Concorde question
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john_tullamarine,
My apologies... I shouldn't have 'bitten' in the first place.
landlady,
Yes, please stay!
A side note to your tale... the funny thing is that the businessman was right, strictly speaking....
Us techies did a lot of development work to make sure Concorde could take off and, above all, land in a pea soup fog, down to zero-zero visibility.
But of course, the rest of the airport would already have come to a complete standstill in those conditions, including the emergency services, hence the rules and regulations for minimum visibility.
Success with your book!
What's the title going to be? "Tea At Two" ?
CJ
My apologies... I shouldn't have 'bitten' in the first place.
landlady,
Yes, please stay!
A side note to your tale... the funny thing is that the businessman was right, strictly speaking....
Us techies did a lot of development work to make sure Concorde could take off and, above all, land in a pea soup fog, down to zero-zero visibility.
But of course, the rest of the airport would already have come to a complete standstill in those conditions, including the emergency services, hence the rules and regulations for minimum visibility.
Success with your book!
What's the title going to be? "Tea At Two" ?
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, ChristaanJ, it wasn't so much that the businessman was right for all the reasons you say, it was just his attitude which made us all just a bit pleased that he was put in his place by the top man!
Book title a secret. If I told you I would have to kill you, and then where would we be then with no input from you and my posts being written from my prison cell!
Warm regards.
LL x
Book title a secret. If I told you I would have to kill you, and then where would we be then with no input from you and my posts being written from my prison cell!
Warm regards.
LL x
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portugal (sometimes)
Age: 51
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reallt has to be the best thread I have ever read here.
I have a question also:
201 (I believe) was fitted with a sidestick control on the left, was the aircraft actually flown with this and if so what were the pilots reactions to it?
Was it possibly to have been incorporated on later production aircraft?
Also did it retain the artificial feel system?
Thanks again for the great thread
Tex
I have a question also:
201 (I believe) was fitted with a sidestick control on the left, was the aircraft actually flown with this and if so what were the pilots reactions to it?
Was it possibly to have been incorporated on later production aircraft?
Also did it retain the artificial feel system?
Thanks again for the great thread
Tex
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting & nostalgic thread. Nice to see this monumental aviation achievement still generates such passion...
In case it's of interest (and suitable health warning as the memory fades)...
The heat did evaporate water vapour in the airframe - reducing corrosion. I remember when the 5 BA aircraft were returned to service, after the post-accident mods, their weight and balance certificates were prepared and found to be out by (IIRC) more than a tonne. This represented water in the airframe present after a year on the ground, and was gone again after a couple hours of supercruise on return to service. Back to the weighbridge for new W&B Certificates....
Vortex lift caused buffet which felt very similar to a conventional wing's stall/low speed buffet. At landing weights (I hate the trend of using the term "mass": weight is a force, mass is not!) you felt the buffet start as you reduced speed (CAS: Vc) to about 250kts. It was handy as a reminder that you should select visor down / nose to five below 250kts (the recommendation was as you slowed through 270kts, but latterly we were in the habit of holding at 250kts nose/visor up - I think TCAS was quoted as a backup to the more limited visibility in that config). At takeoff weights, the buffet went at more like 270kts accelerating. So I'm pretty sure there was no vortex lift at AoA > 7 degrees (250kts at LW).
Recommended subsonic cruise at MTOW was F260 / M0.95 which was equal to Vmo of 400kts (CAS). It was best cruise because Vc=400kts was also min drag at MTOW. F280 meant a slightly more draggy speed of 384kts, but some preferred it because when cleared to climb & accelerate supersonic (the official expression was "go for it") it gave you a bit of slack against Vmo when eng put the reheats in. But we tended to ignore the overspeed warning anyway: it was supposed to go really really fast...
We never flew with visor down and nose up unless it was bust - that config was only used during pushback (except one captain who always thought it looked better visor up....). Visor down max Vc was 325kts/M0.8 so it would limit subsonic cruise, and besides it made a racket like that.
It was a beaut in x-winds - a total lack of yaw-roll couple meant you just straightened the 'plane up with rudder and carried on into the flare as normal. No roll to counteract, and the sideways "lift" created by the rudder deflection on the fin pretty much equalled the x-wind drift. Nice.
