Concorde question
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the prototype's nozzle arrangements in comparison with that used in the production aircraft, does anyone know how much the secondary nozzle silencing effect actually gained?
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
I wonder how close to the noise limits the prototypes would have been at JFK....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feathers McGraw
In scale model test the silencers produced quite promising results. However on the aircraft itself they proved to be worse than useless, the only real difference they made was that they resulted in a reduction of thrust. (But because the fly over altitudes would consequently be far lower, they did a good job in INCREASING the noise nuiscance).
As far as your point about the prototype engines; they were way down on thrust anyway, (even without the 'help' of the silencers), produced more black smoke than a 1930's coal fired power station, and would not have enabled Trans-Atlantic revenue load crossings. (And what with the noise and the smoke, I guess our environmental friends down there would REALLY have had something to complain about
).
Dude
In scale model test the silencers produced quite promising results. However on the aircraft itself they proved to be worse than useless, the only real difference they made was that they resulted in a reduction of thrust. (But because the fly over altitudes would consequently be far lower, they did a good job in INCREASING the noise nuiscance).
As far as your point about the prototype engines; they were way down on thrust anyway, (even without the 'help' of the silencers), produced more black smoke than a 1930's coal fired power station, and would not have enabled Trans-Atlantic revenue load crossings. (And what with the noise and the smoke, I guess our environmental friends down there would REALLY have had something to complain about
).Dude
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another aspect of Concorde.
All this talk of a 'B' model is both interesting and a bit frustrating. It must be all the more so for our main contributors - M2Dude and ChristiaanJ - and I guess the crews themselves, that the 'B' never saw the light of day. The discussion about the engines/ intakes/ nozzles is taking place about another flight level above my head 
but still riveting stuff nonetheless. 
May I ask a question about another aspect of Concorde life? In my own job as a CT/MRI scanner engineer, I was for many years a 'Registered Radiation Worker' and indeed I still wear the equivalent of a film badge. My annual dose though was and is tiny, virtually background. However, I remember seeing a chart from the Radiological Protection Board some years ago, that seemed to suggest Concorde Crews had the highest radiation dose in any industry routine operations.
Was this true and did Concorde crews wear a film badge as I did? I understand that 'ordinary' flight crews get quite a radiation dose, but nothing like the 60,000ft doses the lady permitted?
Roger.
but still riveting stuff nonetheless. May I ask a question about another aspect of Concorde life? In my own job as a CT/MRI scanner engineer, I was for many years a 'Registered Radiation Worker' and indeed I still wear the equivalent of a film badge. My annual dose though was and is tiny, virtually background. However, I remember seeing a chart from the Radiological Protection Board some years ago, that seemed to suggest Concorde Crews had the highest radiation dose in any industry routine operations.
Was this true and did Concorde crews wear a film badge as I did? I understand that 'ordinary' flight crews get quite a radiation dose, but nothing like the 60,000ft doses the lady permitted?
Roger.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question Roger, the short answer to that is 'no they didn't. Radiation (in millirems) was logged after each flight, the data coming from the onboard radiation meter developed at the Harwell nuclear research centre in Essex. (A counter clocked the overall dose and an analog dial indication showed the dose rate). Although the dose rates in Concorde were higher than in a subsonic aircraft, because the sector times were over twice as short everything kind of cancelled out. The indicator itself
I do remember that when the Three Mile Island Pa accident happened in 1979, some spikes were seen on the radiation meter on the IAD-LHR sector, and occasionally throughout the years we got minor spikes when overflying the Atomic Weapons establishment at Burghfield in Berkshire. (All we did in that case was to telephone the duty officer at Burghfield who would say 'thank you' and log the event).
As far as the 'B' model goes, well yes it is a little frustrating to know that the full potential of this wonderful design was never fully realised, but as I said before, 'the 'A' model itself was still totally amazing.
Dude
I do remember that when the Three Mile Island Pa accident happened in 1979, some spikes were seen on the radiation meter on the IAD-LHR sector, and occasionally throughout the years we got minor spikes when overflying the Atomic Weapons establishment at Burghfield in Berkshire. (All we did in that case was to telephone the duty officer at Burghfield who would say 'thank you' and log the event).
As far as the 'B' model goes, well yes it is a little frustrating to know that the full potential of this wonderful design was never fully realised, but as I said before, 'the 'A' model itself was still totally amazing.
Dude
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did it refer to dose rate or accumulated dose?
