Concorde question
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oshkosh 1994
One very long winded piece of personal nostalgia, I hope you’ll all bear with me:
In 1994 a Concorde (can’t remember the registration) flew out to Oshkosh Wisconsin (OKS) for the bi-annual EAA fly in. The aircraft was scheduled to fly from LHR to YYZ via MAN, where it would pick up 100 charter passengers in Manchester for a five day holiday in Toronto. The aircraft would then fly empty from YYZ to Oshkosh for the five day air show, before returning to YYZ to bring home the passengers to MAN. At Manchester another 100 charter passengers were then carried subsonically back to London. While the aircraft was in Canada and the US, it would be looked after by two American BA engineers who were based at JFK. At least that was the plan, but the best laid plans of mice and men….
The aircraft was catered for the MAN-YYZ sector in London, and flew up to Manchester with just the three flight deck crew but no cabin crew (no passengers, so no need). At Manchester there would be a change of crew, plus a full complement of cabin crew for the on-going sector to Toronto (Plus of course 100 passengers). This is where things started to go rather wrong; when the aircraft landed at Manchester one of the bar trolleys , which had not been correctly secured by the catering twits, broke loose and flew through the open flight deck door (pre-911 the door was usually always open anyway). The trolley hit the back of the E/O’s chair and subsequently damaged a couple of fuel transfer switches on his panel. You can imagine what the three crew thought; they were just landing the aircraft when a high speed trolley decides to join them on the flight deck in an extremely noisy and spectacular entrance. (The language went something like ‘what the ***** was that!!). The two switches, although damaged still operated normally, and so the crew taking the aircraft to YYZ decided to accept the aircraft with just a couple of ADDs for the broken but still funtional switches.
So the aircraft, plus FOUR flight crew (an extra crew member, a captain in this case, was taken along to do the PR over the PA, as was usual on charter operations). Everything seemed to be going smoothly, or so it seemed, when there was a warning that the number 2 secondary nozzle ‘buckets’ had travelled towards reverse (the blue transit light was flashing) although the indicator on the E/O’s panel still apparently showed the nozzle at the correct zero degree position for supersonic flight. As always (at least with BA!!) the correct drill was applied, and a precautionary engine shut down was carried out. This now meant that the aircraft would have to decelerate to subsonic speed, and as a consequence would not be able to reach YYZ safely, and so a technical diversion to YQX (Gander NFLD) was carried out, the aircraft and passengers having an unscheduled night stop there. (This eating into the first night of the passengers stay in Toronto). The two JFK engineers who had been waiting patiently in YYZ had to quickly jump on a Lear Jet to Gander, and on arrival there got on the phone to London, that’s where I come in. The nozzle itself had not run away at all, it was merely an indication problem, but we all decided that the best course of action for now was to have the secondary nozzle physically locked at the intermediate position of 10 degrees as a performance ADD. This would still allow supersonic operation (although from YQX to YYZ there would be precious little of that), but with a fuel penalty of at least 1.5 tonnes per supersonic sector, plus of course no reverser operation on that engine. I still had concerns about the aircraft being able to return on the YYZ to MAN sector with a bucket locked out, but at least the passengers could now start their delayed holiday in Toronto, and the aircraft could happily fly on to the wilds of Wisconsin.
Every day during the EAA fly in, Concorde would do some charter flying, and the JFK guys would be on the phone every day letting us know how things were going. It seemed now that the secondary nozzle defect had ‘cleared up’ on it’s own, and the guys had decided to reinstate the secondary nozzle air motor to its normal position. We were all very apprehensive about this, and started to think about what the possible cause of the original defect was and maybe see about provisioning a spare part if necessary. On the final day of the EAA event, the aircraft was taxying out when another warning light for the number 2 bucket illuminated. The aircraft returned to the ramp where the JFK engineers again locked out the air motor at 10 degrees before leaving on its charter. We had discussions over the phone as to what the symptoms were, and it looked like the culprit was the switch pack that lived underneath the bucket assembly. I spent several hours getting spare parts shipped via MAINTROL to YYZ, the idea being that the bits could be flown out to Toronto on the next scheduled subsonic flight. It was generally agreed that the aircraft could not fly the YYZ-MAN sector with a bucket locked out due to performance considerations and so a fix was essential. (The spare parts included by the way the two switches that had been broken on the first landing into Manchester).
