Concorde v Concordski
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'curious sympathy towards Soviets'
There seems to have been a naivety about Stalin's intentions in places - on both sides of the Atlantic at all levels in 1945/6. He was still perceived as an ally by many.
The diaries of King George VI's Private Secretary, Tommy Lascelles, illustrate this. He had been to Oxford, so was well educated, and also seemed a reasonable judge of character as he wasn't impressed by the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor), but Tommy Lascelles seemed to accept Stalin at face value according to his diaries.
(However, on 2nd thoughts, I'm not sure about his standard of education. He thought a casualty rate of 5% on a bombing raid was reasonable - I hope he never took out a loan at compound interest!)
There seems to have been a naivety about Stalin's intentions in places - on both sides of the Atlantic at all levels in 1945/6. He was still perceived as an ally by many.
The diaries of King George VI's Private Secretary, Tommy Lascelles, illustrate this. He had been to Oxford, so was well educated, and also seemed a reasonable judge of character as he wasn't impressed by the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor), but Tommy Lascelles seemed to accept Stalin at face value according to his diaries.
(However, on 2nd thoughts, I'm not sure about his standard of education. He thought a casualty rate of 5% on a bombing raid was reasonable - I hope he never took out a loan at compound interest!)
One plan for Concorde was from London to Tokyo with stops at Moscow and somewhere in Siberia. This was a potentially lucrative business route.
However the failure of the TU 144 knocked this on the head as the Ruskies didn't want their people to see we had a successful SST when they did not. Also because of this they would not allow supersonic ops over Siberia which they'd previously indicated they would be amenable to.
However the failure of the TU 144 knocked this on the head as the Ruskies didn't want their people to see we had a successful SST when they did not. Also because of this they would not allow supersonic ops over Siberia which they'd previously indicated they would be amenable to.
Yes, it does. Britain displayed a curious sympathy towards Soviet Russia in the immediate post war years. Given that a few British double-agents were literally in bed with the U.S.S.R., it is not surprising that a great deal of what would otherwise be classified as national secrets were given away.
How much of Britain's rather limited talent (small country, not the greatest technical education programme) was tied up in making a marvel of technology with no commercial future?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can recommend 'Winkle' Brown's book on the M52. Brown, having been selected as pilot for the first supersonic flight in it, obviously had a lot of involvement including working with Miles and various Government agencies.
I won't say here what Brown's conclusions were about the cancellation and the handing of the data to the US as it would be a spoiler for anyone yet to read the book. Political intrigue is there of course, Whittle and Power Jets play a part, and an expensive side-show of unsuccessful radio controlled models (that ended up costing more than flying the M52 would have done, but which proved the M52 would almost certainly have done the job) were foisted onto the project by a rather 'difficult' Barnes Wallis.
The official reason for cancellation - that 'it was too dangerous a mission for the pilot', is effectively shot down by Brown as nonesense. Brown's teasing out (from his knowledge gained in meetings, and with personally knowing the main characters involved) of the probable real reason is fascinating.
The book is well worth a read!
By the way - TU144 and Concorde. TU144 was in no way a 'Concordski' (Copy of Concorde). If they'd copied it, they'd have got it right. The wing and in particular the intakes on the 144 were far from 'right', hence the fuel burn. The secret of Concorde's supercruise allowing very low fuel consumption at M2 and 60,000 ft is the intakes, mostly. Ted Talbot's book is well worth a read on that.
I won't say here what Brown's conclusions were about the cancellation and the handing of the data to the US as it would be a spoiler for anyone yet to read the book. Political intrigue is there of course, Whittle and Power Jets play a part, and an expensive side-show of unsuccessful radio controlled models (that ended up costing more than flying the M52 would have done, but which proved the M52 would almost certainly have done the job) were foisted onto the project by a rather 'difficult' Barnes Wallis.
The official reason for cancellation - that 'it was too dangerous a mission for the pilot', is effectively shot down by Brown as nonesense. Brown's teasing out (from his knowledge gained in meetings, and with personally knowing the main characters involved) of the probable real reason is fascinating.
The book is well worth a read!