Wind limits were Crosswind 30kts (15kts contaminated or autoland), Headwind for autoland 25kts (or manual "reduced noise" approach: that's a technical way we used to reduce the noise footprint down to 800' by flying at 190kts then reducing to a target speed of Vref+7kts at that point). Tailwind 10kts. All these limits were, of course, subject to "on the day" performance limits calculated at the time. I seem to remember there was an over-arching limit of 6000' on r/w length, subject again to "on the day" performance limits. OK, I cheated on this paragraph and dug out FM Vol 2a.
There were loads of other limitations which were, by and large, more "esoteric" than a conventional airliner and which had to be learned for the conversion course. It really made the head hurt, and would have been impossible without a big loverrly picture of the beast on the wall chucking out yellow smoke and making noise. Even a static picture of her seemed to make noise...
No one who flew it could really believe their luck, but one thing for sure is "they don't build them like that any more"...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
In case it's of interest (and suitable health warning as the memory fades)...
The heat did evaporate water vapour in the airframe - reducing corrosion. I remember when the 5 BA aircraft were returned to service, after the post-accident mods, their weight and balance certificates were prepared and found to be out by (IIRC) more than a tonne. This represented water in the airframe present after a year on the ground, and was gone again after a couple hours of supercruise on return to service. Back to the weighbridge for new W&B Certificates....
Vortex lift caused buffet which felt very similar to a conventional wing's stall/low speed buffet. At landing weights (I hate the trend of using the term "mass": weight is a force, mass is not!) you felt the buffet start as you reduced speed (CAS: Vc) to about 250kts. It was handy as a reminder that you should select visor down / nose to five below 250kts (the recommendation was as you slowed through 270kts, but latterly we were in the habit of holding at 250kts nose/visor up - I think TCAS was quoted as a backup to the more limited visibility in that config). At takeoff weights, the buffet went at more like 270kts accelerating. So I'm pretty sure there was no vortex lift at AoA > 7 degrees (250kts at LW).
Recommended subsonic cruise at MTOW was F260 / M0.95 which was equal to Vmo of 400kts (CAS). It was best cruise because Vc=400kts was also min drag at MTOW. F280 meant a slightly more draggy speed of 384kts, but some preferred it because when cleared to climb & accelerate supersonic (the official expression was "go for it") it gave you a bit of slack against Vmo when eng put the reheats in. But we tended to ignore the overspeed warning anyway: it was supposed to go really really fast...
We never flew with visor down and nose up unless it was bust - that config was only used during pushback (except one captain who always thought it looked better visor up....). Visor down max Vc was 325kts/M0.8 so it would limit subsonic cruise, and besides it made a racket like that.
It was a beaut in x-winds - a total lack of yaw-roll couple meant you just straightened the 'plane up with rudder and carried on into the flare as normal. No roll to counteract, and the sideways "lift" created by the rudder deflection on the fin pretty much equalled the x-wind drift. Nice.
Wind limits were Crosswind 30kts (15kts contaminated or autoland), Headwind for autoland 25kts (or manual "reduced noise" approach: that's a technical way we used to reduce the noise footprint down to 800' by flying at 190kts then reducing to a target speed of Vref+7kts at that point). Tailwind 10kts. All these limits were, of course, subject to "on the day" performance limits calculated at the time. I seem to remember there was an over-arching limit of 6000' on r/w length, subject again to "on the day" performance limits. OK, I cheated on this paragraph and dug out FM Vol 2a.
There were loads of other limitations which were, by and large, more "esoteric" than a conventional airliner and which had to be learned for the conversion course. It really made the head hurt, and would have been impossible without a big loverrly picture of the beast on the wall chucking out yellow smoke and making noise. Even a static picture of her seemed to make noise...
No one who flew it could really believe their luck, but one thing for sure is "they don't build them like that any more"...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
The two airframes that "had an angle grinder taken to them" were Alpha-Alpha and Delta-Golf.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, it was 201 (F-WTSB).
After certification the aircraft was retained for several flight test programmes, not all of them Concorde-related.
In this case it was an early trial of the sidestick for the A320.
Concorde was already a fly-by-wire aircraft, so it was "relatively" easy to hook a sidestick into the system.
Unfortunately, I remember only some of the details...
It was only fitted on the left.
The righthand side remained fully conventional, and the RH seat pilot acted as the safety pilot.
Yes, definitely.
The story doesn't tell, I'm afraid. At the time it would have 'confidential', of course.