I was at the airport until quite late that night making sure that from the information that we’d been given the correct course of action had been chosen, and I only got about four hours of sleep before I had to head back to Heathrow the following morning. I had a feeling that I’d be possibly be asked to fly out to Toronto (the JFK guys requested this also) , so I took my passport, a change of clothes etc. with me just in case. Sure enough before I knew it I was on the 10:30 BA001 Concorde to JFK, a Limo taking me immediately across town from JFK to La Guardia. From there I was put on an Air Canada A320 to Toronto, arriving there at about 14:30 local time. (19:30 ‘my’ time, I was knackered already). When I got to our Concorde the JFK guys told me that the bits I’d sent the previous evening were stuck in Canadian Customs, and it took another hour or so to get our hands on them. We proceeded to get her ‘fixed up’ between us, and by about 20:00 local we were serviceable. I phoned the crew at the hotel, telling them of the good news, and was told that as soon as I’d checked in and had a shower, we were all going out to dinner (my body clock was now at 02:00). Now the flight crew and cabin crew are well [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']acclimatised, having been in Canada and the States for FIVE days, but I am now a total wreck, (more so than usual), and when I finally got to bed it was around midnight Toronto time (05:00 London time). Now no one (including me) expected to see me for the 07:30 pick up from the hotel in the morning, but somehow I miraculously made it. Because one passenger had gone home to Manchester early, there was a seat available for me on the aircraft (I’d expected to have had to fly home subsonic, due to the only other available seat being the flip down flight deck aisle seat; to have sat there for over four hours would have been less than pleasant). So all I now wanted to do was get on the aircraft, collapse into my seat and SLEEP, but I had to wait until all passengers had boarded before I was allocated my seat; 26B right at the back of the aircraft. So here I go, getting onto the aircraft in what I thought was total anonymity when as I get on board the purser in the fwd. galley announces that ‘this is Mr Dude who flew out yesterday from London especially to make sure we don’t have to divert again’. I just wanted to die as I have to walk the gauntlet of 99 passengers all clapping and cheering all the way to the back of the aircraft, my face as red as a beetroot, and when I finally get to my seat I find that I am sat next to this really lovely elderly lady who wanted a blow by blow account of what had gone on, as well as a running commentary on the flight itself. (Of course alll I wanted to do was sleep, I was totally exhausted, but this old lady was absolutely delightful). About an hour after take-off one of the stewardesses informs me that the crew want me up front urgently, so here I go again walking the length of the cabin up to the flight deck. As I go in the guys said ‘I thought you’d fixed the *** ing thing.’ ‘I did’ replies yours truly, and I took a look at the flight deck panels and everything is normal. The four guys are killing themselves laughing, ‘fooled you’ , the flight engineer chirps up with (everything was fine, the joke was on me yet again). I once more stagger back to my seat, and for the rest of the flight I keep my lady passenger friend entertained with Concorde stories all the way back to Manchester. At Manchester there is another few hours wait before we FINALLY fly back down to Heathrow, with yet another load of passengers and I finally go home to bed. In all of my Concorde years I’d had many exhausting episodes, but Toronto ’94 really took the biscuit.
Dude
In 1994 a Concorde (can’t remember the registration) flew out to Oshkosh Wisconsin (OKS) for the bi-annual EAA fly in. The aircraft was scheduled to fly from LHR to YYZ via MAN, where it would pick up 100 charter passengers in Manchester for a five day holiday in Toronto. The aircraft would then fly empty from YYZ to Oshkosh for the five day air show, before returning to YYZ to bring home the passengers to MAN. At Manchester another 100 charter passengers were then carried subsonically back to London. While the aircraft was in Canada and the US, it would be looked after by two American BA engineers who were based at JFK. At least that was the plan, but the best laid plans of mice and men….
The aircraft was catered for the MAN-YYZ sector in London, and flew up to Manchester with just the three flight deck crew but no cabin crew (no passengers, so no need). At Manchester there would be a change of crew, plus a full complement of cabin crew for the on-going sector to Toronto (Plus of course 100 passengers). This is where things started to go rather wrong; when the aircraft landed at Manchester one of the bar trolleys , which had not been correctly secured by the catering twits, broke loose and flew through the open flight deck door (pre-911 the door was usually always open anyway). The trolley hit the back of the E/O’s chair and subsequently damaged a couple of fuel transfer switches on his panel. You can imagine what the three crew thought; they were just landing the aircraft when a high speed trolley decides to join them on the flight deck in an extremely noisy and spectacular entrance. (The language went something like ‘what the ***** was that!!). The two switches, although damaged still operated normally, and so the crew taking the aircraft to YYZ decided to accept the aircraft with just a couple of ADDs for the broken but still funtional switches.