By the way - TU144 and Concorde. TU144 was in no way a 'Concordski' (Copy of Concorde). If they'd copied it, they'd have got it right. The wing and in particular the intakes on the 144 were far from 'right', hence the fuel burn. The secret of Concorde's supercruise allowing very low fuel consumption at M2 and 60,000 ft is the intakes, mostly. Ted Talbot's book is well worth a read on that.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 2nd Feb 2015 at 09:58.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been able to park my ample but firm rear end on the sumptuous Soft grey leather seats just rear of the port side wing on Concord, I marveled at the feel of acceleration to reach the ability to throttle back so as not to blast eardrums of mere earthling looking like ants below us, but once high enough to pass over 2x Mount Everests I read that the air intakes at supercruise presented air to the engines as though it was only doing 300knts, all done with baffles and trapdoors..
I am sure somebody will be able to jump on me to correct this, for like my Winkle Brown book I cannot put my hand onto that Concord publication.
But to the rest of the World.."Eat ya heart out Baby", the Brits and the Froggys developed an aircraft that broke all records
Good Eh
Peter R-B
..Lancashire where the first Jet engine in the World was built, not copied!
I am sure somebody will be able to jump on me to correct this, for like my Winkle Brown book I cannot put my hand onto that Concord publication.
But to the rest of the World.."Eat ya heart out Baby", the Brits and the Froggys developed an aircraft that broke all records
Good Eh
Peter R-B
..Lancashire where the first Jet engine in the World was built, not copied!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're correct there. Peter. Mach 2 airflow, slowed to about 300kts at the engine face, and a great deal of energy extracted from slowing that air down converted directly into forward thrust - pressure recovery!
Above M1.3 the ramps were moved hydraulically by the intake computer (the only digital one on the aeroplane) to maintain the intake shocks in the right place. The combination of the intake shape, boundary layer diverter, and the computer control system and software that controls the ramps, is what the Russians (and the US with the B1 - read Ted's book) couldn't get right.
Above M1.7 the intakes were providing so much power that the afterburners could be switched off, and the aeroplane would continue to accelerate and climb to M2 at 60,000' in dry power. Only skin temps prevented higher speeds, and certification for dealing with the possibility of decompression of the cabin limited it to 60,000'.
What a fabulous aeroplane! I flew in it just once, but I did get the jump seat T/O to landing!
Above M1.3 the ramps were moved hydraulically by the intake computer (the only digital one on the aeroplane) to maintain the intake shocks in the right place. The combination of the intake shape, boundary layer diverter, and the computer control system and software that controls the ramps, is what the Russians (and the US with the B1 - read Ted's book) couldn't get right.
Above M1.7 the intakes were providing so much power that the afterburners could be switched off, and the aeroplane would continue to accelerate and climb to M2 at 60,000' in dry power. Only skin temps prevented higher speeds, and certification for dealing with the possibility of decompression of the cabin limited it to 60,000'.
What a fabulous aeroplane! I flew in it just once, but I did get the jump seat T/O to landing!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SSD
I was wowed out by the curvature of the Earth, with dark blue to black above and the most brilliant Azure blue below, and then Stars, no longer twinkling, no turbulence, only a slight bump when M2 was arrived at, quiet enough to hold a normal conversation I still cannot really believe we had that in the 1970's What a piece of Kit, after landing on the run out and taxi back I also remember seeing hundreds of faces all looking and waving at the A/c I was arriving in, what an experience..!! it will be in my mind till the lamps go out..
Peter R-B
Lancashire
I was wowed out by the curvature of the Earth, with dark blue to black above and the most brilliant Azure blue below, and then Stars, no longer twinkling, no turbulence, only a slight bump when M2 was arrived at, quiet enough to hold a normal conversation I still cannot really believe we had that in the 1970's What a piece of Kit, after landing on the run out and taxi back I also remember seeing hundreds of faces all looking and waving at the A/c I was arriving in, what an experience..!! it will be in my mind till the lamps go out..
Peter R-B
Lancashire
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did, but overstepped the mark by trying to build a mach 3 design, which actually turned out to be good thing in the end as the problems in building a commercial carrier which could get through the thermal barrier slowed them down long enough so that the low cost market become the established norm rather than the jet set and captains of industry market that originally drove the design for Concorde.
