Concorde question

[paulc]

After the Air France incident at Washington DC in 1979 where events similar to those that caused the Paris crash occurred, did BA install any extra protection to the fuel tanks. Ie skin doublers in the most vulnerable areas?

[EASAPARTACADEMY]

Originally Posted by M2dude

Point taken GF, but it was discovered during development flying that that the Olympus 593 could be relit, given sufficient IAS, at almost any altitude within the normal flight envelope. The variable inlet would even be automatically scheduled, as a funcion of N1, in order to improve relight performance at lower Mach numbers. I certainly agree that you would decelerate and lose altitude fairly quickly under these conditions, however a multiple flame out was never experienced during the entire 34 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation. There was, as a matter of interest an un-commanded deployment of a Concorde RAT AT MACH 2!! (The first indications of the event were when the cabin crew complained about 'a loud propeller sound under the rear cabin floor'. A quick scan of the F/E's panel revealed the truth of the matter). The aircraft landed at JFK without incident, and the RAT itself, apart from a very small leak on one of the hydraulic pumps, was more or less un-phased by the event. Although it sounds horrific, a prop rotating in a Mach 2 airstream, the IAS it 'felt' would be no more than 530 KTS at any time. The RAT was of course replaced before the aircraft flew back to LHR.
Not quite sure about your reference to the RAT on an F16 being Hydrazine powered; a Ram Air Turbine is just that, using the freely rotatting propellor to power hydraulics, electrics or both. Or do you mean the the F16 has an emergency power unit? Either way, it's fascinating stuff.
Yes, I do remember that the Germans used Hydrazine as a fuel during WW2: The father of one of our Concorde pilots was on an air raid to destroy one o the production plants there, this aviation business is such a small world.

Thanks for the reply, Concorde expertise is always interesting. I should not have called the F-16 Emergency Power Unit a RAT, it is indeed not. The Concorde RAT was located aft between the engine pods, correct?

What I found interesting is that the AC generators would remain on-line at all; they drop instantaneously at subsonic speeds and the associated N2 rpm. I believe the hydraulics on the 747 will power flight controls down to a pretty low IAS.

Four engine flameout is a very unlikely event, unless one runs into a volcanic cloud.

[Speedbird223]

What an amazing thread, thank you for all the contributors....I've been reading through it for the last week as I pass about the half way point!

I'm just SLF with a huge interest and passion for Concorde and was lucky to bag a LHR-JFK flight in 2002 as an 18th birthday present. One of the contributors here in the left seat as it happens...At that time it was before the retirement announcement and I just assumed for my next NYC trip I'd be able to get onboard...

I grew up in North Hampshire and went to school in West Berkshire. My school was on a hill just west of Reading and our morning break would coincide with the BA001. I could sit outside the library that faced eastwards and watch the familiar shape materialize as it came from the Woodley NDB and went right overhead enroute to the Compton VOR. It never got old and caused much amusement when the Heathrow chaplain came to do a sermon one Sunday and was interrupted by the aircraft

Home was under the path of the inbound BA002/BA004 and would always listen for the distinctive sound and head to the garden...and if I happened to be in the area of Heathrow within 30mins or so of a Concorde arrival or departure my father would always suggest stopping by for a look. One of my very earliest memories was sitting high on the white fence by Avis on the North Perimeter Road and watching one land, this would have been late 1980s....

We had a Concorde captain in the neighbouring village that my parents were friendly with. In 1996 he took my Christopher Orlebar book to NYC for a roundtrip getting it signed by the crew in both directions and then gave me all the Jeppesens, flight paperwork and a whole host of passenger "items" that I treasured, and still do. That really sowed the seed for 12yr old me to *really* find a way to get onboard...(and those 250 tier points and 14,000 BA miles were the first entry on my Executive Club account as I couldn't join until I was 18! All downhill from there!)

Anyways, this Concorde captain was by all accounts a bit of a legend so I'm sure those of you insiders knew him. I recall one Sunday afternoon, this would have been late 1990s, I looked out the living room window and saw a BA Concorde at low level, banked streaking across the sky maybe a mile away, a quite incredible sight. It turned out that this local Captain was doing one of the round the bay charters and got ATC permission to do a little tour of North Hampshire. A couple of acquaintances from the village played tennis every Sunday at this specific time and had complained about aircraft noise to him. Well, what better way to piss them off than to do a low buzz of their tennis club... A year or so later he moved a little further south and opened up the village fete in similar fashion. He retired from BA after the 2000 grounding and the last I heard he was flying a large maroon business jet...that business jet being one of the Qatar Amiri 747SPs...

