Concorde question
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Concorde at Duxford is still painted and equiped for the "icing test camapign", so I assume at least the inner (or forward) wing had no anti ice.
I should have some pictures I can search for...
I should have some pictures I can search for...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if this has been covered before but did the Concorde have bleed air wing or fin Anti-Icing ?
Now the leading edges of the intakes and the leading edges of various bits within the intake along with the underside of the wing in front of the the intakes were deiced by a combination of continuous and cyclic electrically heated mats.
All of this electrically heated deicing was infact extened engine deicing so as to ensure that when the ice came off it would be in small enough chunks for the engine to digest without damage. [Another system almost direct from the Bristol Britannia]
The fin nor the rest of the wing had any anti icing system
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volume,
Here are the drawings that should help with your last photo of Concorde "0001".
Not very good quality, since they're scans of xerox copies of xerox copies of microfilm ...
Prototype drawing dated July 1965, which in particular shows the location of the emergency exits.
Production drawing (two cut-outs from the same drawing at the same scale) which (schematically) does actually show the 'sloped areas' both at the front and the rear of the main landing gear bay.
Note 1 : both frame 54 and frame 60 were 'production breaks'.
Note 2 : the tanks were numbered differently on the prototypes ; tank N° 9 on the prototype became tank n° 6 on the production aircraft.
CJ
Here are the drawings that should help with your last photo of Concorde "0001".
Not very good quality, since they're scans of xerox copies of xerox copies of microfilm ...
Prototype drawing dated July 1965, which in particular shows the location of the emergency exits.
Production drawing (two cut-outs from the same drawing at the same scale) which (schematically) does actually show the 'sloped areas' both at the front and the rear of the main landing gear bay.
Note 1 : both frame 54 and frame 60 were 'production breaks'.
Note 2 : the tanks were numbered differently on the prototypes ; tank N° 9 on the prototype became tank n° 6 on the production aircraft.
CJ
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Wow what a fascinating thread to have stumbled across .
Its so great to have a discussion which is full of facts from people who were there and know the truth rather than all the usual half baked opinions and theories.
On which there was a splendid rumour that what put the final nail in the great birds coffin was that our transatlantic allies realised that if hijacked there was nothing that could catch her !!
Rod just a ppl
Its so great to have a discussion which is full of facts from people who were there and know the truth rather than all the usual half baked opinions and theories.
On which there was a splendid rumour that what put the final nail in the great birds coffin was that our transatlantic allies realised that if hijacked there was nothing that could catch her !!
Rod just a ppl
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra Del Fuego
Age: 45
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hydrazine powered as was the ME "162"
I haven't had time to read all of the posts so I doubt I'm the first person to point out the typo but the ME 163 was the rocket powered interceptor, the ME 262 was the first operation jet fighter...twin engine and powered by jet fuel. Also, the ME 163's were cool but they had a poor operational record of killing more of their pilots (due to the hydrazine instability) more often than they shot down allied bombers or their fighter escorts.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicking
A detail I know but wasnt the Olympus really a Bristol engine? (cf Hooker "not much of an engineer" )I know RR bought the company but it wasnt their original design
rod
rod
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jodelistie
First of all Rod, welcome to our Concorde thread, and thank you very much for your kind words.
Now as far as the rumour goes, I'm afraid that it is nonsense, however the truth is an even more complex story of collusion, betrayal and intrigue. You may read that 'Concorde was retired by BA and Air France purely due to economic reasons', however that is not quite the case (and as far as THIS side of the English Puddle goes, is total poppycock!!). Now BA lost a huge amount of her regular traffic as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and also as a result of the 2003 Iraq war, but things were improving nicely. In her 27 years of operation, Concorde had survived countless dips in her traffic, only to return stronger as market conditions improved.
