Coffin corner - Concorde
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK mainly
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coffin corner - Concorde
Just reading on Coffin corner and I was wondering how did those designers get Concorde to fly so high without IT getting into that region and come to think of it how do designers get like a high flying bird (eg sr71) up there without it stalling or overspeeding at all - An amatuer pilot wonders....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dd- a simple answer!
'Coffin corner' is where by going a few knots slower you stall, and a few knots faster you exceed your limiting mach number and encounter severe 'compressibility' problems making it virtually impossible to descend without losing control. Concorde was flown at Mach 2 in the cruise (and the SR 71 a 'little bit' faster), so you would have to be VERY high to be anywhere near stall speed, even for those machines, at that Mach. Perhaps some fundi could tell us both the stall IAS of Concorde and the altitude at which this is equivalent to Mach2?
I recall an X-15 getting into a spin at Mach 7 but I guess that was a foot or two higher than Concorde
'Coffin corner' is where by going a few knots slower you stall, and a few knots faster you exceed your limiting mach number and encounter severe 'compressibility' problems making it virtually impossible to descend without losing control. Concorde was flown at Mach 2 in the cruise (and the SR 71 a 'little bit' faster), so you would have to be VERY high to be anywhere near stall speed, even for those machines, at that Mach. Perhaps some fundi could tell us both the stall IAS of Concorde and the altitude at which this is equivalent to Mach2?
I recall an X-15 getting into a spin at Mach 7 but I guess that was a foot or two higher than Concorde
dynamite dean
At slow speed, Concorde’s delta wing didn’t stall in the conventional sense, the drag just kept increasing as you slowed up, until you reached a speed where, even with full power applied, you only just had enough thrust to fly level. This speed, called the Zero Rate of Climb speed, VZRC, could, broadly speaking, be regarded and treated in the same way as the stalling speed on a conventional aircraft, that is, best avoided.
In order to stay well clear of VZRC, operationally another speed was used on Concorde, called the LOwest authorised speed, VLO, which was the slowest speed the aircraft was permitted to fly at.
At high speed, things were more conventional, however, in any significant Mach overspeed, it was likely that the nose Temperature Maximum Operating limit, TMO, of +127°C would be exceeded before any untoward aerodynamic effects were experienced.
Now, to put some numbers to it, at her maximum authorised altitude of 60,000 ft, Concorde cruised at M2.00, around 430 kts IAS. The high speed limit, MMO, was M2.04, around 440 kts IAS, and the low speed limit, VLO, was 300 kts, around M1.41.
How the designers did it, I don’t know, but they came up with a superb aircraft which, even at maximum altitude, had an indicated speed range of 140 knots or 0.63 Mach.
Coffin corner? More like coffin plateau!
BOAC
At a rough extrapolation, VLO, as an IAS, would be equal to M2.00 around 73,000 ft.
Far too high for someone trained at Hamble not Cranditz.
Regards
Bellerophon
At slow speed, Concorde’s delta wing didn’t stall in the conventional sense, the drag just kept increasing as you slowed up, until you reached a speed where, even with full power applied, you only just had enough thrust to fly level. This speed, called the Zero Rate of Climb speed, VZRC, could, broadly speaking, be regarded and treated in the same way as the stalling speed on a conventional aircraft, that is, best avoided.
In order to stay well clear of VZRC, operationally another speed was used on Concorde, called the LOwest authorised speed, VLO, which was the slowest speed the aircraft was permitted to fly at.
At high speed, things were more conventional, however, in any significant Mach overspeed, it was likely that the nose Temperature Maximum Operating limit, TMO, of +127°C would be exceeded before any untoward aerodynamic effects were experienced.
Now, to put some numbers to it, at her maximum authorised altitude of 60,000 ft, Concorde cruised at M2.00, around 430 kts IAS. The high speed limit, MMO, was M2.04, around 440 kts IAS, and the low speed limit, VLO, was 300 kts, around M1.41.
How the designers did it, I don’t know, but they came up with a superb aircraft which, even at maximum altitude, had an indicated speed range of 140 knots or 0.63 Mach.
Coffin corner? More like coffin plateau!
BOAC
At a rough extrapolation, VLO, as an IAS, would be equal to M2.00 around 73,000 ft.
Far too high for someone trained at Hamble not Cranditz.
Regards
Bellerophon
L'enfant Terrible
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The bar of Mumbles rugby club
Age: 42
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bellerophon, top explanation, thanks.
(Good Trafalgar reference as well).
I'm struggling to understand though how drag increased with decreasing speed on a delta wing. Would you mind elaborating?
(Good Trafalgar reference as well).
I'm struggling to understand though how drag increased with decreasing speed on a delta wing. Would you mind elaborating?
Any wing will develope more drag once the aircraft is deccelerated below Vimd (Velocity Indicated Minimum Drag). It's just more pronounced on a swept wing aircraft and particularly noticeable on a delta. The 'overspill' of the higher pressure air under the wing starts at the root on a swept wing creating a large vortex above the wing which generates masses of drag. However, this vortex (also known as the ram's horn vortex after it's shape) can be beneficial. The accelerated air in the vortex creates a lower pressure than would have normally been present and this extra lift allows the aircraft to fly slower. Deltas don't have flaps, but this vortex helps nicely. The only drawback is that you need masses of power to accelerate form such a slow speed.