Actually they were fairly clear from early on that the US SST would be titanium based to avoid stagnation temp issues. The side effect of that was they were looking at a 600,000lb AUW.
The basis of the protests against Concorde on either side of the pond was primarily sonic booms. Research from Langley into the kind of overpressure that would result from a 600,000lb aircraft at M3 told them that the public would never accept it. The USAF was already paying several million in compensation for sonic boom damage back in the early 60s from small fighters.
The administration eventually pulled the plug rather than face the growing political opposition.
Actually they were fairly clear from early on that the US SST would be titanium based to avoid stagnation temp issues. The side effect of that was they were looking at a 600,000lb AUW.
The basis of the protests against Concorde on either side of the pond was primarily sonic booms. Research from Langley into the kind of overpressure that would result from a 600,000lb aircraft at M3 told them that the public would never accept it. The USAF was already paying several million in compensation for sonic boom damage back in the early 60s from small fighters.
The administration eventually pulled the plug rather than face the growing political opposition.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will be in my mind till the lamps go out..
I remember taxying out at Manchester for 24 (as it was then) past the Airport Hotel, its back garden packed with people who'd come to see the beautiful white bird, all waving like mad. The crew were too busy to wave back, so I did as I was seated next to the cockpit side window, just behind the captain. They were jumping up and down and the waving was manic!
We were only going to Paris (via Biscay for M2 and 60,000') so were lightweight. The acceleration zero to 250 mph on the runway was sensational - well under 30 seconds to rotation! Soon after T/O the nose and visor were raised, and the cockpit became eerily quiet. We were on a Brecon SID cruising down over central Wales at M0.95 (even subsonic she was quick!). I remember looking out of the front windows at about 50,000' and seeing the Severn Estuary lined in bright yellow (the beaches), Devon and Cornwall beyond, and the Channel in the distance. If was a lovely August day in 1999 and the few cu clouds so far below they looked like white splodges on the ground. I heard in my headset "Speedbird 123 if you look up now you will see you are about to be overflown by Concorde". I looked out and down and Speedbird 123 was a little minnow scurrying over the landscape far, far below us.
M2 was a non event - no bumps or bangs, just rock solid quiet smoothness, with that black sky, dark blue lower, and the curvature of the Earth. And all the pax coming forward for a look at the amazingly complex analogue flight deck (it is an old aeroplane!).
Power off, height maintained for the decel, approaching Cherbourg subsonic and descending, the wakes of the ferries in and out the port looking like white chalk marks on a blackboard.
Cabin secure, three thumps as the gear went down (4 greens - Concorde has a tailwheel!) coming down the ILS it looked like the sort of power-off steep approach I favor in the Chipmunk, but it was 3 degrees of course; it just looked steeper because of the high alpha required to make that lovely wing produce lots of vortex lift at 185 kts approach speed.
We greased onto CDG's runway, the nose wheel was landed, the captain applied full forward stick as reverse was selected which, along with the super-powerful carbon brakes had us vacating at an exit I'd though far to close for us to use as we swung out over the grass being about 40' in front of the nose wheel. Then that strange bouncy ride (that 40' overhang again) to the gate and shut-down.
Wow! As you say, it'll be etched in my mind 'till the lights go out!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 12th Feb 2015 at 11:47.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once fortunate enough to be seated on G-BOAG from Heathrow to Barbados (& back).
Heathrow was in cold, grey & dismal November. Barbados was 5(?) time-zones away, and tropical: and all I'd done was have an excellent lunch. Maybe with more wine.
The overwhelming feeling on arrival (because it was only then that exactly how far we'd travelled finally sank in) was, why aren't there hundreds of these things around: why do we bother with anything else? (though I think the normal airfare may have had something to do with it)
Heathrow was in cold, grey & dismal November. Barbados was 5(?) time-zones away, and tropical: and all I'd done was have an excellent lunch. Maybe with more wine.
The overwhelming feeling on arrival (because it was only then that exactly how far we'd travelled finally sank in) was, why aren't there hundreds of these things around: why do we bother with anything else? (though I think the normal airfare may have had something to do with it)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when Concorde entered service the feeling was "yes, it's only 100 seats, it's noisy (from the outside), it's expensive to fly on, range of only just over 4,000 miles but it's amazing. A couple of SST generations down the line from this, UK to Spain will be an hour, Australia a handful of hours. Everyone will fly supersonic. It's the future".
