Concorde question

[CliveL]

So basically, if the British & French governments had another brain-fart and decided in 2011 to build Concorde2, what would you keep?

Not a lot! Well maybe the pitots.

I spent a lot of time on this in the 80s, but really one has to assume that Sir Lancelot put the Philosopher's Stone in the Holy Grail and buried it under the (other) end of Finnegan's rainbow and that YOU KNOW WHERE TO DIG!

When I left it the project looked a lot like this photograph that Christiaan found and posted on another site:



About 200 PAX, area ruled fuselage, new wing planform, flaps maybe, canard/foreplane, new shorter/lighter intake design,separate nacelles, new materials (probably not composites), digital avionics etc. but most of all a revolutionary new engine concept that nobody has invented yet. This engine has to produce lots of quiet thrust for airfield operation (low specific thrust) and lots of thrust with low frontal area for cruise (high specific thrust). Any takers?

Cheers

CL

[M2dude]

I so remember the BAe AST images from the 1980s, I always thought what a potentially nice looking aeroplane she was. I guess that vastly improving the L/D & T/W ratios could go quite a long way to improving the operating economics, but the noise issue was always going to be the crippler. (I know that they were looking at a 'leaky' version of the OLY593, ie. a very low bypass ratio, but this of course would still not really cut the mustard as far as noise goes). I guess there are no current takers then
Clive, you really surprise me when you say you don't think that composites would be used from a future SST, is there a material reason for this? (I'm curious because being of a simple avionic brain, I always assumed composites would be used. But if anyone knows this stuff, you certainly would Clive ).
To answer Mike-Bracknell's original query, as far as avionics goes we can really go to town. For her age Concorde had some truly amazing aircraft systems, for instance the flying controls. To enable mechanical control (both FBW channels failed) there was a highly complex and heavy mixing unit under the rear floor. (To mix pitch and roll pilot mechanical demands into differential elevon demand inputs). This of couse would have to be done away with, as well as the relay jacks and replaced with a pair of side-sticks. (See posts on previous page). A 2 crew operation would obviously be the way to go, but neither desirable or possible in my view when Concorde was designed. A triplex or quadruplex flying control system (possibly even integrating autoflight) would replace the Concorde collection of several analog boxes with a very small handful of lightweight digital units.. The powerplant control will have major weight savings, just take a look at this lot. 8 Engine Control Units, 4 Bucket Control Units, 2 Nozzle Angle Scheduling Units, 4 Reheat Amplifiers, 8 AICUs, 4 Air Intake Sensor Units and a single Air Intake Test Unit could potentially be replaced by just 4 multi-channel EEC type units. (On subsonic aircraft the EECs are mounted on the engine itself, not sure if that's a good idea for an SST, given the operating environment. Air Data and Navigation systems take a major simplification and weight saving, the 3 INUs and 2 ADCs (All of them straight from the 'rent a hernia' store as far as weight goes), could be replaced by a single ADIRU and a SAARU. The fuel indication/management side of things (2 FQI packs, 2 level switching packs and 3 CG computers) would probably be replaced by a single Fuel Processing unit. Ahhhh perchance to dream

Best regards
Dude

[CliveL]

Originally Posted by M2Dude

Clive, you really surprise me when you say you don't think that composites would be used from a future SST, is there a material reason for this?

Now you didn't really mean that pun did you?

My reticence on using composites springs from the fact that, although it is little known, there are doubts about the life of the resins that bind the carbon fibres together when the material is exposed to a combination of high temperature and low atmospheric pressure over a long period. I know the Americans were worried about it for their 'supercruise' fighter designs and were experimenting with various exotic, expensive and obnoxious materials. Since all this was over 20 years ago and they now have their supercruise I expect they have a solution by now, but it is probably secret (I don't know that for sure however, it may well be in the public domain, I just haven't been following it). But even if they have a solution for military aircraft there is a world of difference between something that is OK for military designs with a supersonic 'life' of say 5000 hrs with a safety factor of what? 1.5? and a commercial transport with a life requirement of 50,000 hrs with a factor of 3.

BTW, if you thought the underfloor mixing unit was complex, you should have seen it in the original BAC project that didn't have electric signalling so the mechanical mixing was non-linear to try to account for varying flight condition demands

CL

[Brit312]

Now I have to admit coming across the hangar to consult with you boys when preparing for a new sequence of F/E "Tech Knowledge Checks". Not that we did not understand it, you understand, but mainly to make sure that we were correct before some clever line F/E informed you of your error. Very embarrising that, and I should know

Dude

Now, not so touchy, as if you had quoted all of what I said you can see that I did agree we came to the hangar for info as well as for a good chat

Perhaps I should have said

" before some clever line F/E informed me of my error"

[M2dude]