As M2dude already said, the dose rate was roughly twice that for a subsonic crew, but because of the shorter flight duration, the accumulated dose was no different from the large majority of crews in general.
CJ
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 10th Oct 2010 at 16:25. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brooklands Concorde sim
A small add-on to the earlier posts about the simulators.
Brooklands sim video
Brief video, taken yesterday (Oct 9, 2010) of a landing on LHR 27L, with the new three-projector visual display.
Also a couple of photosets of the new projectors being installed on the top of the 'cab' and the three overlapping images being aligned. As the photographer (friend of mine) noted , he had to leave before the final tweaks... the borders (overlaps) are now virtually invisible.
Concorde Photos Gallery - 21st September 2010
Concorde Photos Gallery - 25th September 2010
CJ
Brooklands sim video
Brief video, taken yesterday (Oct 9, 2010) of a landing on LHR 27L, with the new three-projector visual display.
Also a couple of photosets of the new projectors being installed on the top of the 'cab' and the three overlapping images being aligned. As the photographer (friend of mine) noted , he had to leave before the final tweaks... the borders (overlaps) are now virtually invisible.
Concorde Photos Gallery - 21st September 2010
Concorde Photos Gallery - 25th September 2010
CJ
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if my piggy bank will ever stretch to a sim session down at Brooklands? I can but dream.....
Thanks for the engine nozzle comments Dude, it certainly seems that the secondary nozzles got bitten by the law of unintended consequences. All engineers are familiar with that one!
Thanks for the engine nozzle comments Dude, it certainly seems that the secondary nozzles got bitten by the law of unintended consequences. All engineers are familiar with that one!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centre of Gravity
I have been thinking (always dangerous!) about CofG movement. I understand the concept that the CofG must be positioned for the particular phase of flight. What I have been wondering is on shorter charter flights was there a mininium ammount of fuel that had to be loaded just to always have enough fuel for CofG movement ie was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?
Regards
Nick
Regards
Nick
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
radiation
As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concord(e) radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were.
Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?
I dealt extensively with the London sector (S23) most likely to be involved in this procedure but fortunately it never happened to me.
Dave
Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?
I dealt extensively with the London sector (S23) most likely to be involved in this procedure but fortunately it never happened to me.
Dave
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concorde radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were.
Has any Concorde crew ever had to do this?
Has any Concorde crew ever had to do this?
I was looking to confirm my own memory on the matter and found this quote, from a personal friend, on another aviation forum.
No actual radiation caused descents on either BA or AF Concordes in 25 years of operation.
The "blips" on the radiation meter over certain "hot spots", in the UK, the US and the Middle East, are well-known bits of Concorde folklore.
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got me thinking too... equally dangerous, since it's not my 'subject' 
First simplistic answer...
If the charter flight did not involve a supersonic flight, then of course it wouldn't have been a problem, you would just have loaded enough fuel into that vast collection of tanks to maintain a 'subsonic' CG.
So, second answer, which is what I think you're thinking of: the case of a short charter with a supersonic "loop" over the Bay of Biscay, as both BA and AF did quite a number of times, with less fuel.
This is where I start thinking... and I admit I may be wrong.
Take a normal transatlantic flight, with all the tanks full at take-off.
By the time you started the supersonic acceleration (so with still a lot of fuel forward, only the fuel used in take-off and subsonic climb no longer there) the 10-odd tons in tank 11 (the trim tank in the tail) were already enough to shift the CG backwards to what was needed when supersonic.
So, with a smaller fuel load, getting the CG backwards to the right position would already be easier, even without fully filling tank 11. And of course no problem returning to the 'subsonic' CG.... plenty of space in the already partly empty tanks..
So I think the answer to your question is "no".
CJ
I understand the concept that the CofG must be positioned for the particular phase of flight. What I have been wondering is on shorter charter flights was there a mininium ammount of fuel that had to be loaded just to always have enough fuel for CofG movement ie was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?
If the charter flight did not involve a supersonic flight, then of course it wouldn't have been a problem, you would just have loaded enough fuel into that vast collection of tanks to maintain a 'subsonic' CG.
So, second answer, which is what I think you're thinking of: the case of a short charter with a supersonic "loop" over the Bay of Biscay, as both BA and AF did quite a number of times, with less fuel.
This is where I start thinking... and I admit I may be wrong.
Take a normal transatlantic flight, with all the tanks full at take-off.