A question, finally! I now live fairly close to JFK and the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known and one I've taken countless times in the "blunties". Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? Were there other departure options? I've seen photos of arrivals on 13L, the Canarsie arrival and my own BA001 arrived on 4L. I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed,,,

Thanks in advance for your replies and I look forward to reading the other 1000 posts I haven't got around to!

[Bellerophon]

Speedbird223

…the 31L Canarsie departure is obviously extremely well known … Given the noise abatement situation what happened if the weather didn't play ball? … Were there other departure options? …

If the runway in use at JFK was not suitable for our departure, we would request a different runway, which JFK ATC were extremely helpful at providing, even though this caused some disruption to their landing/take-off pattern. For our part, we had to accept this request could entail a delay to our departure whilst waiting for a suitable gap in their traffic flow.

Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature? If the answer to either question was no, then we needed another runway.

An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.


… I assume therefore that arrivals were a lot less liberally governed …

Did you mean a lot less strictly governed? If so, the answer is yes.

Concorde would use whatever landing runway was in use at JFK without problem, save requiring a bit more of a gap between herself and the preceding landing aircraft (due to her higher approach speeds maintained to much closer to touchdown) which ATC at JFK were well aware of and which they managed very professionally.

Even so, on the Canarsie approach, it was instructive to see just how quickly Concorde could close the spacing between herself and a preceding lightly loaded and therefore much slower B757.

31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.

I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now – probably because it was!

Best Regards

Bellerophon

[Speedbird223]

Amazing, thank you for all the details!

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

An example might be when JFK was using 04R for landing and 04L for departure. We might have been able to lift the weight off 04L, but would have been way over our noise limit, so we would request 22R for departure.

Wow, a great show for those in line for the 04L departure if you guys were using 22R!

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

31R was our preferred runway due to its proximity to the BA terminal, the Canarsie approach onto 13L was good fun and a frequent approach. 04R was also used and was an Autoland runway with Cat3A limits down to 15R / 700 ft RVR, useful in bad weather. Concorde had landing limits on all JFK runways, but, at least in my experience, the others were rarely, if ever, used.

By the 31R approach was right by my first home in the NYC area....alas some 10yrs after a Concorde last ever flew it, sadly. My father took the subsonic BA001 shortly after I moved to NYC and I would leave my place when I saw it come over and he'd be through baggage claim by the time I got to T7

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

I'm glad you enjoyed your flight on Concorde, it all seems so long ago now – probably because it was!

20yrs ago on Monday...

[ConcordeKin]

Alan Radford

Greetings to all, I thought there might those in this thread who would be interested to know that my Grandfather, Alan Radford, who many will know from the Filton and Fairford Concorde design and development days, is still with us and continues to talk so fondly of both Concorde (His Miss Moses Lake) and of all who he worked alongside during that wonderful time. I'd be delighted to pass on contact details if anyone wished to get in touch - he recently loft his wife Peggy (another former BAC employee who was fiercely proud of Concorde and all who made her happen) so I thought it might be nice to see if there are any old faces who we might re-connect.
Thank you to you all for keeping this wonderful thread going for all these years, and for keeping the memory of such a proud time in both our nation's and my own family history alive.
Kindest regards, Tim Radford, grandson of Alan.

[NineEighteen]

Gatwick Airport's History webpage states that in 1985 "Concorde starts flying commercial flights from Gatwick". Does anyone know any details on this please? Does it mean that the occasional charter left from LGW or was there ever a scheduled service from there? I know it was a diversion airport but presumably that was already the case from when Concorde started operating from LHR?

Many thanks
0918

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by NineEighteen

Gatwick Airport's History webpage states that in 1985 "Concorde starts flying commercial flights from Gatwick". Does anyone know any details on this please? Does it mean that the occasional charter left from LGW or was there ever a scheduled service from there? I know it was a diversion airport but presumably that was already the case from when Concorde started operating from LHR?

I'd be surprised if you need more than one hand to count the number of visits to LGW by Concorde over the years (though that does include a visit by an Air France example).

Methinks Gatwick are being a tad disingenuous on their website.

[megan]

My guess would be charter, they were made from a number of UK cities.

You Tube

[BigBoreFour]

I'm curious how the shorter legs worked, such as the Washington to Miami (also Dallas at one point?) flight. Did it go supersonic on a 'shorter' flight? Was there a minimum leg distance needed for the Concorde to fly supersonic? And was there an 'optimum' altitude when it was only subsonic? Could it fly comfortably (fuel efficient) at Mach One point something as opposed to 2.0 where I thought it was probably designed to operate?

[pattern_is_full]

There are folks here who can correct me, but in the meantime, what I think I know is....

The DC-Dallas route, entirely over populated land, could not be flown at supersonic speeds (regulations, noise pollution, sonic booms), but Concorde could do it in high-subsonic cruise at around Mach 0.95, somewhat faster than the norm for regular subsonic transports.

