Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Concorde chasing

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Concorde chasing

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 16:14
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 192
Received 42 Likes on 15 Posts
B Fraser

Unfortunately not. Concorde servicing costs in BA days before the accident were well over 20 MMh/Fh and rising. Rolls Royce military engines division was one of the top 10 BA suppliers by cost... (for the fleet of about 30 reheated Olympus- the RB211's etc were in the civil division and costed separately.)

The thing was built like a 50's/60's military aircraft design and they leaked on the ground in much the same way.

Still bloody impressive though, and generated a lot more supersonic flight hours than the world's militaries.

N
Bengo is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 16:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE
In late July 2004 she was dismantled and began her journey to her new home in Scotland. IVGTS are carrying out a full restoration and treating corrosion before putting her back together as a gate guard within the foyer of their main building.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. She stands proudly on a concrete plinth outside the factory in full view of the North Sea helicopter crews on their way into Aberdeen!

Apologies for the thread drift
Wizzard is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:52
  #23 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 954
Received 365 Likes on 217 Posts
Bengo,

Of course there was a maintenance schedule however I was referring to a turn-around between same-day supersonic cruises i.e. they did not require a trip to the hangar. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

(I was also being slightly flippant as fresh newspapers would also be required on-board.)

B Fraser is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 19:23
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,335
Received 81 Likes on 33 Posts
The Lightning intercept at Post #6

I know Mike "SID" Hale well and I can confirm that he hired an electric floor polisher and used it to polish his aluminium aircraft (no paint) all over with it. I confirmed this fact through his Mrs who also had helped him prep the jet for the attempt. Don't forget, this is well before today's "Elf and Safety" madness!

SID was short for SIDITIO and stood for "Seen It Done It Ticked It Off" - and he had, jumping out of various jets (and halfway out of one!), landing on Swinderby's short runway in Lightning after his weather divert had clagged in... to name but a few. He was awarded an MBE last year for his services to aviation before he retired. When He retired he had over 4,000hrs on various Air Defence aircraft and even more 'ear offence' with his stories! He was also a keen glider pilot that probably came useful on the Lighning

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:33
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gullible !

I've read the SID story many times and I have to laugh- first off in 1985 there were only two silver un painted Lightnings in UK - one at Warton and One at ETPS. So quite how SID polished his camouflaged F3 I'm not sure- also the paint was applied by roller brush - no joke. The internal fuel of the F3 was around 7000lbs there is no way you could do an intercept on Concorde doing Mach 2.2 and roll out behind it and overtake it sorry but its all BS - Most Lightnings in 1985 would do about Mach 1.8 at a push and no one I knew ever went above 70,000 feet - but who knows

Last edited by Scruffy Fanny; 22nd Jan 2013 at 20:33.
Scruffy Fanny is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:41
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,909
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Fun discussion - just a small tidbit: the Concorde was performance limited by it's "artificially" designated max altitude of 60'000 ft (in order to give some survival chance to the paxs in case of decompression). As is it was capable of M2.3 and 70'000 ft without problem (and probably much better fuel efficiency). I would think that a "militarized" version, assuming some optimizations, could most probably get M2.5+ / 80'000 ft. Not the SR71 but darn close.
atakacs is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:45
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,335
Received 81 Likes on 33 Posts
SF

Fair enough, you have WIWOL time, I don't. You're right SID does tell a good yarn, but it was his Mrs who told me at a DI Night, so I took this as corroboration!

I did M2.15 in a clean Tornado F3 with OC Ops from CGY around 1993/4 - it had just come from the factory and had no launcher rails. Even that would not be good enough for a stern conversion on Concorde at max chat.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:48
  #28 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,434
Received 1,594 Likes on 731 Posts
Most Lightnings in 1985 would do about Mach 1.8 at a push and no one I knew ever went above 70,000 feet - but who knows
Only a controller, but watched a Mirage IV doing M2+ intercepted by an F3 doing a stern intercept in 1976. Call me a liar if you wish. But I was there.

I was also a controller at Boulmer just before the Lightning went out of service and when they were trying to see how high they could go. Measured using the HF200 we had many who exceeded 70K+, and a few beyond.

Call me and the guys who flew them liars. I believe the evidence of my own eyes.
ORAC is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FACTS

