards

Bellerophon

[TomPierce]

Dammit Bellerophon I expect pure accuracy from you! Then, you have to go and concede! ;)

Have your hands returned to the yoke?

[jumpseater]

Having worked there and lived near there most of my life, I am almost certain it never flew from Hatfield. When I was there the charter was supposed to operate from EGTH, but was changed to fly from Luton, perhaps thats the charter in question.

[DeepC]

NW1, Jumpseater,

Thanks for the additional info.
Another element of doubt creeps into the assertion that Concorde has/has not landed at Hatfield!

Can this ever be conclusive I wonder.

Anyone at BA/ Air France like to stick their oar in? Or past/present pilots?

I'd love to hear some more proof one way or the other.
Who is Chris Orlebar? Depending on who he is it could be assumed that in writing a book on the subject he might have got some facts together.

So many questions!!

Thanks

DeepC

[PPRuNe Pop]

Chris Orlebar was in fact a Concorde pilot. His knowledge of the aircraft is not in question, and if he says Concorde visited Hatfield then I am sure it happened. His book is a good read too.

[newswatcher]

What does a "visit" constitute?

Does there have to be contact with the ground, or is a fly-past sufficient?

[DeepC]

An easy way to check what 'visit' constitutes in the eye of Chris Orlebar would be to check the appendix for places that it 'visited' and try to spot an airfield that it could not possibly have got into. One such airfield would be RAF Henlow which it 'visited' on an RAF open day in the late eighties/early nineties.

Anyone care to check? I must get hold of a copy of the book!

Thanks

DeepC

[jumpseater]

I had a quick trawl through the Hatfield Aerodrome book by Philip Birtles, no mention of it at all in there, as it would be so unusual I would expect there to be at least a small mention if it had arrived at any time. Therefore having worked there myself, and lived locally, I am certain it never landed at Hatfield, though lots of other interesting things did.

[???pax]

Pray tell jumpseater. I am also local to Hatfield and I would be intrigued to know what the other interesting things are.

[spekesoftly]

After a little research, I am reasonably confident that a BA Concorde did once make a 'touch and go' at Hatfield. The aircraft was postioning empty to Luton, prior to a 'Bay of Biscay' flight (mentioned earlier). It was by prior arrangement, and in connection with a Hatfield open day. The then Hatfield Aerodrome Manager
(a former Bae/HSA/De Havilland test pilot) had apparently asked the Concorde Captain to refrain from using re-heat until the aircraft was well above the runway, to minimise the risk of jet-blast removing large chunks of Hatfield's less than perfect runway surface!! :eek:

So just a very brief 'visit'. ;)

[DeepC]

Spekesoftly,

OK, A new possibility! A touch and go.

Any chance of giving us an insight into your 'research'?Being 'reasonably sure' leaves me at square one with the distinct possibility of having to buy someone a beer.

Your research and input is very much appreciated.

Thanks

DeepC

[spekesoftly]

DeepC,

Relax - If I'm wrong, I'll buy you both a beer!!! :D :D :D

[NW1]

Spekesoftly,

Just as a small footnote, we don't use reheat during a touch and go (or a normal go-around, even on 3 engines for that matter). We do on just the first standing-start takeoff for base training (empty-ish a/c), though and the acceleration is unbe-bloody-lievable!! No derated takeoffs here......

Brgds
NW1

[jumpseater]

Just re-vsited this thread, the runway damage from jet blast would I think be a bit of a red herring as Tornado's used to visit BAe dynamics (the nob nailers), quite regularly.

[forget]

An ex-Hatfield friend has sent me photographs of Concorde doing a roller at Hatfield. Does this count as a visit? Trouble is, I don't know how to post pickies! Anyone who does, please e-mail me and I'll send them on. You can then do the business.