It is early 2003, and French Concorde traffic to the USA has almost vanished, down to single digit loads. This is due mainly to total French opposition the impending US/UK invasion of Iraq, and US businessmen using BA Concorde almost exclusively. (French business seems to be boycotting the US altogether, so their contribution to passenger loads virtually ceased). Due to the apalling loads, AF are losing absolutely MILLIONS of Euros, at a time when the carrier is trying to privatise itself ... but there is more:
In the same February, AF very nearly lost ANOTHER Concorde, yet again largely down to total incompetence and lack of adherence to established procedures. Aircraft F-BTSD was flying between CDG and JFK when there was a failure of the reheat delivery pipe that runs from the engine 1st stage fuel pump to the reheat shut-off valve. This failure, although not particularly serious, led to a chain of events that very nearly resulted in the loss of the aircraft, and all those onboard. (Air France engines were overhauled seperately to BA, who never experienced this particular failure). What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too late. The aircraft just managed to land in Halifax, with barely enough fuel left in the tanks to taxi!! So, herer we are, AF are horrified that they have come very close to yet another disaster, knowing full well that yet again human error was a major factor.
But there is more....
One week later another AF aircraft loses part of a rudder panel due to de-lamination of the honeycomb surface, not particularly serious in itself, but it put even more jitters up the trousers of AF. (Rudder failures had happened to BA aircraft many years previous to this, but BA had purchased brand new and improved rudders from Airbus UK in Filton, but Air France chose not too).
So it seems that the chairmen of both Air France and Airbus (who regards Concorde as a waste of its valuable resources) have a 'secret' meeting to plan what was effectively the murder of Concorde. There is no way that AF want BA to carry on flying Concorde while they have to cease operations, so the plan is for Airbus to make a huge hike in their product support costs; these costs would have to be borne by BA exclusively, which they both knew would not be possible. If these support costs were not met, there would be no manufacturers support, and without this there would be no type certificate, and without this, no more Concorde.
Their (AF & Airbus) hope was that BA would not challenge this move legally, and sadly for the world of aviation they did not. At a meeting, BA AND AIR FRANCE!!!! were told by Airbus about the hike in product support costs, and BA would also have to cease operations. BA were not even allowed to continue until March 2004 (the Barbados season was nearly fully booked already), and so would have to cease operations in October 2003.
But the British were far from blameless in all this; a now retired very senior British airline person had always obsessively HATED Concorde, so the French conspiracy was a very early Christmas present for him; he finally got what he had always wanted. The 'end of Concorde' anouncement by both airlines was made in April 2003; AF had got what their executives wanted and finished flying in May, reluctantly leaving BA to fly until late October. If you want a full (and extremely well informed) explanation of what happened in that whole debacle, the article by Don Pevsner is worth reading. It can be found at this website:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the truly disgusting events in France in early 2003, Concorde would still be proudly flying for BA. (And with modifications and enhancements would fly safely for many more years).
quote** "in the hands of true professionals, Concorde was the safest aircraft that ever flew. and in the hands of BA crews at least, she was always just that..*
Oh and yes you were correct, the Olympus (the world's first ever 2 spool engine) was originally a 'Bristol-Siddeley' design, before BS were absorbed into Rolls-Royce. Stanley Hookers book is in my view totally superb, a true classic.
Dude
On which there was a splendid rumour that what put the final nail in the great birds coffin was that our transatlantic allies realised that if hijacked there was nothing that could catch her !!
Now as far as the rumour goes, I'm afraid that it is nonsense, however the truth is an even more complex story of collusion, betrayal and intrigue. You may read that 'Concorde was retired by BA and Air France purely due to economic reasons', however that is not quite the case (and as far as THIS side of the English Puddle goes, is total poppycock!!). Now BA lost a huge amount of her regular traffic as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and also as a result of the 2003 Iraq war, but things were improving nicely. In her 27 years of operation, Concorde had survived countless dips in her traffic, only to return stronger as market conditions improved.