Not really... as I said it was just an early test for the A320.
At the time the aircraft were already certified, so it would have meant a MAJOR modification of the flying controls, AND recertification.
Also there was no requirement for it... the Concorde flying controls were judged perfectly satisfactory by the pilots.
Yes, that remained connected to the conventional controls (I'm not even sure whether the LH control column was removed).
Of course the sidestick would have its own, totally different artificial feel, since the control laws were different.
CJ
After certification the aircraft was retained for several flight test programmes, not all of them Concorde-related.
In this case it was an early trial of the sidestick for the A320.
Concorde was already a fly-by-wire aircraft, so it was "relatively" easy to hook a sidestick into the system.
Unfortunately, I remember only some of the details...
It was only fitted on the left.
The righthand side remained fully conventional, and the RH seat pilot acted as the safety pilot.
was the aircraft actually flown with this?
.. and if so what were the pilots reactions to it?
Was it possibly to have been incorporated on later production aircraft?
At the time the aircraft were already certified, so it would have meant a MAJOR modification of the flying controls, AND recertification.
Also there was no requirement for it... the Concorde flying controls were judged perfectly satisfactory by the pilots.
Also did it retain the artificial feel system?
Of course the sidestick would have its own, totally different artificial feel, since the control laws were different.
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have to search a bit, but somewhere on the net there is a huge photoalbum of the journey, interesting from beginning to end.
Oh, and I hope for you that nobody German reads this... it was not a 'canal', but the Rhine!
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On landing in Toronto after a very gusty approach, the skipper put her down a bit sharpish.
A senior royal gentleman to the skipper on leaving the aircraft,"Wonderful flight, thank you. And if the company want to know where the undercarriage is, it's up my a**e."
True to form. (Touches nose. No names. )
A senior royal gentleman to the skipper on leaving the aircraft,"Wonderful flight, thank you. And if the company want to know where the undercarriage is, it's up my a**e."
True to form. (Touches nose. No names. )
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-BOAB
I've been driving to Hatton Cross past TBA recently. AB has been released from the engine run pen and parked outside what was, in the past, the Conc maintenance hangar. I have to say that she's a credit to whoever is looking after her - considerably cleaner than the blunties I now fly for a day-job.
And it still looks like the future, not the past.
I must say it makes getting into Mr Boeing's (admittedly very nice) aeroplane seem deadly dull in comparison. Ah well........
And it still looks like the future, not the past.
I must say it makes getting into Mr Boeing's (admittedly very nice) aeroplane seem deadly dull in comparison. Ah well........
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
Oh, and I hope for you that nobody German reads this... it was not a 'canal', but the Rhine!
I'd still say even in an ideal world where such a thing would be possible, having been stored in the open for several years would put Fox-Bravo pretty far down the list of repair candidates though...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<A senior royal gentleman to the skipper on leaving the aircraft,"Wonderful flight, thank you. And if the company want to know where the undercarriage is, it's up my a**e.">>
Same thing happened on the 757 fleet. And the Trident. Possibly the Britannia too - probably
Same thing happened on the 757 fleet. And the Trident. Possibly the Britannia too - probably
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I know that there were stall problems with the Trident due to the main wing blocking the air flow to the elevators. I just wondered if there was any side slip problems etc due to the air flow being blocked to the vertical tail by the big delta wing especially at large AoA on landing? If so what was the undoubtably clever solution? Mind you I may be seeing problems where there are none!
Regards
Nick
I know that there were stall problems with the Trident due to the main wing blocking the air flow to the elevators. I just wondered if there was any side slip problems etc due to the air flow being blocked to the vertical tail by the big delta wing especially at large AoA on landing? If so what was the undoubtably clever solution? Mind you I may be seeing problems where there are none!
Regards
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick - good question. The elevons were not hidden at high AoA (no elevators, no T-tail issue) but high alpha longitudinal stability was an issue in early development, one of the fixes were the moustache strakes you see at the front - they help energise the wing vorteces and improve rudder authority at high AoA. Apparently. Well that's what they told us at ground school - the result was that right up to limiting AoA all flight controls were effective, including the potentially blanked-off rudder. IIRC the stick-shake was at about 16 degrees which left about 3 degrees slack above approach AoA and it all worked just fine in that environment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, after 3 nights reading this thread in my spare time i've come to the end of it (for now - it's an organic thing!) and i'd just like to echo the thanks from a wide-eyed SLF who always ran outside of my house every time she went overhead twice a day - and what a noise 
Anyway, I have 2 questions to put to the assembled experts:
1) Earlier it was mentioned that the tailwheel was the only piece of bad design on the Concorde. Does this mean that the rudder failures were as a result of corrosion/fatigue of a sound original design and that it was just a bit of bad luck that nobody could have foreseen? also, how easy was it to remedy?