So the aircraft, plus FOUR flight crew (an extra crew member, a captain in this case, was taken along to do the PR over the PA, as was usual on charter operations). Everything seemed to be going smoothly, or so it seemed, when there was a warning that the number 2 secondary nozzle ‘buckets’ had travelled towards reverse (the blue transit light was flashing) although the indicator on the E/O’s panel still apparently showed the nozzle at the correct zero degree position for supersonic flight. As always (at least with BA!!) the correct drill was applied, and a precautionary engine shut down was carried out. This now meant that the aircraft would have to decelerate to subsonic speed, and as a consequence would not be able to reach YYZ safely, and so a technical diversion to YQX (Gander NFLD) was carried out, the aircraft and passengers having an unscheduled night stop there. (This eating into the first night of the passengers stay in Toronto). The two JFK engineers who had been waiting patiently in YYZ had to quickly jump on a Lear Jet to Gander, and on arrival there got on the phone to London, that’s where I come in. The nozzle itself had not run away at all, it was merely an indication problem, but we all decided that the best course of action for now was to have the secondary nozzle physically locked at the intermediate position of 10 degrees as a performance ADD. This would still allow supersonic operation (although from YQX to YYZ there would be precious little of that), but with a fuel penalty of at least 1.5 tonnes per supersonic sector, plus of course no reverser operation on that engine. I still had concerns about the aircraft being able to return on the YYZ to MAN sector with a bucket locked out, but at least the passengers could now start their delayed holiday in Toronto, and the aircraft could happily fly on to the wilds of Wisconsin.
Every day during the EAA fly in, Concorde would do some charter flying, and the JFK guys would be on the phone every day letting us know how things were going. It seemed now that the secondary nozzle defect had ‘cleared up’ on it’s own, and the guys had decided to reinstate the secondary nozzle air motor to its normal position. We were all very apprehensive about this, and started to think about what the possible cause of the original defect was and maybe see about provisioning a spare part if necessary. On the final day of the EAA event, the aircraft was taxying out when another warning light for the number 2 bucket illuminated. The aircraft returned to the ramp where the JFK engineers again locked out the air motor at 10 degrees before leaving on its charter. We had discussions over the phone as to what the symptoms were, and it looked like the culprit was the switch pack that lived underneath the bucket assembly. I spent several hours getting spare parts shipped via MAINTROL to YYZ, the idea being that the bits could be flown out to Toronto on the next scheduled subsonic flight. It was generally agreed that the aircraft could not fly the YYZ-MAN sector with a bucket locked out due to performance considerations and so a fix was essential. (The spare parts included by the way the two switches that had been broken on the first landing into Manchester).
I was at the airport until quite late that night making sure that from the information that we’d been given the correct course of action had been chosen, and I only got about four hours of sleep before I had to head back to Heathrow the following morning. I had a feeling that I’d be possibly be asked to fly out to Toronto (the JFK guys requested this also) , so I took my passport, a change of clothes etc. with me just in case. Sure enough before I knew it I was on the 10:30 BA001 Concorde to JFK, a Limo taking me immediately across town from JFK to La Guardia. From there I was put on an Air Canada A320 to Toronto, arriving there at about 14:30 local time. (19:30 ‘my’ time, I was knackered already). When I got to our Concorde the JFK guys told me that the bits I’d sent the previous evening were stuck in Canadian Customs, and it took another hour or so to get our hands on them. We proceeded to get her ‘fixed up’ between us, and by about 20:00 local we were serviceable. I phoned the crew at the hotel, telling them of the good news, and was told that as soon as I’d checked in and had a shower, we were all going out to dinner (my body clock was now at 02:00). Now the flight crew and cabin crew are well [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']acclimatised, having been in Canada and the States for FIVE days, but I am now a total wreck, (more so than usual), and when I finally got to bed it was around midnight Toronto time (05:00 London time). Now no one (including me) expected to see me for the 07:30 pick up from the hotel in the morning, but somehow I miraculously made it. Because one passenger had gone home to Manchester early, there was a seat available for me on the aircraft (I’d expected to have had to fly home subsonic, due to the only other available seat being the flip down flight deck aisle seat; to have sat there for over four hours would have been less than pleasant). So all I now wanted to do was get on the aircraft, collapse into my seat and SLEEP, but I had to wait until all passengers had boarded before I was allocated my seat; 26B right at the back of the aircraft. So here I go, getting onto the aircraft in what I thought was total anonymity when as I get on board the purser in the fwd. galley announces that ‘this is Mr Dude who flew out yesterday from London especially to make sure we don’t have to divert again’. I just wanted to die as I have to walk the gauntlet of 99 passengers all clapping and cheering all the way to the back of the aircraft, my face as red as a beetroot, and when I finally get to my seat I find that I am sat next to this really lovely elderly lady who wanted a blow by blow account of what had gone on, as well as a running commentary on the flight itself. (Of course alll I wanted to do was sleep, I was totally exhausted, but this old lady was absolutely delightful). About an hour after take-off one of the stewardesses informs me that the crew want me up front urgently, so here I go again walking the length of the cabin up to the flight deck. As I go in the guys said ‘I thought you’d fixed the *** ing thing.’ ‘I did’ replies yours truly, and I took a look at the flight deck panels and everything is normal. The four guys are killing themselves laughing, ‘fooled you’ , the flight engineer chirps up with (everything was fine, the joke was on me yet again). I once more stagger back to my seat, and for the rest of the flight I keep my lady passenger friend entertained with Concorde stories all the way back to Manchester. At Manchester there is another few hours wait before we FINALLY fly back down to Heathrow, with yet another load of passengers and I finally go home to bed. In all of my Concorde years I’d had many exhausting episodes, but Toronto ’94 really took the biscuit.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 7th Oct 2010 at 21:00.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if the price of a Concorde flight was merely sleep deprivation, then we'd all have been propping our eyelids open with matchsticks!
