Concorde question

[M2dude]

You and I both would love to see more of this video material, as you say it is totally priceless. I have no clue where most of it resides (if any is held by Airbus at Filton, then we are all screwed. It is possible I suppose that Rolls Royce might have some though; I'll have to check). But generally, I am afraid if I need any video material for lectures etc. my sources are invariably YouTube or my Great Uncle Google.

Regards
Dude

[ChristiaanJ]

speedbirdconcorde, M2dude,

Ever been involved with movie making, even on the sideline?

For every minute, there's usually another thirty minutes or so of "takes".
Most of them end up straight in the bin (or the "cutting room floor", to use that ancient expression), either because they're similar but not quite as good, or because something went wrong.

Only rare samples get saved.... there's a great photo of the shadow of the Lear Jet on a Concorde, that's still around.

Still, I think there's more around than we think... I just discovered "Concorde -The World's Greatest Airliner', a DVD still on sale at the "Concorde at Filton" website, with 'stuff' I'd never seen before.

Personally, I still wonder....

"Airport 79 -Concorde" was a totally rubbishy movie.
But, in 1979, special effects and computer-generated images were still primitive, so a lot of the actual air-to-air, and in particular the low flying in the "Alps" (in reality the Pyrénées) is real, flown by French test pilot Jean Franchi.
One of the scenes in the film involves a looping (!) to evade a missile.
Franchi suggested to replace this with a barrel roll , which he'd already performed repeatedly with a Concorde.
Sadly, his suggestion wasn't taken up by the producer, and the movie still has the improbable "loop-the-loop".

But, the question will remain forever....
Did Jean Franchi ever perform one of his barrel rolls in front of the Lear Jet, to show what it would look like?
And is any of that footage still stored somewhere?

I still dream....

CJ

[DozyWannabe]

I don't want to divert this fascinating thread into acrimony, so answer at your discretion.

Originally Posted by M2dude

The basic fact remains that any British Concorde anywhere NEAR an Airbus plant is nothing more than an embarassment to them, and is fundimantally always in jeapordy.

Really? Why would that be? Aerospatiale (forerunner of Airbus) were responsible for just as many parts on the British production run as they were the French.

and it is irony of ironies that the FRENCH aircraft are generally stored indoors in the dry and warm, where the British were ALL intitially stored outside, exposed to the elements.

The dispersal and disposition of the British aircraft was BA's decision though, not that of Airbus.

This discord really saddens me. Maybe Concorde's premature end-of-life was politically motivated and maybe it was financially motivated - but at the end of the day it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Can't we just celebrate what was rather than end up fighting over infinitessimal might-have-beens?

[vapilot2004]

Dozydo - Jim dandy to the rescue?

The lovely lady on the Hudson was in sad shape the last time I visited her. Shameful considering her lineage.

[M2dude]

Dozy Wannabe
I am afraid it is a case of 'go figure'. Recent history (as well as what is going on right now) shows that there is little interest in even caring for the aeroplane at Filton, let alone preserving her. Who built what is not the point here anyway.. When design and construction of the aircraft was carried out there were TWO airframe companies, Aérospatiale and BAC. Now we just have Airbus, with virtually zero British input now. (Don't get me wrong, this is the fault of the British and not the French, we are the ones that threw everything away). I can not explain the attitude of Airbus to the aeroplane, it just remains a cold hard fact.... THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED

We are all well aware that the disposal of the aircraft was the decision of the airlines thank you, I did know that. Now like it or not, there really is a lot of anger behind the fact that no INTACT British aircraft has been stored under cover from the beginning, and only one of those aircraft in the UK itself is stored away from the elements. G-BOAC the oldest production Concorde in the world, is beautifully preserved and cared for in Manchester, which makes a hell of a contrast to G-BOAF, the YOUNGEST Concorde in the world at Filton. I am really sorry if all this discord saddens you, it pleases none of us I'm sure, but truth is often like that I'm afraid, we have to deal with it; a national disgrace.
There is also no point avoiding this truth as far as the ceasation of services goes, just because when you unravel the duplicity and deceit behind the happenings of 2003, you discover a sense of disgust and outrage on the part of the British Concorde community. Far from 'not making a blind bit of difference' it makes a huge amount of difference to where we are. I do agree that we should concentrate on celebrating this truly wonderful national icon (I do so every day), but we must not be afraid of looking at the history that has got us (the aeroplane) in the sorry state we are now.

Regards
Dude

[M2dude]

VApilot2004

The lovely lady on the Hudson was in sad shape the last time I visited her. Shameful considering her lineage.