Unfortunately it didn't happen and in the second half of the second decade of the 21st century it takes as long to get to New York as it did in the 1950s.
Between 1976 and 2003 it took 3 hours.
Unfortunately it didn't happen and in the second half of the second decade of the 21st century it takes as long to get to New York as it did in the 1950s.
Between 1976 and 2003 it took 3 hours.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter-RB
By birth and upbringing, I'm a Brit too. I look back, with sadness and maybe a little bitterness, at the decline of Britain after WW II, and think of several reasons. One, of course, is the bankrupting of Britain by the war, the result of a conscious decision by Churchill (the right decision, by the way) and various actions by the US, a combination of anti-Imperialism and Anglophobia. Perhaps it was easier for Churchill to take a broad view of "the English-speaking peoples" because he was, after all, half American.
A dreadfully inadequate system of technical education, which made it very much second best to humanities subjects (I studied humanities myself, no sour grapes).
A very destructive rigidity in the class system, which explains both the poor standing of technical education, and the state of warfare that existed within industry a lot of the time.
Appallingly inept management. How did Britain lose a whole car industry?
Appallingly negative and destructive trades unionism.
A failure to come to terms with reality: in aviation, far too many prototypes and not enough concentration on getting one or two things right. And a hopeless desire to keep up with an imperial past, and an industrial pre-eminence that was gone by the second half of the nineteenth century. Why was France's aviation industry so successful, when Britain's struggled, at best?
In the face of all this, although it's certain that some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party were communist agents (as were, doubtless, some members of the Conservatives), you don't need conspiracy theories to explain the decline.
Goodness gracious,
I never thought anyone in (or from)NZ would ever make sour comments like that about us "Good ole Brits"
I never thought anyone in (or from)NZ would ever make sour comments like that about us "Good ole Brits"
A dreadfully inadequate system of technical education, which made it very much second best to humanities subjects (I studied humanities myself, no sour grapes).
A very destructive rigidity in the class system, which explains both the poor standing of technical education, and the state of warfare that existed within industry a lot of the time.
Appallingly inept management. How did Britain lose a whole car industry?
Appallingly negative and destructive trades unionism.
A failure to come to terms with reality: in aviation, far too many prototypes and not enough concentration on getting one or two things right. And a hopeless desire to keep up with an imperial past, and an industrial pre-eminence that was gone by the second half of the nineteenth century. Why was France's aviation industry so successful, when Britain's struggled, at best?
In the face of all this, although it's certain that some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party were communist agents (as were, doubtless, some members of the Conservatives), you don't need conspiracy theories to explain the decline.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD: Thanks for the Eric Brown book recommendation!
A few years ago I won a signed book on Concorde in an Aeroplane magazine competition, dead chuffed as I never win anything!
A few years ago I won a signed book on Concorde in an Aeroplane magazine competition, dead chuffed as I never win anything!
I remember taxying out at Manchester for 24 (as it was then) past the Airport Hotel, its back garden packed with people who'd come to see the beautiful white bird, all waving like mad. The crew were too busy to wave back, so I did as I was seated next to the cockpit side window, just behind the captain. They were jumping up and down and the waving was manic!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SSD,
Good picture, I was surprised upon seeing those Ram Horns, I thought they would have been a more normal(if thats the word) type of hand operated joystick, but the Captain I spoke with on my school boyish type visit to the pointed end replied they were quiet comfortable to work with.
In your picture were you turning to S/B the AH says you were tilting, or was it switched off.
Also a question I didn't ask when there looking at all those analogue dials was, where on the instrument panel was the ASi,? and can it be seen in your picture.
what an aircraft..more really, it was a piece of flying Art, I think ranking with the icons of flying such as the Spitfire, Phantom, Lightening, Hunter, Typhoon, but thats just my thoughts....a great loss to have scrapped and withdrawn it.
Peter R-B
Good picture, I was surprised upon seeing those Ram Horns, I thought they would have been a more normal(if thats the word) type of hand operated joystick, but the Captain I spoke with on my school boyish type visit to the pointed end replied they were quiet comfortable to work with.
