Concorde's Last Flight (Merged)

[M2dude]

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

[M2dude]

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

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

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

[M2dude]

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

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

[M2dude]

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

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

[Mike7777777]

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

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

[M2dude]

Concorde Avionics

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

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

[Flying Lawyer]

Two icons of the 20th Century lost forever.

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

[JEM60]

Lovely pic. What memories and thoughts this must stir.

[M2dude]

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

[PPRuNe Pop]

The thoughts and feelings that pic provokes are heart breaking.

[M2dude]

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

[Mike7777777]

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

The point I was not making very well was that complete replacement of the control system is an approach that fully resolves issues of control system supportability with the potential for budgetary control and achieving progamme dates that does not exist with a piecemeal reactive approach, but that the real issues might be the interface with existing, retained systems and certification, particularly if the goal is to fly in the UK for 2012 as per #25 (this seems optimistic ... ) Currently many unknowns, not least the condition and performance of existing systems,

[M2dude]

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

[Mike7777777]

M2dude, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a British Concorde, or even a French Concorde, I thought they were all Anglo-French

but apart from the possible worry about power contactor condition, the rest of the airplane should 'fire up' without too much of a problem

Interesting, how do you know this?

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

[BOAC73]

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

[M2dude]

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

Interesting, how do you know this?

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

[Vitesse]

M2Dude,

Do you have any photos of the production line?

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

[Mike7777777]

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

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

[M2dude]

Vitesse:

Do you have any photos of the production line?

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

None to hand I'm afraid, but I'll certainly dig around and let you know what I find. If you remember from your visit, it was not so much a producion line as a jigsaw puzzle. (There would be a high build and a low build jig, as well as a smaller jig between them, where wing sections were assembled. The low build is where the fuselage and inner wing sections were assebled, passing to the high build jig for fitment of undercarriage and powerplant). All of this mayhem was confined to the centre bay of the Brabazon Hangar.
One of the amusing things about the Filton producion line was that the aircraft never went into a paint shop as such before flight, but were progessively painted throughout production, during overnight sessions in the assembly hangar. (The area would be closed to any other activity that night for obvious reasons). The fuselage and fin were painted first and gradually the wings and engine intakes also. The PROBLEM with this series of rolling paint jobs was that because each aircraft took several months to build, by the time construction was at an advanced stage, some of the earlier painting needed retouching, leaving the 'final' paint job a little patchy at times.
MIKE:

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

A little pointless swipe, now play nice dear.
And for your information sir, an aircraft was 'revived', in the mid 80's after being stood down for over 3 years. Agreed, not 7 years, but still a long period of systems inactivity.
I gave my professional opinion, that is all, where you made no point at all sir.

[Vitesse]

Thanks M2Dude.

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

I did some googling and found this CONCORDE SST : EVENTS: Page 1

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

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