CliveL
Thank you for your reply, what you describe is absolutely fascinating; It seems that composites may not be the panacea for all aircraft structural problems after all. I confess. I'm afraid that I did intentially use that awful pun (sorry).
Regarding strucural materials, I remember reading what Ted Talbot wrote in the manuscript for his brilliant work 'Mach 2 and Bit' (not sure if he ever did get it published) when he spoke about the Bristol 188. He said something like 'the never to be repeated experiment of making an aircraft structure out of stainless steel'. One can only imagine the manufaturing problems that Brisol must have had with that one. (I seem to remember that the strucure was welded and not rivetted together ).
Yes the US now has a supercruise aircraft (the F-22 Raptor) but not of course for up to 3 hours of up to 400°K either. (Although a truly superb aircraft nonetheless). And as you say, military structural material airworthiness standards in no way apply to a civil project.
I can only imagine what the original Bristol (for the Type 223?) mixing unit you described must have looked like. The Concorde unit certainly dominated the whole underfloor picture in quite a sizeable area down the back; here's a diagram of the beasty:
For all it's complexity however I can never recollect any problems occuring there.

It looked far more intimidating in the flesh under the floor however.

Best regards
Dude

[CliveL]

Originally Posted by M2Dude

I confess. I'm afraid that I did intentially use that awful pun (sorry).

Shame on you

Yes, the 188 was welded stainless and as you said, manufacturing was a pain. I didn't work on that aircraft myself, but one reported episode in the flight test programme is worth a digression off topic. Dialogue (maybe that should be monologue) between aircraft and FT control:

t = 0
Godfrey Auty (test pilot): "Mach ... port engine flamed out"
Silence from ground
t = 10secs
G.A.: "Mach .... starboard engine flamed out"
Silence from ground
t= 15 secs
G.A. "Well for Chrissake say something, even if it's only goodbye!"

Luckily the restart drills worked

After those AICU problems the boss came to see me (I was running the S&C section at the time) and said "Your blokes are doing dynamic simulation of aircraft response (on ANALOGUE computers!), do you think they could simulate the 188 intake control system?". To which of course there is only one answer possible, but that is how the two aerodynamicists who did most of the pioneering work on the Concorde AICU came to work together - Derek Morriss from the 188 project and Terry Brown from the S&C group. And boy were we lucky to have that combination

For the record, if my memory serves, the simulation showed that the 188 problem was hysteresis in the mechanical part of the 188 AICU.

Cheers

Clive

[M2dude]

That is amazing Clive, these guys were indeed legend as far as the AICS development went. (And they were doing all that simulation work using analog computers too . Here is the one of the 'forward' pages from 'The Concorde Air Intake Control System' publication: (Issue 3 Feb' 2001). There just might be a name or two there that rings a bell.

So much was achieved by such a very small team of people. An achievement that was absolutely pivotal to the successful development of Concorde.

With total respect
Dude

[CliveL]

Here is the one of the 'forward' pages from 'The Concorde Air Intake Control System' publication: (Issue 3 Feb' 2001). There just might be a name or two there that rings a bell.

Yes there are a few bells ringing, although one or two names are phonetically spelt Etienne would appreciate being called 'Wise' rather than Fage I'm sure!

Never before heard of that publication - how can I get to read copies?

Best regards

CliveL

[M2dude]

The book

Poor old Etienne, yes he's a sage here rather than Fage, I never noticed that one before. I do remember that the late Terry Brown, who was part of your S & C department was a bit of a boat builder as well as being a brilliant aerodynamicist. But all these people were absolute masters of their craft, bad spelling and all, the result being something so very special and unique.
As far as the AICS book goes, there are quite a few copies (methinks a few hundred) that are dotted around; I'll see what I can find and PM you. There were so many of these 'lesser' Concorde works out there that are full of useful information about what made Concorde tick.

Best regards
Dude .

[M2dude]

Happy Anniversery Concorde

Would you all believe 35 years today Concorde entered airline service (BA LHR -BAH and AF CDG-GIG). I remember as if it were yesterday.....Gosh I'm getting old

Best regards
Dude

[Feathers McGraw]

I remember watching the take-offs live on TV Dude, if my memory serves one of the teachers at school felt that it was a momentous event and we all trooped out of the classroom so we could watch it. Something I shall never forget.

[speedbirdconcorde]

Old ? You, me and the rest of us Dude :-) Maybe we should just say 'Wiser' ?? lol. Ah yes...what I always find fascinating is watching footage of Concorde and the automobiles of that era. Talk about night and day. Even today she turns heads so I can only imagine the sheer awe folk experienced when they first set their eyeballs on Concorde....truly way beyond her time in every possible way.

cheers,
d

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

She's always looked good, but probably didn't look any better in 1969 than she does now.

Cars are 'styled' and are therefore subject to fashion whims. So a car of 1969 looks awfully old fashioned by 2011 standards.