I presume that the fuel penalty for a locked secondary nozzle was due to the reduced expansion of exhaust gas without the maximum divergent shape?
I presume that the fuel penalty for a locked secondary nozzle was due to the reduced expansion of exhaust gas without the maximum divergent shape?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Nick, this has been such a superbly informative thread. Let's not spoil it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pfffft
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gordonroxburgh; It sounds as though you may have had an involvement in the Concorde simulators with knowledge such as that...perhaps you could help with a question I have?
How did the simulators manage with the windsheild/nose tilt feature? I assume the relevant lever was present in the cockpit...did moving it cause anything to happen in the simulator?
ASI
How did the simulators manage with the windsheild/nose tilt feature? I assume the relevant lever was present in the cockpit...did moving it cause anything to happen in the simulator?
ASI
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, YYZ...
My one flight on Concorde was YYZ to LHR, as part of a birthday treat shared with my parents. They say that of all the things they decided to do and damn the cost, the Concorde trip was the one experience of their lives that far exceeded expectations. (My father is a retired vicar and a PPL, and there's never been a spare penny in the family - when they say that, they mean it.)
I can only agree. Flight of my life. It won't get better. I remember hearing over the PA that this particular leg involved the longest time that Concorde spent supersonic. It could get going before the ocean as there was nobody on the land below to complain about the noise. Is that true?
Anyway: what I remember about YYZ was that the runway was truly abysmal. I am one of those SLF who thoroughly enjoys things going a bit unusual in flight: turbulence, wonky weather, anything with a bit of g in an unexpected direction, all bonuses in the normally mundane business of flinging oneself about the sky in tubes. I trust the engineering, I trust the people, I know how exceptional aviation is as a human endeavour where safety is wired in at every level.
But that runway. Not only did it feel like rattling along a dirt track in a car with dodgy suspension, it went on for so long. Compared to the elegance of every subsequent second aloft, the time in motion before rotation was so unsettling that even my unflappability was flapping. That feeling was heightened by the transparent relief in the voice making the post-takeoff PA: "Now we've left Toronto behind, we can get on with business as usual" - and it's a decent enough city, so I don't think that was any commentary on the pleasures of the place outside the airport.
Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic?
I have nothing to add about the rest of the flight that others haven't already said, except I'm sad my own son won't have the opportunity.
R
(Oh, one PS: I did hang out for a while with someone who was best friends with one of the Concorde cabin crew. I do hope that some of the stories she told me will one day see the light of day, although they might have to wait for a number of Serious Names -- and cabin crew -- to pass over to the other side, where even the draconian reach of the UK's libel laws have no power. She is a PR and I a journalist, but the British sense of fair play and mischief requests and requires that this teaser is all there is to be said on the matter. That and the law of libel.)
My one flight on Concorde was YYZ to LHR, as part of a birthday treat shared with my parents. They say that of all the things they decided to do and damn the cost, the Concorde trip was the one experience of their lives that far exceeded expectations. (My father is a retired vicar and a PPL, and there's never been a spare penny in the family - when they say that, they mean it.)
I can only agree. Flight of my life. It won't get better. I remember hearing over the PA that this particular leg involved the longest time that Concorde spent supersonic. It could get going before the ocean as there was nobody on the land below to complain about the noise. Is that true?
Anyway: what I remember about YYZ was that the runway was truly abysmal. I am one of those SLF who thoroughly enjoys things going a bit unusual in flight: turbulence, wonky weather, anything with a bit of g in an unexpected direction, all bonuses in the normally mundane business of flinging oneself about the sky in tubes. I trust the engineering, I trust the people, I know how exceptional aviation is as a human endeavour where safety is wired in at every level.