By the time you started the supersonic acceleration (so with still a lot of fuel forward, only the fuel used in take-off and subsonic climb no longer there) the 10-odd tons in tank 11 (the trim tank in the tail) were already enough to shift the CG backwards to what was needed when supersonic.
So, with a smaller fuel load, getting the CG backwards to the right position would already be easier, even without fully filling tank 11. And of course no problem returning to the 'subsonic' CG.... plenty of space in the already partly empty tanks..
So I think the answer to your question is "no".
CJ
Nick Thomas
... on shorter charter flights was there a mininium ammount of fuel that had to be loaded just to always have enough fuel for CofG movement...
Yes, 35,000 kgs, at take-off, for a short supersonic flight. This would allow sufficient fuel to be transferred rearwards in order to achieve a CG approaching 59%.
If the flight was to remain subsonic, the fuel figure dropped to 25,000 kgs, as the required CG for subsonic cruise was 55% not 59%.
Both these figures were at take-off, so the estimated taxy fuel had to be added to these figures in order to arrive at the minimum fuel figure required to be loaded.
...was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?...
No, at least it should not have been!
However, a situation was sometimes reached in flight, generally only towards the end of the planned supercruise portion of a LHR-BGI sector, where, with the aircraft at M2.00 and FL600, it was no longer possible to maintain a CG of 59%, as the "ballast" fuel, which had been transferred aft into tank 11, was now required forward again as "fuel" fuel, to top up other tanks which had reached their minimum permitted levels.
In this case, once the forward transfer of fuel had begun, the CG would also be slowly moving FWD, and one would be compelled to commence the decel and descent earlier than desired, something EXWOK touched on here much earlier in this thread.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
... on shorter charter flights was there a mininium ammount of fuel that had to be loaded just to always have enough fuel for CofG movement...
Yes, 35,000 kgs, at take-off, for a short supersonic flight. This would allow sufficient fuel to be transferred rearwards in order to achieve a CG approaching 59%.
If the flight was to remain subsonic, the fuel figure dropped to 25,000 kgs, as the required CG for subsonic cruise was 55% not 59%.
Both these figures were at take-off, so the estimated taxy fuel had to be added to these figures in order to arrive at the minimum fuel figure required to be loaded.
...was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?...
No, at least it should not have been!
However, a situation was sometimes reached in flight, generally only towards the end of the planned supercruise portion of a LHR-BGI sector, where, with the aircraft at M2.00 and FL600, it was no longer possible to maintain a CG of 59%, as the "ballast" fuel, which had been transferred aft into tank 11, was now required forward again as "fuel" fuel, to top up other tanks which had reached their minimum permitted levels.
In this case, once the forward transfer of fuel had begun, the CG would also be slowly moving FWD, and one would be compelled to commence the decel and descent earlier than desired, something EXWOK touched on here much earlier in this thread.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Last edited by Bellerophon; 11th Oct 2010 at 21:17.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radiation.
Out of pure curiosity... any chance of finding that chart still?
Out of pure, vulgar interest in my field, the hospital was Atkinson Morley's Hospital in Wimbledon. This hospital is where Stirling Moss did much of his rehabilitation after his near fatal crash and huge numbers of patients benefited from pioneering neurosurgery . Most importantly from my point of view, AMH where the original prototype CT (Computed Tomography) scanner was installed and all the early clinical work - done by Doctor James Ambrose - was done. This machine is the one that can be seen in the Welcome Medical Gallery in the Science Museum and I used to work on it!
Roger.
arearadar
...As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concord(e) radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were...
The display, on the radiation meter, was divided into three, coloured, sections.
The procedure to be followed was simply an Abnormal Procedure rather than an Emergency Drill.
It was of some concern that the sort of radiation levels that would trigger the radiation alarm might very well also be playing havoc with radio communications, particularly HF communications. The possibility of being unable to communicate with ATC was one that had to be considered, and so it was only under these circumstances, with both a Red MWS RADN warning and an ATC communications failure, that the Captain was permitted, at his discretion, to perform an uncleared descent.
It's comforting to know that you were prepared to deal with us if required, but unlikely, I would have thought, that your services would have been called upon in practice.
...Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?...
I not aware of any such descent incident, although obviously I cant state definitely that one never occurred.
It wasn't unknown for the radiation alarm to go off, Ive had it, briefly, twice, both times at lowish level over the sea on departure from JFK. On one occasion there was nothing at all to indicate what might have caused it, on the other, we had just overflown a rather large waste barge being towed somewhere!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
...As an ATCO we had very specific instructions about how to deal with a Concord(e) radiation overdose. We were told that it would have to make an emergency descent and how to integrate it with other traffic as it descended and what the priorities were...