It is early 2003, and French Concorde traffic to the USA has almost vanished, down to single digit loads. This is due mainly to total French opposition the impending US/UK invasion of Iraq, and US businessmen using BA Concorde almost exclusively. (French business seems to be boycotting the US altogether, so their contribution to passenger loads virtually ceased). Due to the apalling loads, AF are losing absolutely MILLIONS of Euros, at a time when the carrier is trying to privatise itself ... but there is more:
In the same February, AF very nearly lost ANOTHER Concorde, yet again largely down to total incompetence and lack of adherence to established procedures. Aircraft F-BTSD was flying between CDG and JFK when there was a failure of the reheat delivery pipe that runs from the engine 1st stage fuel pump to the reheat shut-off valve. This failure, although not particularly serious, led to a chain of events that very nearly resulted in the loss of the aircraft, and all those onboard. (Air France engines were overhauled seperately to BA, who never experienced this particular failure). What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too late. The aircraft just managed to land in Halifax, with barely enough fuel left in the tanks to taxi!! So, herer we are, AF are horrified that they have come very close to yet another disaster, knowing full well that yet again human error was a major factor.
But there is more....
One week later another AF aircraft loses part of a rudder panel due to de-lamination of the honeycomb surface, not particularly serious in itself, but it put even more jitters up the trousers of AF. (Rudder failures had happened to BA aircraft many years previous to this, but BA had purchased brand new and improved rudders from Airbus UK in Filton, but Air France chose not too).
So it seems that the chairmen of both Air France and Airbus (who regards Concorde as a waste of its valuable resources) have a 'secret' meeting to plan what was effectively the murder of Concorde. There is no way that AF want BA to carry on flying Concorde while they have to cease operations, so the plan is for Airbus to make a huge hike in their product support costs; these costs would have to be borne by BA exclusively, which they both knew would not be possible. If these support costs were not met, there would be no manufacturers support, and without this there would be no type certificate, and without this, no more Concorde.
Their (AF & Airbus) hope was that BA would not challenge this move legally, and sadly for the world of aviation they did not. At a meeting, BA AND AIR FRANCE!!!! were told by Airbus about the hike in product support costs, and BA would also have to cease operations. BA were not even allowed to continue until March 2004 (the Barbados season was nearly fully booked already), and so would have to cease operations in October 2003.
But the British were far from blameless in all this; a now retired very senior British airline person had always obsessively HATED Concorde, so the French conspiracy was a very early Christmas present for him; he finally got what he had always wanted. The 'end of Concorde' anouncement by both airlines was made in April 2003; AF had got what their executives wanted and finished flying in May, reluctantly leaving BA to fly until late October. If you want a full (and extremely well informed) explanation of what happened in that whole debacle, the article by Don Pevsner is worth reading. It can be found at this website:
THE BETRAYAL OF CONCORDE
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the truly disgusting events in France in early 2003, Concorde would still be proudly flying for BA. (And with modifications and enhancements would fly safely for many more years).
quote** "in the hands of true professionals, Concorde was the safest aircraft that ever flew. and in the hands of BA crews at least, she was always just that..*
Oh and yes you were correct, the Olympus (the world's first ever 2 spool engine) was originally a 'Bristol-Siddeley' design, before BS were absorbed into Rolls-Royce. Stanley Hookers book is in my view totally superb, a true classic.
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 29th Oct 2010 at 15:52. Reason: spelling (yet again) :-(
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jobpatto,
You're right, it was the Me163 that was rocket-powered using a hydrazine-based fuel.
I think the "Me162" in the early post was a simple typo, or an unintentional confusion with either the Me262 or the He162.
jodeliste,
The original design was indeed by Bristol Aero Engines, which then became Bristol Siddeley. But the latter was taken over by Rolls Royce in 1966, so by the time Concorde first flew, it already had become a Rolls Royce engine.
CJ
You're right, it was the Me163 that was rocket-powered using a hydrazine-based fuel.
