Concord[e]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concord[e]
At an interesting and very well presented lecture at the Cheltenham Festival of Science, the speaker [an ex Concorde Captain] seemed to be saying that:-
{a} If an engine failed it was standard practice to assume that the [very]adjacent one would soon also fail
{b} With the lower flight levels necessitated by having two engines out, Concorde would not always have the range required to cross the Atlantic Ocean and touch down somewhere on land
{c} Despite the brilliance/superb engineering of Concorde, its sheer complexity meant that systems failures of one kind or another were by no means uncommon during a flight
Am I to understand from the foregoing that pilots and flight engineers routinely flew Concorde knowing that if one of the engines failed there was a very real chance of having to ditch in the Atlantic ? If this is so, perhaps the current extended ETOPS debate is more understandable to one such as me who will always do what he can to avoid a twin engined flight over extensive distances of water. [ I have been flying as a passenger for 44 years now ]
P.S. On a different subject it was notable how much recognition and praise was given by the speaking Captain to the contribution of the Flight Engineer. I think he said Concorde might have been better if there had been two seats for Flight Engineers and only one for a pilot! Even though this was probably a little tongue in cheek, it was nice to hear.
I always regretted the day the Flight Engineer was deemed superfluous by the vast majority of airlines and I always felt that little bit safer when in days of old I was taking an early series 747 than I do now when for leisure purposes I regularly take the "engineerless" 400 series.
{a} If an engine failed it was standard practice to assume that the [very]adjacent one would soon also fail
{b} With the lower flight levels necessitated by having two engines out, Concorde would not always have the range required to cross the Atlantic Ocean and touch down somewhere on land
{c} Despite the brilliance/superb engineering of Concorde, its sheer complexity meant that systems failures of one kind or another were by no means uncommon during a flight
Am I to understand from the foregoing that pilots and flight engineers routinely flew Concorde knowing that if one of the engines failed there was a very real chance of having to ditch in the Atlantic ? If this is so, perhaps the current extended ETOPS debate is more understandable to one such as me who will always do what he can to avoid a twin engined flight over extensive distances of water. [ I have been flying as a passenger for 44 years now ]
P.S. On a different subject it was notable how much recognition and praise was given by the speaking Captain to the contribution of the Flight Engineer. I think he said Concorde might have been better if there had been two seats for Flight Engineers and only one for a pilot! Even though this was probably a little tongue in cheek, it was nice to hear.
I always regretted the day the Flight Engineer was deemed superfluous by the vast majority of airlines and I always felt that little bit safer when in days of old I was taking an early series 747 than I do now when for leisure purposes I regularly take the "engineerless" 400 series.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the implication might have been if you had a serious destructive engine failure you were in trouble with the damage possibly being caused to the adjacent engine.
Taking Paris 2000 out of the loop, Concorde and quite a few engine fires over the years in one form or another and the nacelle centre wall did what is was designed to do. Only on one occasion, at least in the UK, did the centre wall need to be replaced.
In 2003 AF suffered a blade out with no damage to the adjacent engine.
Taking Paris 2000 out of the loop, Concorde and quite a few engine fires over the years in one form or another and the nacelle centre wall did what is was designed to do. Only on one occasion, at least in the UK, did the centre wall need to be replaced.
In 2003 AF suffered a blade out with no damage to the adjacent engine.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct in thinking that a Concorde with 2 engines out would have much reduced range.........
...and if a double failure like that happened, then there was a very high chance the aircraft would not be able to make it to its destination....however the atlantic route flown was carefully planned so as there was always a suitable airfield within the 2 engine inop range at all times.......Typically, Shannon, Santa Maria (Azores) and Gander.
Ditching any large transport aircraft is very dangerous......ditching a Concorde would likely result in certain death to all involved.
It was progress in technology that caused the demise of the Flight Engineer although of course the airlines didn't complain.
...and if a double failure like that happened, then there was a very high chance the aircraft would not be able to make it to its destination....however the atlantic route flown was carefully planned so as there was always a suitable airfield within the 2 engine inop range at all times.......Typically, Shannon, Santa Maria (Azores) and Gander.
Ditching any large transport aircraft is very dangerous......ditching a Concorde would likely result in certain death to all involved.
It was progress in technology that caused the demise of the Flight Engineer although of course the airlines didn't complain.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concord[e]
Thank you gordonroxburgh. Glad to learn that a nacelle centre wall needed to be replaced on only one occasion in the U.K.
Thank you also booke23. Very glad to know that there was always a suitable airfield within 2 inop range.
Thank you also booke23. Very glad to know that there was always a suitable airfield within 2 inop range.