Speaking from experience, the Victor Mk2 could reach FL500. The difference between the slow speed and high speed (Mach) buffet was only a few knots. The Victor's surplus of power allowed it to operate in this regeime.
Speaking from experience, the Victor Mk2 could reach FL500. The difference between the slow speed and high speed (Mach) buffet was only a few knots. The Victor's surplus of power allowed it to operate in this regeime.
Partly correct about the nature of detached vortices at high AoA with a 'slender delta' (i.e. Concorde), but a ram's horn vortex is a differnet beastie not merely associated with delta configurations. Movies of Concorde flying the approach on humid days show the vortex pattern quite clearly.
In the tin triangle, I don't recall any minimum speed at altitude apart from Vapp minus 5 when learning low speed handling quirks with an OCU QFI. Flying slowly at height could leave you unable to accelerate back to normal cruise speed if you flew too slowly. We found this out one day when 'Watt the Plot', our infamous Nav Plotter, requested a speed reduction in order to make a LL entry point time in the south of France after we'd encountered unusually strong winds. Back to 190 KIAS at FL410 for a while - then it wouldn't accelerate out of it even with max continuous. So the Capt sheepishly asked for an early descent and all was well again!
A shame that Skippy killed off your magnificent rocket ship so prematurely, Bellerophon!
In the tin triangle, I don't recall any minimum speed at altitude apart from Vapp minus 5 when learning low speed handling quirks with an OCU QFI. Flying slowly at height could leave you unable to accelerate back to normal cruise speed if you flew too slowly. We found this out one day when 'Watt the Plot', our infamous Nav Plotter, requested a speed reduction in order to make a LL entry point time in the south of France after we'd encountered unusually strong winds. Back to 190 KIAS at FL410 for a while - then it wouldn't accelerate out of it even with max continuous. So the Capt sheepishly asked for an early descent and all was well again!
A shame that Skippy killed off your magnificent rocket ship so prematurely, Bellerophon!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK mainly
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks!
Thanks to all especially B. One day when I grow up at get a job at an airline I will fire this question at the interviewee
Watchout Boac I applying in April 2006 just have to get out of Africa first!
Certainly smoothed over some theory there for me
Watchout Boac I applying in April 2006 just have to get out of Africa first!
Certainly smoothed over some theory there for me
BEagle
...A shame that Skippy killed off your magnificent rocket ship so prematurely...
Yes, sadly we are now just another Boeing Airline, with nothing left but happy memories. Still, it was a privilege to fly her.
Regards
Bellerophon
...A shame that Skippy killed off your magnificent rocket ship so prematurely...
Yes, sadly we are now just another Boeing Airline, with nothing left but happy memories. Still, it was a privilege to fly her.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: BCN
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another question...
Wich Was the VLO in a normal approach? (light weight at sea level, for example approaching to JFK after crossing the pond), the AoA on approach seems quite large!
and related...
The increase in drag at slower speeds have direct relation to the increase of AoA?
Thaks!
Wich Was the VLO in a normal approach? (light weight at sea level, for example approaching to JFK after crossing the pond), the AoA on approach seems quite large!
and related...
The increase in drag at slower speeds have direct relation to the increase of AoA?
Thaks!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK.. underworld
Age: 52
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coffins corner
Just a quick reply on the question a very good friend of mine .. Dynamite Dean asked about coffins corner and wing design..
As we know , the higher the aircraft flies the thinner the air gets and the more an aircrafts performance is affected..
This in short means that the thinner the air gets, the faster through the air you have to move your wing to produce the correct amount of lift for your aircraft at a given weight and configuration.
For example.. lets say you are cruising at M0.84 at FL370, you start your climb to FL410 at a constant mach number of 0.84.. in this case you will agree that your TAS is decreasing... eventually you will reach a piont where your mach cruise is not sufficient to produce enough lift for your wings, but you are at Mmo.. this is shortly what coffins corner is.. The U-2 had the worst coffins corner of them all, in a steady left turn at 70 000+ feet the airflow over the left wing will be slower than the airflow over the right wing.. this will result in the left wing going into a slow speed stall and the right wing approaching the high speed stall... this is one reason why the U-2 has such a great turning circle, with a coffins corner of only 5 knots, a steady hand was needed.
As far as your question about the wing design, you have to remember that it is vital to keep the wing tips inside the shock cone.. having a wingtip extend into the shock wave produced by the nose of the aircraft can cause serious buffet and tip stalling due to flow upset..
For this very reason the AVRO company when designing the Vulcan had to camber the wing tips to a more agressive angle to keep it inside the shock wave... the vulcan had a much larger delta span wise than the concorde if you compare wingspan to fuselarge length.. and a much thicker wing.. thus the vulcan would reach the Mmo much quicker than the Concorde, but its slow speed stall was retarded due to the low wing loading it had.
Hope this helps a bit..
As we know , the higher the aircraft flies the thinner the air gets and the more an aircrafts performance is affected..