I think the "Me162" in the early post was a simple typo, or an unintentional confusion with either the Me262 or the He162.
jodeliste,
The original design was indeed by Bristol Aero Engines, which then became Bristol Siddeley. But the latter was taken over by Rolls Royce in 1966, so by the time Concorde first flew, it already had become a Rolls Royce engine.
CJ
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra Del Fuego
Age: 45
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChristiaanJ,
I'm 31yrs old and my knowledge comes from reading as well as the Military and History channels. I totally forgot about the HE-162. My knowledge is trivial in comparison to the info in this blog....so much so that I was nervous to post it. I just couldn't shake the statistics about the speed of the 163 and the number of top German pilots that the hydrazine rockets killed.
Thanks for the info. I am sure it was a typo, and if not, my knowledge is academic as opposed to practical. I have 25hrs of flight training, 15 of which is recreational single-engine sea water landing in a Lake Amphibian. This training is now 14yrs old. As I said, academic/trivial-knowledge, not practical.
I'm 31yrs old and my knowledge comes from reading as well as the Military and History channels. I totally forgot about the HE-162. My knowledge is trivial in comparison to the info in this blog....so much so that I was nervous to post it. I just couldn't shake the statistics about the speed of the 163 and the number of top German pilots that the hydrazine rockets killed.
Thanks for the info. I am sure it was a typo, and if not, my knowledge is academic as opposed to practical. I have 25hrs of flight training, 15 of which is recreational single-engine sea water landing in a Lake Amphibian. This training is now 14yrs old. As I said, academic/trivial-knowledge, not practical.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you M2Dude for all this priceless info
I agree about Stan Hookers book and before he died he also recorded remeniscences on I think, a BBC program, I have it somewhere on a tape, must find it and transfer to a dvd
Ps the rumour was tongue in cheek
rod
I agree about Stan Hookers book and before he died he also recorded remeniscences on I think, a BBC program, I have it somewhere on a tape, must find it and transfer to a dvd
Ps the rumour was tongue in cheek
rod
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was required in the case of this failure was a precautionary engine shut-down, closing off the fuel supply to the engine totally, and a descent/deceleration to subsonic speed, carefully monitoring fuel consumption all the time. Unfortunately the crew 'forgot' to shut down the fuel LP valve, and this resulted in the fuel continuing to gush out of the failed pipe at an alarming rate. (Oh, and also they forgot to monitor the fuel consumption). Only after the crew FINALLY noticed that they were still losing fuel did they remember to close the engine LP valve, but it was almost too
Now I do not know what event happened to require the engine to be shut down, and if it was for fuel loss then yes the crew should have been moitoring the difference between fuel on board and fuel used figures and I am sure they were. However if they were also slowing and descending then the fuel system would be quite active and the difference between fuel on board and intergrated fuel left could vary very much during this phase of flight as the fuel cooled and you found that the gauges were still showing a few hundred Kgs each, even though the pump low pressure lights were on
It would not have been until they had settled down at Mach 0.95 with fuel transfer still that a proper appraisal could be made of the difference between the two fuel remaining indication and now the loss of fuel in the appropriate collector tank.
Not sure where they were when they started their subsonic diversion but believe me even with everything going for you there would not have been huge amounts of fuel left, by the time the aircraft got to Halifax
Perhaps if there is any blame it should lie with the people who wrote the checklist, by not putting an item in to cover such a case as this
It seems to me thet poor old Air France are blamed when
1] They deviate from the checklist as was suggested in the crash
OR
2] Stick to the checklist as in this case
Now you might say what about airmanship, well they did use it, perhaps a bit earlier would have been better, but easy to say without knowing all the facts.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just couldn't shake the statistics about the speed of the 163 and the number of top German pilots that the hydrazine rockets killed.