But that runway. Not only did it feel like rattling along a dirt track in a car with dodgy suspension, it went on for so long. Compared to the elegance of every subsequent second aloft, the time in motion before rotation was so unsettling that even my unflappability was flapping. That feeling was heightened by the transparent relief in the voice making the post-takeoff PA: "Now we've left Toronto behind, we can get on with business as usual" - and it's a decent enough city, so I don't think that was any commentary on the pleasures of the place outside the airport.
Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic?
I have nothing to add about the rest of the flight that others haven't already said, except I'm sad my own son won't have the opportunity.
R
(Oh, one PS: I did hang out for a while with someone who was best friends with one of the Concorde cabin crew. I do hope that some of the stories she told me will one day see the light of day, although they might have to wait for a number of Serious Names -- and cabin crew -- to pass over to the other side, where even the draconian reach of the UK's libel laws have no power. She is a PR and I a journalist, but the British sense of fair play and mischief requests and requires that this teaser is all there is to be said on the matter. That and the law of libel.)
Can't remember a lot of my 20,000 hrs. as pilot but will never forget paxing on Concorde 20 years ago between Washington and Heathrow. Spent the last 2 hours of the flight standing in the flight deck behind the jumpseat ( occupied by an ATCO on famil.). Captain allowed me to remain in situ for the landing, I'm grateful to have experienced an era in aviation where we could share our work environment with colleagues and passengers alike.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feathers McGraw
The 10 degree lockout position was a bit of a compromise, to allow the aircraft to operate throughout the normal operating envelope with a secondary nozzle (bucket) at a less than ideal position. See the diagrams below, one showing the bucket control schedule and the other the bucket positions at both take off and supersonic flight: If the buckets are too wide at low Mach numbers then the high velocity exhaust will try and 'drag' the low pressure/low velocity air in the exhaust annulus along with it; this results in a huge reduction in thrust and is termed 'base drag'. That is the whole idea of having the eyelids at the top and bottom of the bucket assembly; to admit free ambient air into this void and mitigate the effects of base drag (and reduce the noise mayhem a little too). If however the buckets are too narrow at high speed/high altitude then we really get a problem; The high pressure/high velocity exhause gas immediately expands against the VERY low presuure ambient air and flares outwards at an accute angle, again losing us serious quantities of thrust The wide open bucket angle gives us this wonderful cushion of secondary intake airflow. (travelling over the top of the rear ramp, through the engine bay and into the nozzle annulus. The eflux can now gently expand against this airflow as it exits the secondary nozzle, taking up the shape of the divergent secion of nozzle.
Now if we are locked at the 10 degree position we are at a position that will give us significant but tolerable losses throughout the flight envelope.
I presume that the fuel penalty for a locked secondary nozzle was due to the reduced expansion of exhaust gas without the maximum divergent shape?
Now if we are locked at the 10 degree position we are at a position that will give us significant but tolerable losses throughout the flight envelope.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gordonroxburgh; It sounds as though you may have had an involvement in the Concorde simulators with knowledge such as that...perhaps you could help with a question I have?
How did the simulators manage with the windsheild/nose tilt feature? I assume the relevant lever was present in the cockpit...did moving it cause anything to happen in the simulator?
How did the simulators manage with the windsheild/nose tilt feature? I assume the relevant lever was present in the cockpit...did moving it cause anything to happen in the simulator?
CJ
(PS: I've seen it on at least one of them, but have forgotten which...)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time that I 'flew' the Concorde simulator at Filton was about 15 years ago. The visuals were the superb Rediffusion (as it was called then) 'Wide' displays and I seem to remember that there was a sort of mechanical mask over the screens that looked somewhat like the visor, and this came up and down with the visor control lever. The very first time that I went on the sim' was in 1980, when the visuals comprised of a TV screen at the central parts of the windsheilds. (The DV and side windows I seem to remember were blanked out). The 'picture' was provided by a TV camera tracking over a huge vertical landscape model, populated with runways, houses, cows, fields etc. (If one of the models became 'unglued' it would appear to shoot horizontally across the screen).
I think that these Rediffusion 'Wide' vusuals were installed in the late 80's/early 90's and were as advanced as any simulator visuals anywhere. I believe that the original 'landscape model' was donated to a university.
Dude
I think that these Rediffusion 'Wide' vusuals were installed in the late 80's/early 90's and were as advanced as any simulator visuals anywhere. I believe that the original 'landscape model' was donated to a university.