2) Were the rudder separation and the in-flight "hole in the wing" issue (reported on the Concorde TV programme) the most serious issues experienced during service? or were there any other issues which manifested themselves such that the passengers were oblivious but the crew were more than a little concerned?
Thanks!
Mike.
(p.s. - my wife's still chuckling at the Prince Philip story)
Anyway, I have 2 questions to put to the assembled experts:
1) Earlier it was mentioned that the tailwheel was the only piece of bad design on the Concorde. Does this mean that the rudder failures were as a result of corrosion/fatigue of a sound original design and that it was just a bit of bad luck that nobody could have foreseen? also, how easy was it to remedy?
2) Were the rudder separation and the in-flight "hole in the wing" issue (reported on the Concorde TV programme) the most serious issues experienced during service? or were there any other issues which manifested themselves such that the passengers were oblivious but the crew were more than a little concerned?
Thanks!
Mike.
(p.s. - my wife's still chuckling at the Prince Philip story)
Thread Starter
The MD80 has similar looking strakes on the forward fuselage for similar reasons.
At least that was what we were told.
It Certainly was not an Aircraft you would want to stall !
At least that was what we were told.
It Certainly was not an Aircraft you would want to stall !
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks NW1 for your clear and concise answer and for also answering my next question before I had a chance to post it! which was going to be what were the two ledges at the front for? I had always assumed that they were vesitigal canards but in fact they were to help longtiudinal stabilty.
I have another question and that is whenever I see pictures of Concorde's cabin the seat pitch whist not being as tight as economy does seem not to be that generous. So what was the pitch? and if the pitch used in economy on other craft had been used throught the plane could more people have been carried without affecting takoff and landing weights and compromising evacuation etc?
I guess with the length of the flights seat pitch was not an important issue.
Nick
I have another question and that is whenever I see pictures of Concorde's cabin the seat pitch whist not being as tight as economy does seem not to be that generous. So what was the pitch? and if the pitch used in economy on other craft had been used throught the plane could more people have been carried without affecting takoff and landing weights and compromising evacuation etc?
I guess with the length of the flights seat pitch was not an important issue.
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick - the only thing I can remember about cabin seats is that the a/c was certified to carry (I think) 125 passengers. But with JFK departures often load-limited as they were, I think 100 was a sensible decision. Some clever arrangements meant it looked bigger and airier than it was. Most passenger feedback seemed to indicate the cabin layout was good enough - not First Class, but then you only had to sit there for 3.5 hours...
I remember that the Concorde was extensively used both by the French and UK government for state travel. Where those "just" another charter flight or was it more involved (cabin layout, routing, security, etc) ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Flight
Remembering back to the day I operated my first flight on Concorde, (it was know as a supernumery.... anyone on their first trip was in fact an extra crew member.) I had been flying for over 10 years by the time I was selected for this amazing fleet, and of course as we ladies like to think, I knew everything there was to know. (Including men and the universe, but I digress.)
Two memorable things happened on this flight. (Apart from the obvious first take off, sitting in the back row pinned to the seat and whoosh! Blimey, nothing like it and I never tired of experiencing that feeling of really going somewhere. Fast. Made the Trident 1 look a little slow in comparison. Not the Trident 2 though, as that was a little quick over the ground, too.)
The lovely John Cleese was to be mine to take care of during the crossing, and I asked him (before departure) what drink he would like after take off. Poised with my pad and pencil, back came the reply, "I'll have my usual cocktail, please."
I scurried back to the galley to ask the hairy a**ed old galley steward (she wasn't too good looking , either,) what Mr. Cleese' usual drink was."How the bl@@dy h@ll do I know? I've never carried him before. Go and ask him."
Undaunted, I asked a couple of the other, nicer crew, (or so I thought), if they knew what John Cleese' usual drink was.
"Nope." "Go and ask him. It's the only way you'll find out".