As mentioned earlier, hydrazine was "tamed" enough in the postwar years to make its use for EPUs in the military feasible (such as the F-16), where the weight gain is more important than the difficulties of handling the stuff.
Even so, just as well it was never used on the in-service Concordes... it's not the kind of product you want around on a civilian airport....
Just imagine a Concorde at the gate.. everybody being cleared away in a wide radius... a few people driving up with goggles, helmets and asbestos suits...
"What IS going on ??" "Oh, nothing, just topping up the APU"....
jodeliste,
I have Stanley Hooker's book too. If you ever find that tape, put me on the distribution list for the DVD (all costs reimbursed, of course!).
CJ
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra Del Fuego
Age: 45
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classic
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']ChristiaanJ,[/FONT]
Classic, I love it. You speak with a tone of classic British understatement. I seem to recall that hydrazine in the early-to-mid 40's would burn through any type of protective clothing w/o even a spark....although I wouldn't swear to it. Regardless, I can only imagine Concorde passengers, sipping champagne and watching ground-crew members in hazmat suits pumping 'something' into their plane. My great aunt and uncle flew on the Concorde dozens of times and never described such a scene. I could only imagine that it would be unnerving to the passengers, at best!
Thank you for the comments and kind words.
Classic, I love it. You speak with a tone of classic British understatement. I seem to recall that hydrazine in the early-to-mid 40's would burn through any type of protective clothing w/o even a spark....although I wouldn't swear to it. Regardless, I can only imagine Concorde passengers, sipping champagne and watching ground-crew members in hazmat suits pumping 'something' into their plane. My great aunt and uncle flew on the Concorde dozens of times and never described such a scene. I could only imagine that it would be unnerving to the passengers, at best!
Thank you for the comments and kind words.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brit312
mm I guess they were not to blame for flying for over one hour with a red throttle light on (the engine is under no electronic control), resulting in the severe engine overspeed (N1 overspeed protection amplifier already disabled) and the subsequent scrapping (on the orders of Rolls Royce) of the entire rotating assembly of the engine. Or for omitting TWO intake trunnion blocks during a ramp actuator replacement, and then the E/O continually and cyclically operating the intake lane selector switch, following a spill door runaway, until he manages a double engine surge and near destruction of the 'forgotton parts' intake and engine also. I suppose they are not to blame for the experimental tripping of the LPOG circuit breaker by the E/O, during an engine power mismatch, resulting in serious damage to the engine and intake due to the resulting massive over-fueling surge. I suppose again, that they were not to blame for ignoring for over 6 months a simple electrical load defect, eventually resulting in a not too minor fire in the electronics racks that had to be extinguished by the crew with extinguishers. And yet again, I suppose they are not to blame for putting skydrol into Concorde hydraulics systems, almost resulting in the loss of the aircraft, as well as a 9 month grounding while all of the hydraulic components were replaced. And it was not Air France that hammered Fox Delta twice into the runway at Dacca, resulting in so much airframe distortion that the aircraft performance was seriously compromised (and eventually broken up). And of course they were not responsible for the technical and operational failures, including the (forgotton AGAIN) missing spacer and overweight take-off etc.) on 25th July 2000. Silly me.
And although I might have said 'precautionary engine shut-down', we are talking about a quite an eventful episode here indeed, you can NOT excuse the further mistakes made on that day, 'just because they are poor old Air France. With the greatest of respect Brit, there are 3 crew members on that flight deck, do you not think that the loss of over over 5 tonnes of fuel over a period of time might just be noticed????? The subsonic 3 engined leg was carried out for quite a time before it computed to them that they were still losing fuel. There is no excuse for flying with your eyes closed, I'm sorry.
For goodness sake, this is probably the biggest single episode that was behind the demise of Concorde, poor Air France my eye!!!
