Concorde question
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is Analog computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've done a few study exercises on a hybrid system; programming digital computers now. However when designing machines there still are tasks we delegate to analog electronics or mechanical non-linear transmissions.
I've done a few study exercises on a hybrid system; programming digital computers now. However when designing machines there still are tasks we delegate to analog electronics or mechanical non-linear transmissions.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is Analog computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've done a few study exercises on a hybrid system; programming digital computers now. However when designing machines there still are tasks we delegate to analog electronics or mechanical non-linear transmissions.
I've done a few study exercises on a hybrid system; programming digital computers now. However when designing machines there still are tasks we delegate to analog electronics or mechanical non-linear transmissions.
I just read it, and I wasn't impressed... it's more historical than a clear explanation of what analogue computing really is and does. I wouldn't advise it to somebody who's trying to get his head around the basic concept.
CJ
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A collection of links to videos, articles and much more on the rise and fall of analogue computing should prove interesting.
For those cutting their teeth in the computing field in the last twenty years, the analogue concept was already well and truly buried. As we all know, the Concorde project epitomized analogue computing which peaked in the decade between 1960 and 1970. One can only but wonder how much weight could have been saved and performance improved if current FBW digital computing was available at the time. That the aircraft type soldiered on well past its "use by date" is a credit to the designers and engineers who implemented the "state of the art" systems of the time.
For those cutting their teeth in the computing field in the last twenty years, the analogue concept was already well and truly buried. As we all know, the Concorde project epitomized analogue computing which peaked in the decade between 1960 and 1970. One can only but wonder how much weight could have been saved and performance improved if current FBW digital computing was available at the time. That the aircraft type soldiered on well past its "use by date" is a credit to the designers and engineers who implemented the "state of the art" systems of the time.
Analogue computers are still very active on the Airbus A300-B4 100/200 srs.
A lot of the Concorde technology was transferred to the Mark 1 Airbus, and it still works very well. We are Cat IIIa certified and I have never had a failure when it was needed.
Yes we get a lot of drop out of things, but usually they work after a reset.
A lot of the Concorde technology was transferred to the Mark 1 Airbus, and it still works very well. We are Cat IIIa certified and I have never had a failure when it was needed.
Yes we get a lot of drop out of things, but usually they work after a reset.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NL
Age: 38
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cristiaan,
From the way you explain this autostabilisation it looks similar to the way a yaw damper works. With a rate gyro, ac current that is phase advanced, filtered and then amplified, but on all 3 axes?
Not being a real bright light on engineering I can see that such a system works to give ,,apparent'' dynamic stability..
Another question perhaps: Does concorde have real trim tabs? Or is it just an artificial feel unit that ,,changes the neutral point in the stick?
I've seen the (awesome, by the way) ITVV documentary but don't remember this being mentioned...
mm43 That's a nice link
From the way you explain this autostabilisation it looks similar to the way a yaw damper works. With a rate gyro, ac current that is phase advanced, filtered and then amplified, but on all 3 axes?
Not being a real bright light on engineering I can see that such a system works to give ,,apparent'' dynamic stability..
Another question perhaps: Does concorde have real trim tabs? Or is it just an artificial feel unit that ,,changes the neutral point in the stick?
I've seen the (awesome, by the way) ITVV documentary but don't remember this being mentioned...
mm43 That's a nice link
Da-20 monkey
No, there were no trim tabs on Concorde.
Yes, just so.
Concorde had conventional trim controls (electric trim in pitch, manual in roll and yaw), but operating a trim control merely changed the artificial feel datum position and thus the neutral position of the flying controls.
The electric pitch trim not only operated automatically whenever an autopilot was engaged, but could and would also operate automatically in manual flight, independently of any pilot input, to provide pitch stability corrections in various situations.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
... Does concorde have real trim tabs?...
...is it just an artificial feel unit that changes the neutral point in the stick?...
Concorde had conventional trim controls (electric trim in pitch, manual in roll and yaw), but operating a trim control merely changed the artificial feel datum position and thus the neutral position of the flying controls.
The electric pitch trim not only operated automatically whenever an autopilot was engaged, but could and would also operate automatically in manual flight, independently of any pilot input, to provide pitch stability corrections in various situations.
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more an operational than a technical question, but it's nice to see one of the sky-gods back on this thread!
I confess to occasionally firing up Microsoft Flight Simulator and SSTSIM, and am particularly impressed by the Barbados route - especially as half-way between the Azores and Barbados, you are literally a thousand miles from anywhere with limited diversion options and marginal fuel in case of engine failure and subsonic cruise. While I'm sure you had all the angles covered, was it really a nail-biting moment and what sort of contingency plans were in place?