Dude
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self Loading Freight
The aircraft could be very unforgiving regarding rough runways, and was a major design headache in the early days. There was particular concern regarding about runway conditions in JFK, and extensive modifications were carried out to the shock absorbers to help reduce the effects. However simplified solutions WERE sought by the manufacturers, one of these being to try and reduce the damping of the main gear by removing a meausured amount of oil from the cylinders and chage the 'tuning' of the leg, but this proved to be, er... less than successful: 
In early 1977, aircraft 210, G-BOAE was doing it's pre-delivery test flying out of Filton (Fairford was now closed as a permanent test base, but day flying was carried out from there, the aircraft returning to Filton at night). and it was decided to try this rechnique on 210. A little French guy from the landing gear manufacturer Messier spent all day, travelling from the other side of France to Filton in the west of England, and arrived at the plant at around 23:30. He spent several hours that night, draining off his carefully calculated amount of fluid from each of the main landing gears, and returned to France a happy little bunny the following morning. BIG MISTAKE !!
When OAE did it's test flying the following day, everything seemed to be going well, but on the final landing of the at Fairford.. THUMP!!! The barrels of the shock absorbers bottomed, sending a sizable shock through the entire airframe. No structural damage was done, but several systems went off line, and I particularly remember one of the incidence vane heaters being knackered by the force of the vane thumping against the stops. Our poor little Messier rep' arrives home LATE that night, only to receive a message telling him to go straight back to Filton. The poor guy was a wreck, but like a true trooper headed straight back to the UK, and inserted his carefully measured amount of oil back into the main landing gears of G-BOAE. (Always thought that this would have made a great comedy sketch)
Dude
Was it really that bad, flying out? Or am I being too dramatic?
In early 1977, aircraft 210, G-BOAE was doing it's pre-delivery test flying out of Filton (Fairford was now closed as a permanent test base, but day flying was carried out from there, the aircraft returning to Filton at night). and it was decided to try this rechnique on 210. A little French guy from the landing gear manufacturer Messier spent all day, travelling from the other side of France to Filton in the west of England, and arrived at the plant at around 23:30. He spent several hours that night, draining off his carefully calculated amount of fluid from each of the main landing gears, and returned to France a happy little bunny the following morning. BIG MISTAKE !!
When OAE did it's test flying the following day, everything seemed to be going well, but on the final landing of the at Fairford.. THUMP!!! The barrels of the shock absorbers bottomed, sending a sizable shock through the entire airframe. No structural damage was done, but several systems went off line, and I particularly remember one of the incidence vane heaters being knackered by the force of the vane thumping against the stops. Our poor little Messier rep' arrives home LATE that night, only to receive a message telling him to go straight back to Filton. The poor guy was a wreck, but like a true trooper headed straight back to the UK, and inserted his carefully measured amount of oil back into the main landing gears of G-BOAE. (Always thought that this would have made a great comedy sketch)
Dude
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for those nozzle diagrams Dude, they are very useful to visualise what's happening.
I remember reading Stanley Hookers book "Not Much of an Engineer" (I know the feeling), in which he explains how at Mach 2 the Olympus is only providing about 8% of the total thrust but then goes on to say that at the low speed end of the take-off run it was 100% of the thrust so his designers were not let off the hook. That falls to 82% in subsonic cruise.
Ah, found the figures for Mach 2, the inlet provides 63% of the total thrust, exhaust nozzles 29%. That certainly explains why the thinning and re-profiling of the inlet lip was so important to improving the fuel burn, and hence range.
I remember reading Stanley Hookers book "Not Much of an Engineer" (I know the feeling
), in which he explains how at Mach 2 the Olympus is only providing about 8% of the total thrust but then goes on to say that at the low speed end of the take-off run it was 100% of the thrust so his designers were not let off the hook. That falls to 82% in subsonic cruise.Ah, found the figures for Mach 2, the inlet provides 63% of the total thrust, exhaust nozzles 29%. That certainly explains why the thinning and re-profiling of the inlet lip was so important to improving the fuel burn, and hence range.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that I'm wondering about.
The reheat thrust increase is only about 6,000 lb per engine, so why is the fuel flow increase so large for a less than 20% thrust increase? Proportionally I think I remember it being mentioned that the fuel flow about doubles.