Dude
1] It seems to me thet poor old Air France are blamed when
1] They deviate from the checklist as was suggested in the crash
OR
2] Stick to the checklist as in this case
1] They deviate from the checklist as was suggested in the crash
OR
2] Stick to the checklist as in this case
And although I might have said 'precautionary engine shut-down', we are talking about a quite an eventful episode here indeed, you can NOT excuse the further mistakes made on that day, 'just because they are poor old Air France. With the greatest of respect Brit, there are 3 crew members on that flight deck, do you not think that the loss of over over 5 tonnes of fuel over a period of time might just be noticed????? The subsonic 3 engined leg was carried out for quite a time before it computed to them that they were still losing fuel. There is no excuse for flying with your eyes closed, I'm sorry.
For goodness sake, this is probably the biggest single episode that was behind the demise of Concorde, poor Air France my eye!!!
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 29th Oct 2010 at 21:55. Reason: more spelling :-(
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChristiaanJ
I could not agree more my friend. There has been a total wealth of queries and information from people from all over, not necessarily involved with aviation, let alone Concorde. Keep asking away everybody
I'm sure that ChristiaanJ, Brit312, Bellerophon, EXWOK and myself and others (ooh, lets not forget Landlady) will be only too glad to churn away at our poor worn out old brains and try and come up with some semi-intelligible (at least) answers.
Dude
If it wasn't for people like you, asking the questions, this thread would long since have petered out.
I'm sure that ChristiaanJ, Brit312, Bellerophon, EXWOK and myself and others (ooh, lets not forget Landlady) will be only too glad to churn away at our poor worn out old brains and try and come up with some semi-intelligible (at least) answers.
Dude
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But yes, "we were there", and, as far as I'm concerned, it's a true pleasure to have this thread where we all can share our bits of the story.
Glad you're enjoying it too !!
CJ
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Saving Landings
Hi,
The mention of fuel saving landings came up awhile back and it would be good to have some additional information on how, when's and why's this procedure was used.
As I understand it a fuel saving landing was one over the normal maximum landing weight, as such did additional inspections or anything have to take place on the airframe?
Any information on his procedure would be very much appreciated as I have only ever seen the term mentioned never the reasons behind it.
Many thanks for such a rivetting thread.
Regards,
Steve.
The mention of fuel saving landings came up awhile back and it would be good to have some additional information on how, when's and why's this procedure was used.
As I understand it a fuel saving landing was one over the normal maximum landing weight, as such did additional inspections or anything have to take place on the airframe?
Any information on his procedure would be very much appreciated as I have only ever seen the term mentioned never the reasons behind it.
Many thanks for such a rivetting thread.
Regards,
Steve.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel-saving landings
I can't give you much of the background but can remember the bare bones - here they are, without the benefit of manuals so subject to the usual caveats:
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......
A large proportion of the take-off mass consisted of fuel on this machine, hence an early return would require a lot of fuel to be jettisonned to get down to Max Landing Weight.
Obviously it would be nice not have to lose all this fuel, partly to save fuel and partly to save time.
A higher Max Landing Weight (130T) was made permissable for airborne returns given certain caveats - I can't remember all of them, but obviously a decent length of runway (to avoid caning the brakes), no braking unserviceabilities, and the brakes had to be cool and the gear lowered early amongst other considerations. Go-around performance had to be considered if hot-and-high. That's a fuel-saving landing, and it was worth about 20T of gas.
I only did a couple and it was a non-event.
It has to be remembered that certificated MLW is predicated on many factors, and some fairly high Rates of Descent at touchdown, and on any aircraft one may be faced with a siruation that requires an immdeiate landing, possibly at Max TOW. MLW is a conservative figure.
I don't recall any specific required inspections, the whole point of justifying this procedure would be to obviate that requirement, but it's fair to say that the type of issues that would precipitate a fuel-saving landing would ensure the airframe wouldn't be flying again that day anyway. Both of mine earned themselves a bit of time off.
Now, one of the gentlemen with manuals to hand (or better memories) will, I hope, fill in the inevitable gaps.......