I confess to occasionally firing up Microsoft Flight Simulator and SSTSIM, and am particularly impressed by the Barbados route - especially as half-way between the Azores and Barbados, you are literally a thousand miles from anywhere with limited diversion options and marginal fuel in case of engine failure and subsonic cruise. While I'm sure you had all the angles covered, was it really a nail-biting moment and what sort of contingency plans were in place?
fizz57
As well as carrying sufficient fuel to arrive at BGI with standard fuel reserves remaining, there was also a requirement that sufficient fuel be carried to ensure that, following an engine shut-down at any stage in the flight, Concorde could divert, on three engines, to a suitable diversion airfield, and still arrive there with standard fuel reserves remaining.
It was this requirement - the three-engined diversion requirement - that often required more fuel to be loaded - above the basic LHR-BGI flight plan fuel figure - often bringing the total fuel required up to or over the full tanks figure and so became the limiting factor on this route.
Perhaps the main difference between Concorde and most subsonic aircraft, following an engine shutdown in cruise, was that Concorde would suffer a much greater loss in range. From four-engined supersonic flight to optimum three-engined subsonic cruise the loss in range would have been in the order of 30-35%.
This was mainly because Concorde, following an engine shut-down in cruise, would have to decelerate and descend, and thus leave a very efficient flight regime, at M2.0 and 55,000-60,000ft, with relatively low drag, low winds and very cold outside air temperatures, for a much less efficient regime, at M0.95, at around 30,000ft, in a higher drag subsonic cruise with warmer outside air temperatures and much stronger, probably adverse, winds.
The forecast weather at the principal en-route diversion airfields of Santa Maria, Lajes, Bermuda and Antigua, along with the calculated wind components at subsonic cruise levels to these airfields, were all taken into account at the flight planning stage, with the forecast subsonic cruise wind component to Antigua generally being the most critical factor.
If the weather conditions at and en-route to these diversion airfields were favourable, flight planning was straightforward. If the weather conditions were unfavourable, flight planning got more difficult, but the necessary fuel was always carried, passenger numbers limited or a re-fuelling stop planned.
No, not really.
LHR-BGI was certainly the most demanding route on Concorde, and required careful planning, good tactical awareness and diligent in-flight monitoring, however the flight planning procedures and tactical decision making processes were standard and would have been very familiar to any ETOPS rated pilot.
With one exception.
Concorde would still have got you to a diversion airfield following a second engine failure!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
... Barbados route...half-way between the Azores and Barbados...a thousand miles from anywhere with limited diversion options and marginal fuel in case of engine failure and subsonic cruise...what sort of contingency plans were in place?...
As well as carrying sufficient fuel to arrive at BGI with standard fuel reserves remaining, there was also a requirement that sufficient fuel be carried to ensure that, following an engine shut-down at any stage in the flight, Concorde could divert, on three engines, to a suitable diversion airfield, and still arrive there with standard fuel reserves remaining.
It was this requirement - the three-engined diversion requirement - that often required more fuel to be loaded - above the basic LHR-BGI flight plan fuel figure - often bringing the total fuel required up to or over the full tanks figure and so became the limiting factor on this route.
Perhaps the main difference between Concorde and most subsonic aircraft, following an engine shutdown in cruise, was that Concorde would suffer a much greater loss in range. From four-engined supersonic flight to optimum three-engined subsonic cruise the loss in range would have been in the order of 30-35%.
This was mainly because Concorde, following an engine shut-down in cruise, would have to decelerate and descend, and thus leave a very efficient flight regime, at M2.0 and 55,000-60,000ft, with relatively low drag, low winds and very cold outside air temperatures, for a much less efficient regime, at M0.95, at around 30,000ft, in a higher drag subsonic cruise with warmer outside air temperatures and much stronger, probably adverse, winds.
The forecast weather at the principal en-route diversion airfields of Santa Maria, Lajes, Bermuda and Antigua, along with the calculated wind components at subsonic cruise levels to these airfields, were all taken into account at the flight planning stage, with the forecast subsonic cruise wind component to Antigua generally being the most critical factor.
If the weather conditions at and en-route to these diversion airfields were favourable, flight planning was straightforward. If the weather conditions were unfavourable, flight planning got more difficult, but the necessary fuel was always carried, passenger numbers limited or a re-fuelling stop planned.
...While I'm sure you had all the angles covered, was it really a nail-biting moment...
LHR-BGI was certainly the most demanding route on Concorde, and required careful planning, good tactical awareness and diligent in-flight monitoring, however the flight planning procedures and tactical decision making processes were standard and would have been very familiar to any ETOPS rated pilot.