I believe the DC-MIA route was flown mostly supersonically, by climbing subsonically at Mach 0.95 straight down the Potomac to the Atlantic at Norfolk, Va., and then, 20+ miles offshore, turning SW towards Miami and making the supersonic acceleration-climb out over the water. Remained offshore (dodging the coastal bulge of the Outer Banks) until about 250nm from Miami. where the descent/deceleration phase would slow it to subsonic speed before getting too close to the shoreline.

Once at ~28,000 feet at Mach .95 - and over the water - it only took a few moments, after turning on the reheat/afterburners, to punch through Mach 1, and maybe 20 minutes (depending on weight) to reach 51000 feet* and Mach 2.02 (air termperature permitting.) And maybe 20 minutes for the deceleration/descent to Mach 0.95 at ~34000 feet.

(*I believe the afterburners were switched off at Mach 1.7 - usually about 42000 feet? - at which point the dry thrust of the engines and fancy shockwave-pressurized nacelle design could maintain the IAS and (reduced rate) climb (and increase the Mach) all by themselves.)

Across the Pond, short "experience flights" from both Paris and London were made from time to time - get out over the Atlantic, light up the afterburners, and tool around at supersonic speeds for some part of an hour before returning to base.

I'm pretty sure subsonic flight was never really efficient at any speed. Concorde was dependent on Mach 1.7 or so (and high altitudes) to maintain the efficiency of nacelle thrust modulated by supersonic intake shockwaves, without very thirsty afterburners. I think that over the Atlantic, losing just one engine (25% of thrust) was enough to make it instantly a fuel emergency situation - you were going to come down into thicker air and fuel burn would skyrocket.

[India Four Two]

Originally Posted by Bellerophon

Remember that we had two take-off calculations to consider. Firstly, could Concorde get airborne from that runway under the prevailing conditions? Secondly - and this was usually the limiting factor at JFK - could the aircraft then stay with the noise limits at that take-off weight and under those ambient conditions of wind and temperature?

Bellerophon, Could you expand on the second point?

Was it an issue of not reaching a sufficient altitude at the noise monitoring locations?

[Jhieminga]

I suspect that it was both a specific altitude and a specific, reduced, thrust level. Atmospheric conditions also influence engine performance and may have led to a higher needed thrust level for the same altitude, or a lower altitude at the reduced thrust level, or both.

[BigBoreFour]

Originally Posted by pattern_is_full

There are folks here who can correct me, but in the meantime, what I think I know is....
.

Oh interesting stuff. Thank you so much.

[megan]

[BigBoreFour]

Whoa. Nice.
Optimum altitude subsonic at MTOW is FL250 in the Concorde. Who would've thought?

[EXWOK]

PATTERN-IS-FULL...

A pretty accurate summary, I'd say; nice work!

One correction I'd make:

losing just one engine (25% of thrust) was enough to make it instantly a fuel emergency situation

Is over-egging the pudding somewhat. There was a significant penalty on 3 engines, but it was hardly a 'fuel emergency'. In my experience it was more of a fuel irritation.

My current work aircraft also suffers a significant range penalty with an engine out, but that hardly matters because we will be landing at the nearest suitable airport. Concorde had an even bigger range penalty with two engines out (although we always had fuel to reach an airfield in this situation) but, again, with two engines out it still had far more range flexibility than the 777...

[EXWOK]

BIG BORE FOUR -

Remember we were never at MTOW for long in this machine! Initial subsonic cruise ex-LHR was 280-300. In the case of engine failure enroute, it usually ended up in the mid-30's (with its subsonic 4 engined contemporaries).

The process explained in the extract from the OM is worth thinking about...you fly Mach, but the IAS still plays a dominant role on drag as you climb. Most unlike conventional types.

[dixi188]

Someone I used to know,(TO), was a F/O on a Concorde that had a double engine failure mid Atlantic. One engine surged and coughed an inlet door out of the front and it went down the adjacent engine, The vibration was very high and both engines were shut down. The Mayday call to Shanwick was that they may not make Shannon. The reply was that they would alert the coastguard.
IIRC they restarted the engine with the lowest vibration and made it to Shannon.
I saw some photos of the engine that ate the door and the compressor was a mess.

[BigBoreFour]

Originally Posted by EXWOK

BIG BORE FOUR -

Remember we were never at MTOW for long in this machine! Initial subsonic cruise ex-LHR was 280-300. In the case of engine failure enroute, it usually ended up in the mid-30's (with its subsonic 4 engined contemporaries).

The process explained in the extract from the OM is worth thinking about...you fly Mach, but the IAS still plays a dominant role on drag as you climb. Most unlike conventional types.

Makes perfect sense (not easy for my small brain)

Thank you. Appreciate it.