The display, on the radiation meter, was divided into three, coloured, sections.
GREEN.....0010 millirems/hour....No action required.
AMBER....1150 millirems/hour....Alert ATC, prepare for possible descent.
RED........51+....millirems/hour.....Descend out of high dosage flight levels.
If the "Red" level on the radiation meter was reached, this would also trigger the central Master Warning System to display a Red MWS RADN light, and also to sound the MWS gong. AMBER....1150 millirems/hour....Alert ATC, prepare for possible descent.
RED........51+....millirems/hour.....Descend out of high dosage flight levels.
The procedure to be followed was simply an Abnormal Procedure rather than an Emergency Drill.
AMBER.....Advise ATC that a descent might shortly be required.
RED.........Alert ATC, obtain clearance, and then descend.
So, even with an instantaneous radiation level in excess of 50 millrems/hour indicating, this was not thought to justify the risk of an emergency, uncleared, descent through flights levels possibly occupied by underflying aircraft, and, in fact, if the warning remained RED below 47,000 ft, the warning was deemed suspect, and the descent could be stopped. RED.........Alert ATC, obtain clearance, and then descend.
It was of some concern that the sort of radiation levels that would trigger the radiation alarm might very well also be playing havoc with radio communications, particularly HF communications. The possibility of being unable to communicate with ATC was one that had to be considered, and so it was only under these circumstances, with both a Red MWS RADN warning and an ATC communications failure, that the Captain was permitted, at his discretion, to perform an uncleared descent.
It's comforting to know that you were prepared to deal with us if required, but unlikely, I would have thought, that your services would have been called upon in practice.
...Has any Concord crew ever had to do this?...
I not aware of any such descent incident, although obviously I cant state definitely that one never occurred.
It wasn't unknown for the radiation alarm to go off, Ive had it, briefly, twice, both times at lowish level over the sea on departure from JFK. On one occasion there was nothing at all to indicate what might have caused it, on the other, we had just overflown a rather large waste barge being towed somewhere!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CJ and Bellerophon for your answers.
When Concorde was retired what happened to the pilots and FEs who were too young to retire? Did they have a choice of what to fly next? Did the newer glass cockpits offer less of a challenge? I have always presumed that the FEs would be nearer retirement as by that time all other BA planes would be a two pilot flight deck.
Regards
Nick
When Concorde was retired what happened to the pilots and FEs who were too young to retire? Did they have a choice of what to fly next? Did the newer glass cockpits offer less of a challenge? I have always presumed that the FEs would be nearer retirement as by that time all other BA planes would be a two pilot flight deck.
Regards
Nick
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...was it possible to be in a position where trip fuel, fuel to an alternate etc was less than the fuel required for CofG movement after take off?...
No, at least it should not have been!
No, at least it should not have been!
I believe I heard that fuel was transferred during landing to partially counter this effect.
So my question is: Would it have been possible to land the Concorde with near zero fuel?
And a supplementary (
) Would it change the handling characteristics, and did this affect fuel calculations at all?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to [Steve]'s question
I believe a "Near Zero Fuel" landing was successful....by a certain Chief Pilot 
There were several appropriate cartoons at the time.
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...n-walpole.html
There were several appropriate cartoons at the time.
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...n-walpole.html
Last edited by ZimmerFly; 12th Oct 2010 at 10:35. Reason: Link Added
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that episode has been well documented, and I for one I have a very funny story about it all. However, here is not the place to lambast anyone, especially as they might be lurking within our numbers . If the gentleman himself would like to contribute, well....that would be a different matter! As I recall, he was always polite and curteous to the cabin crews, and I've had many a drink with him when he has been a very interesting and funny raconteur. My story will be told one day, but I will seek permission from BW first!
I am just about to throw my weary body onto a sun kissed Caribbean beach, and I intend to drink copious quantities of rum punch, so talk amongst yourselves until I return.
Warm regards,
LL x
. If the gentleman himself would like to contribute, well....that would be a different matter! As I recall, he was always polite and curteous to the cabin crews, and I've had many a drink with him when he has been a very interesting and funny raconteur. My story will be told one day, but I will seek permission from BW first!I am just about to throw my weary body onto a sun kissed Caribbean beach, and I intend to drink copious quantities of rum punch, so talk amongst yourselves until I return.
Warm regards,
LL x