With one exception.
Concorde would still have got you to a diversion airfield following a second engine failure!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your insightful reply Bellerophon. Business as usual then, at Mach 2 1000 miles from anywhere and only an hour to destination. If it wasn't nail-biting, it must at least have brought a smile to your face.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two shock waves - the main one located on the nose, then an expansion field over the wing and a final shock at the tail where the flow was recompressed. [That is ignoring all the intake shocks!] The two compression shocks are what gives rise to the characteristic Boom-boom on the ground.
Thanks.
Also, how was the flow re-compressed at the tail? What is the aerodynamic explanation of this?
As the intakes produced shocks, what about other protruberances such a aerials and drain masts etc? Did these also produce (small) shocks?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down here in Devon, the only contact we had with Concorde was the spine-tingling "whomp-bomp" every evening as flights out of CDG lit up down the channel. Replaying that sound in my memory, I would say that the time between the two thumps was between 1/3 and 1/2 sec, and yet a bit of maths tells me that at 1300 MPH, Concorde travelled her own length in less than 1/10 sec. This always puzzled me at the time, and I still can't explain it. Any ideas, anyone?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the nose and tail shocks are 204 feet apart at the point they leave the aeroplane, I'd guess that they diverge away from each other with distance, so the further away you are from Concorde when they reach your ears, the longer the gap between the shocks.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde shock waves
SSD: [quote]Thanks for this, CliveL. Could you please explain 'expansion field over the wing '?
Thanks.
Also, how was the flow re-compressed at the tail? What is the aerodynamic explanation of this?
As the intakes produced shocks, what about other protruberances such a aerials and drain masts etc? Did these also produce (small) shocks?[unquote]
I was generalising a bit and referring to the shocks as heard on the ground which take the form of a classic 'N' wave. This is a sudden rise in static pressure followed by a drop in static pressure to below atmospheric and then another sharp pressure rise. In supersonic flow any increase in static pressure is associated usually described as some sort of compression and conversely a drop in static pressure as an expansion. Since this happens over the region where the wing sits I described it as an expansion field over the wing.
The N wave is OK for the 'far field' shock characteristics, but as you hint, the flow near the aircraft is more complex than that - all the separate shocks gradually. merge into the bow and tail shocks. In the near field all the aerials, drain masts etc have their own little shock waves of course.
I have never seen a completely satisfactory explanation for the drop in static pressure, but if you will accept a much simplified description .....
I think there are two parts to the explanation.
The pressure over the upper wing surface will be below atmospheric static in the usual sense when lift is being generated - this will depend on the amount of lift (and hence weight)
Besides that there is a term related to the volume of the aircraft. One graphic description I have seen is that flying along at 2.0M the aircraft 'tears a hole' in the atmosphere that the surrounding air, being limited to 1.0M cannot fill. Consequently there is a drop in static pressure around the airframe. When the aircraft is past the 'void' is filled up and the resulting rapid increase in static pressure goes with the rearmost shock. This tail shock is sometimes described as the rarefaction shock.
This may not be scientifically accurate, but it satisfies me
CliveL
Thanks.
Also, how was the flow re-compressed at the tail? What is the aerodynamic explanation of this?
As the intakes produced shocks, what about other protruberances such a aerials and drain masts etc? Did these also produce (small) shocks?[unquote]
I was generalising a bit and referring to the shocks as heard on the ground which take the form of a classic 'N' wave. This is a sudden rise in static pressure followed by a drop in static pressure to below atmospheric and then another sharp pressure rise. In supersonic flow any increase in static pressure is associated usually described as some sort of compression and conversely a drop in static pressure as an expansion. Since this happens over the region where the wing sits I described it as an expansion field over the wing.
The N wave is OK for the 'far field' shock characteristics, but as you hint, the flow near the aircraft is more complex than that - all the separate shocks gradually. merge into the bow and tail shocks. In the near field all the aerials, drain masts etc have their own little shock waves of course.
I have never seen a completely satisfactory explanation for the drop in static pressure, but if you will accept a much simplified description .....
I think there are two parts to the explanation.
The pressure over the upper wing surface will be below atmospheric static in the usual sense when lift is being generated - this will depend on the amount of lift (and hence weight)
Besides that there is a term related to the volume of the aircraft. One graphic description I have seen is that flying along at 2.0M the aircraft 'tears a hole' in the atmosphere that the surrounding air, being limited to 1.0M cannot fill. Consequently there is a drop in static pressure around the airframe. When the aircraft is past the 'void' is filled up and the resulting rapid increase in static pressure goes with the rearmost shock. This tail shock is sometimes described as the rarefaction shock.