This really is a sad state of afairs I know. G-BOAD even had the 'radome tore off and the droop nose bent sideways by an idiot of a truck driver when she was stored in New Jersey 18 months or so ago. A new 'radome' was fabricated out of fibreglass (quite a reasonable attempt actually) and the bent nose? A hammer and blowtorch fixed that!! (I'm not joking). I have American engineer friends at JFK who can not even bring themselves to look at what Alpha Delta has become. They used to take exquisite care of Concorde during JFK transits, and to see her now, well it's just too much for those guys. (This is another personal one for me I'm afraid, G-BOAD was the first Concorde I ever flew on, November 5th 1976 out of Fairford).

Regards
Dude

[M2dude]

ChristiaanJ
I completely take your point regarding filming out-takes. My personal 'record' was three hours of solid filming (me) and only five SECONDS (of me) used in the programme Fame sucks you know
I must check out the DVD you mentioned, sounds really good.
Oh I do wish they'd listened to the great Jean Franchi and let him do a barrel roll in that apalling movie. (Some of the air to air footage in the movie however was not half bad). Jean Franchi in my book goes down as one of the all time great Concorde pilots.

Regards
Dude

[speedbirdconcorde]

Dude, only 5 seconds ?? I'd demand a re-edit mate...outrageous !

Out of interest...here is a pic of AG in Seattle ( taken a while back ) and the source of a big part of this thread - unfortunately could not get any higher in order to get a better view...on either end ! ( I need to check on her again and see how she is doing ) and the SR71 also ( from the Pima Air / Space museum in Arizona) - I am sure all have seen the Concorde intakes but the SR71 rear end is interesting....

ps Please forgive the pic of the Sikorsky ( at Pima also ) ...couldnt resist

Cheers...

[1965 BEA]

Short clip of AE arriving at JFK

Just a short video clip of G-BOAE arriving JFK in June 2000

concorde

[M2dude]

speedbirdconcorde
5 seconds I know, but it does at least compensate for my other screen hoggings.
Some really nice shots of G-BOAG and the SR71. (I particularly love the 'business end' shot of the J-58, showing the 4 afterburner rings).
I last visited OAG in Seattle about 5 years ago and the exterior had really suffered from the elements, being parked right next to a highway near one of the most beautiful but wettest cities in the USA. (Boeing told me that they were planning a re-paint, don't know if it ever happened though). The interior however was absolutely immaculate, thanks to the pre-conditioned air being pumped through the entire fuselage. (Now THAT'S the way to do it ).
And as for the last photo..... (I laughed so much I almost fell of the chair).

1965 BEA
Nice clip, pity it's an ambedded Flash movie. It is at a good resolution however, if you zoom in the web page it's really quite good quality.

Regards
Dude

[jodeliste]

Talking of video, I passed through LGW on saturday and WHSmiths had a Concorde dvd and some posters in a pack for £9.99 so I picked one up havent had time to look at it yet but I will let you know if its any good
rod

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by M2dude

1965 BEA
Nice clip, pity it's an ambedded Flash movie. It is at a good resolution however, if you zoom in the web page it's really quite good quality.

M2dude, I don't know what browser you use, but there are add-ons that let you save and even convert embedded Flash movies (just done it with this one).

CJ

[notfred]

Engines and touch-and-go

I found a reference (via Wikipedia) to 67 Olympus 593 built in total.
The Rolls-Royce SNECMA Olympus 593 Concorde Engine - the fascinating full story of the Olympus 593 Mk610 from concept to service

I remember seeing a picture a few years ago of a Vulcan doing a touch-and-go at an airshow and rearranging the tarmac with the. With the mentions that have been made of the little clearance between the nozzles and the ground in landing config, did Concorde ever come close to doing something similar? Was careful consideration taken of the runway surface before doing a touch-and-go at a display?

[ChristiaanJ]

notfred,
I've seen that too, but Wiki doesn't make it clear whether that figure includes the prototype and preprod engines, or only the final MK 610 engines.

CJ

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by Trabbi

... on board the Lady (what was the nick for her at AF as someone (ChristiaanJ?) mentioned at AF the Concorde was a "he"?)...

Did you ever wonder what happened when a British and French Concorde ended up at night in the same hangar, all by themselves?

Some of it can now be told.....

From the secret archives.



CJ

[EXWOK]

touch and goes

Notfred -

There was no real difference between a touch and go and a normal take off/landing. As already stated earlier in the thread bucket contact was always a possibility if the landing was a little high-pitched, especially while the buckets translated. Not having the wings perfectly level reduced bucket clearance significantly. Not much of an issue on take-off.