This in short means that the thinner the air gets, the faster through the air you have to move your wing to produce the correct amount of lift for your aircraft at a given weight and configuration.
For example.. lets say you are cruising at M0.84 at FL370, you start your climb to FL410 at a constant mach number of 0.84.. in this case you will agree that your TAS is decreasing... eventually you will reach a piont where your mach cruise is not sufficient to produce enough lift for your wings, but you are at Mmo.. this is shortly what coffins corner is.. The U-2 had the worst coffins corner of them all, in a steady left turn at 70 000+ feet the airflow over the left wing will be slower than the airflow over the right wing.. this will result in the left wing going into a slow speed stall and the right wing approaching the high speed stall... this is one reason why the U-2 has such a great turning circle, with a coffins corner of only 5 knots, a steady hand was needed.
As far as your question about the wing design, you have to remember that it is vital to keep the wing tips inside the shock cone.. having a wingtip extend into the shock wave produced by the nose of the aircraft can cause serious buffet and tip stalling due to flow upset..
For this very reason the AVRO company when designing the Vulcan had to camber the wing tips to a more agressive angle to keep it inside the shock wave... the vulcan had a much larger delta span wise than the concorde if you compare wingspan to fuselarge length.. and a much thicker wing.. thus the vulcan would reach the Mmo much quicker than the Concorde, but its slow speed stall was retarded due to the low wing loading it had.
Hope this helps a bit..
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May i dare to change one thing in swampthings post which is the correlation between TAS and Mach. I think what you meant to say was IAS and Mach, since that is what the coffin corner charts are based on. The correlation between TAS and Mach is merely dependent on temperature and yes in an ideal atmosphere the temperature would go down between FL370 and FL410 so on constant Mach the TAS would decrease. But if we are talking northern hemisphere the tropopause would typically set in at an altitude equivalent of the FL's we are talking about now.
The IAS would decrease anyway and that's where Mmo starts going towers V(IAS)stall
The IAS would decrease anyway and that's where Mmo starts going towers V(IAS)stall
Someone mentioned the SR-71 in an earlier post. While not Concorde, this page from its operating handbook might help to clarify things.
The full manual is available here.
The full manual is available here.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THe Delta is a nifty high speed design, but terrible for low speed control ( speed unstable ) hence the need for an extra human on the COncorde flight deck to work the throttles - in case the analog autothrottles gave up.. We also saw an example of the delta low speed performace with the last fateful Concorde accident. Boeing recognised this commercially unacceptable penalty & went with the swing-wing on the SST baseline configuration which ended up on the the B-1 & F-111 bombers. But AirFOrce experiance was that a redundant autopilot weighed alot less than the clap trap & hugh swingwing bearing & led the Boeing sonic cruiser back to the delta configuration.. Boeing developed an integrated autothrottle - autopilot suite called "total-energy" that allowed pilots to fly in the "behind the power curve" speed unstable regime with docile speed stable - conventional characteristics .. Space Shuttle is also delta ..
used2flyboeing
...hence the need for an extra human on the COncorde flight deck to work the throttles...
What are you on about?
Concorde had a standard crew of three, a Capt, F/O and F/E.
On a non-autothrottle approach, the pilot flying handled his, or her, own throttles.
mighluss
…Wich Was the VLO in a normal approach…
VLO below 15,000 ft was V2 or VREF.
...increase in drag at slower speeds have direct relation to the increase of AoA?...
No, not if you mean direct relation in a mathematical sense.
The drag rise with increasing AoA was more exponential than linear.
Regards to both
Bellerophon
...hence the need for an extra human on the COncorde flight deck to work the throttles...
What are you on about?
Concorde had a standard crew of three, a Capt, F/O and F/E.
On a non-autothrottle approach, the pilot flying handled his, or her, own throttles.
mighluss
…Wich Was the VLO in a normal approach…
VLO below 15,000 ft was V2 or VREF.
...increase in drag at slower speeds have direct relation to the increase of AoA?...
No, not if you mean direct relation in a mathematical sense.
The drag rise with increasing AoA was more exponential than linear.
Regards to both
Bellerophon
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
used2flyboeing:
I've never been near one operationally, but I seem to recall hearing that the principal duties of the 'extra human' on the Concorde FD concerned shuffling the fuel load around the aircraft to maintain trim at M2.0...
R1
I've never been near one operationally, but I seem to recall hearing that the principal duties of the 'extra human' on the Concorde FD concerned shuffling the fuel load around the aircraft to maintain trim at M2.0...
R1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when I said extra-human I did not mean 4th crew member - I recall a BA flight instructor told me that the flight engineer or FO flew throttles w/autothrottle unavailable b/c it was Sooo speed unstable .. "a real hand full" ..
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Out of the pollution.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US AIRFORCE abandoned the swept wing design as it made to aircraft too heavy in Air to Air in the late 70's. F15 and F16 were the result.
AS much as I don't like Airbus, I think the Concorde worked fine with its wing. Swept wings were a neat idea, but not great in reality.
AS much as I don't like Airbus, I think the Concorde worked fine with its wing. Swept wings were a neat idea, but not great in reality.