This may not be scientifically accurate, but it satisfies me
CliveL
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time between 'thumps'
I think the explanation is that the sound you heard was (and could only be) travelling through the air to reach your ear at the speed of sound. The distance between the shocks would be 204 ft, but the speed would have been 1100 ft/sec - i.e.about 0,2 seconds between them
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really like this question..... and I admit to still being baffled....
A Mirage 2000, a Rafale or a Mirage F1 is only about 15m (50ft) long.
Yet the booms we get locally (see above re returns from exercises over the Med), are still the same double boom - "whah-boom" (N-wave).
Of course, when it comes to judging the exact duration of a sonic boom, things get very subjective.... I wouldn't trust my own judgment, since it's as much based on the rattling of the window/door as the actual sound.
CliveL, are there any documented records of the trials in "Boom Alley" we could use to settle some of the issue?
CJ
A Mirage 2000, a Rafale or a Mirage F1 is only about 15m (50ft) long.
Yet the booms we get locally (see above re returns from exercises over the Med), are still the same double boom - "whah-boom" (N-wave).
Of course, when it comes to judging the exact duration of a sonic boom, things get very subjective.... I wouldn't trust my own judgment, since it's as much based on the rattling of the window/door as the actual sound.
CliveL, are there any documented records of the trials in "Boom Alley" we could use to settle some of the issue?
CJ
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonic boom rise times
Quote:
CliveL, are there any documented records of the trials in "Boom Alley" we could use to settle some of the issue? Unquote:
Christiaan, there isn't anything particular to "Boom Alley", but there is enough data around to quantify the issue.
SSD, you were quite right when you said that the shock waves diverge as they get farther from the aircraft; that could be as much as 25% of the aircraft length at the ground. Near the aircraft the rise time would be proportional to length/speed of sound.
To cut a long story short, plotting all the available data leads to a pretty good expression for the rise time:
T = 0.011*LOA + 0.0001*FL
To give you a feel for the numbers, the measured value for an F18 at FL600 is 0.18 secs, for Concorde at FL520 about 0.25 secs or for an F104 at FL190 0.08 secs.
After that it would depend on your own perceptions I think, but I could easily envisage either a single or double bang for a fighter size aircraft depending on altitude.
CliveL, are there any documented records of the trials in "Boom Alley" we could use to settle some of the issue? Unquote:
Christiaan, there isn't anything particular to "Boom Alley", but there is enough data around to quantify the issue.
SSD, you were quite right when you said that the shock waves diverge as they get farther from the aircraft; that could be as much as 25% of the aircraft length at the ground. Near the aircraft the rise time would be proportional to length/speed of sound.
To cut a long story short, plotting all the available data leads to a pretty good expression for the rise time:
T = 0.011*LOA + 0.0001*FL
To give you a feel for the numbers, the measured value for an F18 at FL600 is 0.18 secs, for Concorde at FL520 about 0.25 secs or for an F104 at FL190 0.08 secs.
After that it would depend on your own perceptions I think, but I could easily envisage either a single or double bang for a fighter size aircraft depending on altitude.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde 'B' model
Here's something I've wondered about; I understand that the proposed 'B' model of Concorde was to have leading edge slats. How does that fit with vortex lift?
Vortex lift relies on controlled flow breakaway at the LE, while slats delay such breakaway.
Vortex lift relies on controlled flow breakaway at the LE, while slats delay such breakaway.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LE slats
Although the Concorde site describes them as slats, the LE changes were a simple LE droop as shown in the Concorde 'B' site sketch.
The intention was to give some forward facing area (at low speed) so that the LE suction had something to work on and give "LE thrust". The AoA for vortex generation would have been delayed, but the net effect was to reduce TO drag and hence power required in noise abatement climb. For cruise the LE went back to its normal position of course.
The original prototype had a similar LE droop to the Concorde 'B' (but a bit less extreme). It was changed when it was found that the droop generated an underwing vortex at low AoA (towards zero 'g') at supersonic speeds and that this vortex went down the intake with unpleasant effects on engine face distortion. This could be avoided with the moveable LE.
The intention was to give some forward facing area (at low speed) so that the LE suction had something to work on and give "LE thrust". The AoA for vortex generation would have been delayed, but the net effect was to reduce TO drag and hence power required in noise abatement climb. For cruise the LE went back to its normal position of course.
The original prototype had a similar LE droop to the Concorde 'B' (but a bit less extreme). It was changed when it was found that the droop generated an underwing vortex at low AoA (towards zero 'g') at supersonic speeds and that this vortex went down the intake with unpleasant effects on engine face distortion. This could be avoided with the moveable LE.