How unprofessional would that be? We were supposed to second-guess what everyone wanted before they even knew themselves. So, cap in hand, I went back to Mr. Cleese, who by now had his head buried in a script, and asked him what his usual cocktail actually was.
The reaction was classic Basil Fawlty. He stood up, a huge 6ft 8 or something, stooping as the ceiling hit his head, and began an almighty rant.
"I've been travelling on this aircraft for God only knows how long, and every time I ask for my usual cocktail, no-one knows what it is. Bl@@dy typical! Can't you get anything right....." on and on...all the passengers around him staring in amazement. I was fronting it up, red-faced and shaking in my shoes and wishing I was anywhere else.
Eventually, he sat down and beckoned me to come close to him as he whispered in my ear, "I'm tee-total, which your collegues know very well, having asked me to participate in this little practical joke when I got on board. There is no usual," he winked at me and added, "now get on with your first flight and take the 'L' plate of your back." (I did indeed have an 'L' plate stuck to the back of my jacket, and had it there since checking in.....)
On my arrival in the rear galley, I was greeted by three crew who were literally crying with laughter, who turned out to be the nicest people I could have worked with on my first trip. It was a stroke of luck that John cleese was travelling that day, as it isn't every passenger who would have participated in such a thing. (I did it myself a few years later with a new stewardess with the help of Sir David frost, who was just as brilliant.) ( I carried my 'L' plate in my crew bag in case of emegencies. A couple of pilots and F/Es have had the pleasure of wearing it, too.)
I looked after John Cleese many times after that, and he always gave me a wry smile when I never asked him what he wanted, just delivered his sparkling water.
Part two of this later...the dog has his legs crossed....
Warm regards,
LL x
Two memorable things happened on this flight. (Apart from the obvious first take off, sitting in the back row pinned to the seat and whoosh! Blimey, nothing like it and I never tired of experiencing that feeling of really going somewhere. Fast. Made the Trident 1 look a little slow in comparison. Not the Trident 2 though, as that was a little quick over the ground, too.)
The lovely John Cleese was to be mine to take care of during the crossing, and I asked him (before departure) what drink he would like after take off. Poised with my pad and pencil, back came the reply, "I'll have my usual cocktail, please."
I scurried back to the galley to ask the hairy a**ed old galley steward (she wasn't too good looking , either,) what Mr. Cleese' usual drink was."How the bl@@dy h@ll do I know? I've never carried him before. Go and ask him."
Undaunted, I asked a couple of the other, nicer crew, (or so I thought), if they knew what John Cleese' usual drink was.
"Nope." "Go and ask him. It's the only way you'll find out".
How unprofessional would that be? We were supposed to second-guess what everyone wanted before they even knew themselves. So, cap in hand, I went back to Mr. Cleese, who by now had his head buried in a script, and asked him what his usual cocktail actually was.
The reaction was classic Basil Fawlty. He stood up, a huge 6ft 8 or something, stooping as the ceiling hit his head, and began an almighty rant.
"I've been travelling on this aircraft for God only knows how long, and every time I ask for my usual cocktail, no-one knows what it is. Bl@@dy typical! Can't you get anything right....." on and on...all the passengers around him staring in amazement. I was fronting it up, red-faced and shaking in my shoes and wishing I was anywhere else.
Eventually, he sat down and beckoned me to come close to him as he whispered in my ear, "I'm tee-total, which your collegues know very well, having asked me to participate in this little practical joke when I got on board. There is no usual," he winked at me and added, "now get on with your first flight and take the 'L' plate of your back." (I did indeed have an 'L' plate stuck to the back of my jacket, and had it there since checking in.....)
On my arrival in the rear galley, I was greeted by three crew who were literally crying with laughter, who turned out to be the nicest people I could have worked with on my first trip. It was a stroke of luck that John cleese was travelling that day, as it isn't every passenger who would have participated in such a thing. (I did it myself a few years later with a new stewardess with the help of Sir David frost, who was just as brilliant.) ( I carried my 'L' plate in my crew bag in case of emegencies. A couple of pilots and F/Es have had the pleasure of wearing it, too.)
I looked after John Cleese many times after that, and he always gave me a wry smile when I never asked him what he wanted, just delivered his sparkling water.
Part two of this later...the dog has his legs crossed....
Warm regards,
LL x