As for checking runways - there was a lot of that done for this aeroplane, but nowt to do with clearances. Runway roughness was a potential issue on take-off, it was to do with the structural dynamics. No time to explain now, though, but I'll revisit it tomorrow if no-one else does.

In short - bucket contact would be the result of mishandling of some sort (e.g. incorrect Vref, speed decay, overflare, wings not level) not runway roughness.

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ

Only rare samples got saved.... there's a great photo of the shadow of the Lear Jet on a Concorde, that's still around.

Just found it on my hard disk, thought it was worth sharing.



Taken during the filming of "Airport 79 - Concorde".

CJ

[speedbirdconcorde]

She looks amazing even as a biz jet version :-)

[DavvaP]

I've got another question about the lady if I may. It was touched on before - about the deicing on her. Having watched a few Air Crash Investigation programs on TV (so, yes, completely NO knowledge about aircraft from any experience at all!), it seems that there are restrictions about how much ice can be on a wing and the aircraft still allowed to take off.

From what I've been told on concorde, how the wing was so radically different from subsonic craft, what limits were there for ice on her wings - was she as affected as other aircraft?

One other thing I was wondering about - how much of concorde is now still under the protection of patents / copyright etc? I suspect not much, as the information posted here is showing quite intimate parts - or are these all publicly available documents anyway? This isn't to question whether the information in this thread is in anyway secret - just wondering how much of the information about concorde is actually still under wraps and can't be told?

Lastly (its late!) is it actually possible for a supersonic aircraft to achieve *higher* fuel efficiency than subsonic aircraft? Only reason I ask is that with all the drag numbers quoted previously it seems that the fuel efficiency climbs higher the faster you go when above mach 1? Or am I just completely off-base with that?

Thanks for this WONDERFUL thread. I've had the wonderful opportunity to see G-BOAF at filton just before she closed, and just wish I still had the chance to fly on her. m2dude - if you have it within you to post your theories about why what happened in 2003, I'd love to hear it.

- DavvaP.

[M2dude]

Hi DavvaP, and welcome. As far as ice on the wing goes, I'm sure as any of my pilot friends here will agree that she was treated just like a subsonic in that regard; any ice or snow build up on the surfaces of the wings would not be tolerated and would have to be removed before flight. (She may have had a revolutionary wing design, but still this was a wing nonetheless ). She would also require pre-flight chemical anti-icing/de-icing treatment from a ground truck just like the rest, in shall we say, 'less than tropical conditions'. (Winters in Prestwick during crew base training... such fond memories ). As far as active ice protection on the wings, there was a highly sophisticated Lucas electrical 'spraymat' system fitted, but only the wetted areas of the wing, forward of the engines were 'covered'. Two digitall cyclic timers (CTPUs) would automatically regulate cyclic switching on and off of 115 VAC for various load areas of the wing at a time at pilot pre-selectable intervals (2, 4 or 8 seconds). Also as part of this system, there was continuous de-icing for certain other load areas too, so you had a mix of cyclic and continuous de-icing in operation. The whole idea here was to prevent chunks of ice entering and damaging the engines, the only other areas of this electrical de-icing system were the intake lips and side-walls and also the D Box area above the auxilliary inlet vane, built into the spill door. (This would only operate if the auxilliary inlet door itself was open). The whole shooting match would automatically switch itself off, for obvious reasons, above a TAT of 15° C. (ie. the vast majority of the flight). The only other de-icing system (apart from the galley drain masts) was on the engine inlet guide vanes, but this was purely pneumatic and again would swith itself off above 15° C.
I think you will find that precious little of Concorde is now not generally available in the public domain, some control software and laws are still I would expect covered by some sort of patent. (That is why when I publiished here the engine 'E Schedule' graphs I deliberately deleted the equations for the various running lines.
Your efficiency question was a valid one; as IAS and Mach number increase the aerodynamic drag (in all it's forms) will generally increase, but the efficiency OF A WELL DESIGNED powerplant wil also increase, and Concorde was definately no exception here. The real beauty of Concorde was just HOW MUCH the powerplant efficiency increased with increasing speed and more than totally eclipsed the aerodynamic drag rise with this increasing speed. At supersonic speeds, the closer you could fly to Vmo/Mmo the lower the fuel burn was. (Especiall true at Mach 2, although the autopilot would hold you Mach 2 (ish) in Max Cruise mode, flying closer to Mmo, Mach 2.04, would save fuel, assuming the static air temoerature was low enough to sustain this). This fact (along with about a million others) produced what we all like to call 'The Magic of Concorde'

Best Regards
Dude