The reheat thrust increase is only about 6,000 lb per engine, so why is the fuel flow increase so large for a less than 20% thrust increase? Proportionally I think I remember it being mentioned that the fuel flow about doubles.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feathers, these are the joys of afterburning; a totally gas guzzling way of extracting some more thrust from an engine. With Concorde, at 15 degrees TAT, you got a 78% increase in take off fuel flow for, as you say, about a 6000lb increase in thrust. Normaly adding an afterburning/reheat system is a fairly complex and heavy affair; you need both the system itself plus a variable exhaust nozzle. Because Concorde already required the primary nozzle for N1 control, the addition of reheat was at least a relatively simple and lightweight afair. The original Olympus 593-22R engine was really a little lacking in terms of dry thrust, and the addition of the reheat system was deemed essential. Concorde only had a single reheat spray ring and flame-holder, military systems often have several, with a corresponding increase in thrust growth as well as a hyper increase in fuel burn.
Further development plans for the Olypus 593 included a large increase in dry thrust; the reheat being retained only for transonic acceleration. It is such a pity that it was not to be.
Dude
Further development plans for the Olypus 593 included a large increase in dry thrust; the reheat being retained only for transonic acceleration. It is such a pity that it was not to be.
Dude
I heard that the combined nozzle and reverser was a unique piece of aviation development.
The story I heard when I was an apprentice at Hurn was that, compared to the prototype multi finger nozzle and separate reverser, the production nozzle was:-
1. More efficient.
2. Lighter.
3. Simpler.
4. Cheaper to make and maintain.
I doubt there have been many developments that meet all 4 items.
Usually the first three can be met, but at great cost.
P.S. I did my bit of Concorde design in the FSDO by re-drawing a cabin bulkhead to reduce weight.
The story I heard when I was an apprentice at Hurn was that, compared to the prototype multi finger nozzle and separate reverser, the production nozzle was:-
1. More efficient.
2. Lighter.
3. Simpler.
4. Cheaper to make and maintain.
I doubt there have been many developments that meet all 4 items.
Usually the first three can be met, but at great cost.
P.S. I did my bit of Concorde design in the FSDO by re-drawing a cabin bulkhead to reduce weight.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reheat on the existing aircraft supplied about 25% extra "wet" thrust.
The Olympus 593 "B" engine was going to have about 25% more "dry" thrust, so the reheat could most likely have been deleted altogether.
This was achieved mostly by increasing the diameter of the LP compressor, hence increasing the mass flow, and adding a second LP turbine stage.
The "B" engine was destined for the "B" Concorde which, thanks to several aerodynamic improvements, would have had increased performance and more range, allowing direct flights from Frankfurt and Rome to New York.
Concorde #17 would have been the "prototype" for the "B" model... sadly, as M2dude says, it was not to be.
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time admirer of the marvel that is Concorde - but no aviation expert at all, just appreciate true genius and beauty! One question I've got is about the Concorde "B". Given it was never built, was there ever a plan to retro-fit some of the modifications back into one of the existing airframes? Specifically I'm thinking the engine - which on its own should have given a large boost to range (or savings on fuel!).
From what I've learned on this thread and elsewhere, when GOAG was put into storage for sometime, its something that I guess maybe could have occured then? Or am I simply being far to dumb and it would have been much to big an undertaking for far too little benefit?
From what I've learned on this thread and elsewhere, when GOAG was put into storage for sometime, its something that I guess maybe could have occured then? Or am I simply being far to dumb and it would have been much to big an undertaking for far too little benefit?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavvaP,
No I would not say you're "far too dumb".... yours are valid questions.
You're right, "it would have been too big an undertaking for too little benefit".
Don't forget the history... it was the governments that financed development, manufacture and (initially) operations.
By the time the last few aircraft came off the production line they were already unsaleable 'white tails'.
Now, the "B" modifications to the wing were quite major (droop leading edge, extended wingtip, other tweaks) and to reftrofit them would have been difficult and costly.
The "B" engine had a larger frontal diameter, so the engine nacelles would have had to be redesigned and re-manufactured.
All those modifications would then have to have been revalidated and recertified, then applied to each of the aircraft, plus the manufacture of new spares, etc.
Still saddled with five unsold aircraft at the time, there was no way the governments were going to finance such a major upgrade.
As to G-BOAG...
Applying some or all of the modifications to G-BOAG only would have been pure folly, because it would have meant a large separate spares store, revalidation and recertification, separate documentation, etc. etc. all for one aircraft.
Finally, the story doesn't tell if Rolls Royce ever got as far as running a prototype "B" type engine on a test bed. Certainly, none were ever manufactured.
CJ
No I would not say you're "far too dumb".... yours are valid questions.
You're right, "it would have been too big an undertaking for too little benefit".
Don't forget the history... it was the governments that financed development, manufacture and (initially) operations.
By the time the last few aircraft came off the production line they were already unsaleable 'white tails'.
Now, the "B" modifications to the wing were quite major (droop leading edge, extended wingtip, other tweaks) and to reftrofit them would have been difficult and costly.