Concorde wasn't styled. She is the shape she is because that's the shape she needs to be to enable her to do what no other aeroplane could do - carry 100 shirt-sleeve comfort passengers at Mach 2 and 60,000' for up to 4.5 hours.

Concorde was form following function. Her beutiful lines did not come from a stylists drawing board, but from those of the aerodynamicist and other engineers involved in her design. So she hasn't dated!

[Landroger]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

She's always looked good, but probably didn't look any better in 1969 than she does now.

Cars are 'styled' and are therefore subject to fashion whims. So a car of 1969 looks awfully old fashioned by 2011 standards.

Concorde wasn't styled. She is the shape she is because that's the shape she needs to be to enable her to do what no other aeroplane could do - carry 100 shirt-sleeve comfort passengers at Mach 2 and 60,000' for up to 4.5 hours.

Concorde was form following function. Her beutiful lines did not come from a stylists drawing board, but from those of the aerodynamicist and other engineers involved in her design. So she hasn't dated!

A good thought Shaggy and probably spot on.

We read posts in this thread from people, all over the world, who saw Concorde once, maybe a couple of times in their lives and will never forget the occasion. Not surprising in many ways. Those of you who worked with her don't find that surprising, because you never tired of looking.

I have been an aeroplane geek since I was eight, have lived under the 'funnel' for 28L for fifty-five of my years and I pretty much know what's overhead by the sound. Much as I like and admire the stately 747, I can pretty much take or leave them, if distracted or busy. I saw Concorde almost every day, sometimes twice, in all the years she was flying and I always stopped and stared upwards. Always.

Roger.

[Shanewhite]

I saw her only once, around '73 - '75 (?) when she did a low-level tour around the UK. I was driving down a Devon lane in an open car when she went over at around 3000' completely unexpectedly. In Devon, you see a few helis and the odd military jet. The rest is just contrails with dots on the front. I shall never, ever, forget it.

[EXWOK]

Worthy of note is that the very last time I walked up to it in order to operate a service I still found it breathtakingly impressive.

And I still have to stare wistfully at OAB whenever I drive past the engineering base en-route to Cranebank.

[M2dude]

So many vivid memories from so many people.
I suppose personally I'll always remember the first time that I ever saw Concorde flying as well as the LAST time:
The very first, as I posted here many months ago, was in 1970 when I, as a young grotty little RAF erk, was in Swindon and heard this loud roar in the sky over what was then Bon Marché (Now Debenhams). Looking up I saw this amazing sight of 002 complete with her attending Canberra chase plane flying over. (And trailing a sizable black exhaust plume to boot).
The very LAST time I saw her flying was in November 2003 at the side of LHR 27R as G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built and the last one ever to fly, made her final departure out of a very dismal Heathrow bound for Filton. For me, the weather at LHR that day perfectly matched to gloom of the occasion I'm afraid.
A really lasting memory I wil always treasure is while my now VERY grown up children were still young, they were (almost) as big Concorde 'nuts' as their dad. Concorde would fly over our house daily and they would run to the window every time they heard the sound of an aeroplane. The general disappointed chant they would come out with was 'it's not Concorde dad, it's just a plane'. For the life of me I don't know why they would develop THAT kind of prejudice and from whom they would get it from . (I used this particular ditty in a 2003 Concorde BBC TV documentary we did, but my cover is blown here anyway, so what the hell.

EXWOK

And I still have to stare wistfully at OAB whenever I drive past the engineering base en-route to Cranebank.

I went over base for a meeting last week and saw OAB parked at the side of the apron. I had several lumps in my throat as I drove past too I have to admit. To think that the last time OAB flew was in August 2000. when Les and the boys brought her back empty from JFK after the CAA pulled the Concorde C of A.
Hopefully she will get a fitting 'home' soon so that more people can marvel at our absolutely beautiful and truly timeless aviation icon

Best regards
Dude

[Volume]

Thinking back and forth I came to the conclusion that I probably also have seen it flying only once, or at least only on one day. It was several low passes over the Champs Elysee in formation with the Patrouille de France in 1989. Training Flights on July 13th for the parade next day. What an impressive bird. On ground I have seen it on several occasions on airports and in museums. And of course from time to time I heard it taking of from the airport nearby, which did not happen very often but when it happened, there was no chance to miss it.

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by M2dude

I went over base for a meeting last week and saw OAB parked at the side of the apron.

Stupid question probably, but is she now back at the same spot across the road from the Jury Inn hotel, where she was before (and where I last saw her) ?

CJ

[M2dude]

Not a stupid question at all my friend. Yes, that's where she now sits. (She's been moved around so many times since 2003, but this is the first time I've personally seen here here as I don't get over to that side of the airport much these days). Incidently she now sits right next to where the old Concorde hangar TBB used to stand).

Best regards
Dude