LJ - I'm just trying to keep the facts correct!! Yes SID told a good yarn I'd love to hear about how he almost ejected from an F3 by accident !!!!- The ADV and LTG were quite different the ADV in my opinion was pretty awesome from sea level to about 5000 - sit at 300kts select max reheat and it would effortlessly accelerate to 900 Kts - no noise just a smooth ride. The Lightning would accelerate like crazy to 500 kts then frankly it all got a bit scarey ! Because most of them were so bent as you went past 500kts the ball started to drift out and you ended up with a whole boot full of rudder on and a load of aileron to fly straight. I flew a couple of silver Lightnings before they were painted and they were much faster and smoother. there was a pilot who flew quite high near the end of the lightning on an air test and the canopy seal blew- it's only a bit of thin rubber and then 20 years old !!! - besides in the 1960s they wore the tailor Baxter pressure suits in the 1980s all you had was a Mk3 bone dome and a P or Q mask - so just for the record despite what wicked idea says I take the story about XR749 going into orbit at Mach 2.8 with a very large pinch of salt !!!
The Lightning was a great aircraft but the F3/ ADV was a lot less scarey - next thing I expect is Sharkey telling us he could Viff his Sea Jet behind a Mach 2.0 Concorde !!!
Scruffy Fanny is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 21:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


Leon, mate,

when Mrs Sid said she polished her old mans rocket ship, she didn't mean his rocket ship....
glad rag is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 22:56
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fun discussion - just a small tidbit: the Concorde was performance limited by it's "artificially" designated max altitude of 60'000 ft (in order to give some survival chance to the paxs in case of decompression).
Have you got a source reference for that? As it was explained to me, once Concorde was supersonic, she was left in full dry power and was allowed to naturally gain altitude as fuel weight burned off. I don't think 60k was mentioned as a limitation as the height it would hit would be a matter of atmospheric conditions.
Pitts2112 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 01:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pitts2112

Concorde used reheat to accelerate from M0.95 up to M1.70, when they were switched off and full dry climb/cruise power took her up to M2.00.

Once at M2.00, with the power setting unchanged, she drifted up (and sometimes down) as the OAT changed and her weight burned off, with pitch controlling her speed at M2.00.

FL600 was her maximum permitted altitude in commercial service - normally only reached on LHR-BGI sectors - and this was a Flying Manual limitation, although it was well known the aircraft had been much higher (and faster) during test flying.

There was one Concorde co-pilot I flew with - ex Lightnings, ETPS and BBC documentary - who might have an informed opinion about what could have caught her or shot her down, but frankly the rest of us wouldn't have a clue!

Best Regards

Bellerophon
Bellerophon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 01:53
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,909
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Have you got a source reference for that? As it was explained to me, once Concorde was supersonic, she was left in full dry power and was allowed to naturally gain altitude as fuel weight burned off. I don't think 60k was mentioned as a limitation as the height it would hit would be a matter of atmospheric conditions.
My understanding is that the ultimate limiting factor was heat, with a limit at 127C for the nose. There was indeed a "sweet spot" around FL60 / M2.02 but with extremely cold atmospheric conditions the plane would continue to gain speed and altitude above the max allowable ceiling which was definitely 60000 ft. If memory serve the highest speed recorded was with prototype 101 at M2.23 and highest altitude 68000 ft. I'm pretty sure that these figures could have been improved for a military declination of the design.

Last edited by atakacs; 23rd Jan 2013 at 01:59.
atakacs is online now  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 06:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 77
Posts: 13,226
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I find the story at post 6 intriguing to say the least.

XR749 was an F3. I have a fair amount of time on the F3.

"overhauling Concorde at 57,000 ft at M2.2"



Perhaps BOAC and/or newt would care to add a comment or two.
Lightning Mate is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 07:40
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dennis Tuck, in his book "From The Piper Cub To The Concorde Sst", writes the following on page 12:

"... we flew the entire flight envelope from the minimum speeds to 565 knots equivalent airspeed, and Mach 2.17, from sea level to 65,000 feet altitude where the combinations were appropriate. The approved range was 530 knots, Mach 2.04 and 60,000 feet altitude."
hval is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 07:51
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 77
Posts: 13,226
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I presume Mr. Tuck is talking about Concorde.
Lightning Mate is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 12:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fiction

LM - I'm glad you agree re post 6
It's just fiction - lots of the facts don't add up - to do a stern conversion on Concorde and overtaken it doing Mach 2.2 would have used up most of the North Sea and the F3s meagre fuel - I think Fireball XL5 might have hacked it but even the mighty Lightning .....,
Scruffy Fanny is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 12:54
  #38 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,434
Received 1,594 Likes on 731 Posts
It's just fiction - lots of the facts don't add up - to do a stern conversion on Concorde and overtaken it doing Mach 2.2
Seen it done by a Wattisham F3 against a Mirage IV at M2.0 back in 74/75. IIRC the pilot was Dave F****r.
ORAC is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 13:09
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Argentina
Age: 48
Posts: 132
Received 45 Likes on 13 Posts
"I presume Mr. Tuck is talking about Concorde."

Probably a wingless Piper Cub dropped from the Space Station could reach Mach 2.17 or higher.
Marcantilan is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2013, 13:12
  #40 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,434
Received 1,594 Likes on 731 Posts
Probably a wingless Piper Cub dropped from the Space Station could reach Mach 2.17 or higher.
I believe a winged one dropped from the Space Station would reach the same velocity. It would just dispense with them along the way.....
ORAC is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.