The "B" engine had a larger frontal diameter, so the engine nacelles would have had to be redesigned and re-manufactured.
All those modifications would then have to have been revalidated and recertified, then applied to each of the aircraft, plus the manufacture of new spares, etc.
Still saddled with five unsold aircraft at the time, there was no way the governments were going to finance such a major upgrade.
As to G-BOAG...
Applying some or all of the modifications to G-BOAG only would have been pure folly, because it would have meant a large separate spares store, revalidation and recertification, separate documentation, etc. etc. all for one aircraft.
Finally, the story doesn't tell if Rolls Royce ever got as far as running a prototype "B" type engine on a test bed. Certainly, none were ever manufactured.
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dixi188
Actually Rolls Royce always told me that the (new) Type 28 secondary nozzle was a bit of a dissapointment. Aerodynamically it was a far better interface with the wing from a drag point of view than the original design, but fell short of it's design promise in terms of performance. The design responsibility for the secondary nozzle system awarded to the French engine manufacturer SNECMA. They in turn farmed the whole manufacturing side off to STRESSKIN inc., a division of General Motors, and the air motor and electronic control unit were designed and built by Garret Airesearch in the US also.
The original secondary nozzle was 'freely floating, with no actuation; the thrust revereser itself was a pair of cascade doors, driven by an air motor. Tertary air doors opened at low speeds to admit ambient air into the nozzle anulus, instead of the eyelids of the later 'buckets'.
If you look at the diagram below you can see what a complicated animal the prototype powerplant was. The intake dump door (alternative name for spill door) was hinged both at the front AND the rear; either hinge mechanisms automatically releasing at specific Mach numbers. It was the mechanical nightmare that the diagram suggesrs.
Dude
I heard that the combined nozzle and reverser was a unique piece of aviation development.
The story I heard when I was an apprentice at Hurn was that, compared to the prototype multi finger nozzle and separate reverser, the production nozzle was:-
1. More efficient.
2. Lighter.
3. Simpler.
4. Cheaper to make and maintain.
The story I heard when I was an apprentice at Hurn was that, compared to the prototype multi finger nozzle and separate reverser, the production nozzle was:-
1. More efficient.
2. Lighter.
3. Simpler.
4. Cheaper to make and maintain.
The original secondary nozzle was 'freely floating, with no actuation; the thrust revereser itself was a pair of cascade doors, driven by an air motor. Tertary air doors opened at low speeds to admit ambient air into the nozzle anulus, instead of the eyelids of the later 'buckets'.
If you look at the diagram below you can see what a complicated animal the prototype powerplant was. The intake dump door (alternative name for spill door) was hinged both at the front AND the rear; either hinge mechanisms automatically releasing at specific Mach numbers. It was the mechanical nightmare that the diagram suggesrs.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 9th Oct 2010 at 20:54.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavvaP
There was one small part of the 'B' model that did find it's way into the production aircraft by way of a retro-fit in the late '70's.: The leading edge of the dorsal fin was re-profiled, taking out the original 'dog leg' and the flying control surfaces were slightly extended. The whole exercise was one of supersonic drag reduction, although I never saw the actual gains quantified. (It was due to the extensions of the elevons and rudders that water ingress caused failures in later years. I just hope the fuel, if any, we saved was worth the trouble ).
As far as ChristiaanJ's point about the Olympus; the only plans I ever saw were for the Olympus 593 Mk 622, which gave a thrust increase of around 4,000 lbs static thrust but retained reheat. I know there were definate plans for a larger diameter engine (not just the LPC) that would have naturally required a larger intake. As far as the intake irself went, believe it or not, the plan was to remove the rear ramp altogether.
The 'B' would have been a hell of an aeroplane; but the 'A' was still absolutely amazing in any case.
Dude
Long time admirer of the marvel that is Concorde - but no aviation expert at all, just appreciate true genius and beauty! One question I've got is about the Concorde "B". Given it was never built, was there ever a plan to retro-fit some of the modifications back into one of the existing airframes? Specifically I'm thinking the engine - which on its own should have given a large boost to range (or savings on fuel!).
).As far as ChristiaanJ's point about the Olympus; the only plans I ever saw were for the Olympus 593 Mk 622, which gave a thrust increase of around 4,000 lbs static thrust but retained reheat. I know there were definate plans for a larger diameter engine (not just the LPC) that would have naturally required a larger intake. As far as the intake irself went, believe it or not, the plan was to remove the rear ramp altogether.
The 'B' would have been a hell of an aeroplane; but the 'A' was still absolutely amazing in any case.
Dude