In your picture were you turning to S/B the AH says you were tilting, or was it switched off.
Also a question I didn't ask when there looking at all those analogue dials was, where on the instrument panel was the ASi,? and can it be seen in your picture.
what an aircraft..more really, it was a piece of flying Art, I think ranking with the icons of flying such as the Spitfire, Phantom, Lightening, Hunter, Typhoon, but thats just my thoughts....a great loss to have scrapped and withdrawn it.
Peter R-B
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds oddly familiar, did you write the trip up for Pilot magazine?
Peter - the aircraft was in a left turn. The ASIs are quite big on Concorde, with the smaller mach meters below.
I always tell visitors to G-BOAC that that wonderful shape is purely the result of the job the aircraft had to do - no part of it came from any stylist's pen - it's form following function which is why it still looks as good today as it ever did. Art in its purest form.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightless P,
To a great extent I feel all Brits of around your and my age will also agree with many of the things you say, I am a product of the returning Service men from the WW2 era, my old Dad was ex Raf and when home at last decides he was going to work for himself, which he did all his life, to some extent people of my age are really the last of the Dinosaurs Baby Boomers, we can still see Icons of the past (read Relics) and we can see a brave new World in the future (from now on) the fifties and Sixties, were really 20 years of mixed and valueless problems caused in my mind by a sad situation caused by "Them and us attitudes" the Political jealousies of the Left always blaming the right being stirred up by the sad bastards who did betray our country by taking the communist shilling, but generating unrest that, allowed by very weak politicians lost such gems as our Car and Lorry, ships and Aircraft building companies to fall by the wayside due to communist inspired and funded Unions. I doubt we (the Brits) will ever know just how much we paid to the US for their help in WW2
I am happy with my lot, but I fear for my Grandchildren, for despite what we have had, standards, and the ethos of what we call normal life does seem to be changing..sadly not for the better.
But without causing to great an insult, will Iraq,Syria Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia and all the other failed states that have been militarily helped, by the US, UK and varied EU countries make any repayments for our lost souls, efforts and hardware given, and used, as it seems the UK paid to the US for their help in WW2..? is there ever a profit to be had from War and Conflict, well if you look Westwards I would say "Yes" there is sadly.
To a great extent I feel all Brits of around your and my age will also agree with many of the things you say, I am a product of the returning Service men from the WW2 era, my old Dad was ex Raf and when home at last decides he was going to work for himself, which he did all his life, to some extent people of my age are really the last of the Dinosaurs Baby Boomers, we can still see Icons of the past (read Relics) and we can see a brave new World in the future (from now on) the fifties and Sixties, were really 20 years of mixed and valueless problems caused in my mind by a sad situation caused by "Them and us attitudes" the Political jealousies of the Left always blaming the right being stirred up by the sad bastards who did betray our country by taking the communist shilling, but generating unrest that, allowed by very weak politicians lost such gems as our Car and Lorry, ships and Aircraft building companies to fall by the wayside due to communist inspired and funded Unions. I doubt we (the Brits) will ever know just how much we paid to the US for their help in WW2
I am happy with my lot, but I fear for my Grandchildren, for despite what we have had, standards, and the ethos of what we call normal life does seem to be changing..sadly not for the better.
But without causing to great an insult, will Iraq,Syria Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia and all the other failed states that have been militarily helped, by the US, UK and varied EU countries make any repayments for our lost souls, efforts and hardware given, and used, as it seems the UK paid to the US for their help in WW2..? is there ever a profit to be had from War and Conflict, well if you look Westwards I would say "Yes" there is sadly.
Allegedly a lady said to Sir George Edwards after one of the early Concorde passenger test flights:
"But Sir George, it's just like any other aeroplane."
To which he replied:
"That, madam, was the difficult part!"
If it's not true it deserves to be.
"But Sir George, it's just like any other aeroplane."
To which he replied:
"That, madam, was the difficult part!"
If it's not true it deserves to be.
scotbill.
"As long as grandma doesn't spill her G & T when an engine surges at M2."
Or something like that.
"As long as grandma doesn't spill her G & T when an engine surges at M2."
Or something like that.