Concorde question
Thread Starter
All modern jet transports still use INS, it's output is used for more than just navigation, e.g. Attitude indicator, vertical speed input and others.
GPS (and other sources) merely update and refine the INS position.
I am sure Concorde would have done the same.
GPS (and other sources) merely update and refine the INS position.
I am sure Concorde would have done the same.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Concorde creator passed ...
Le Figaro - International : Le Concorde orphelin de son crateur
Google Traduction
Concorde creator passed ...
Le Figaro - International : Le Concorde orphelin de son crateur
Google Traduction
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear that is sad news.
Henri was one of my favourite Frenchmen. Not only was he a very fine engineer but also a very nice guy.
Maybe stretching it a bit to describe him as the creator of Concorde, but he was certainly one of the principal midwives on the French side.
Henri was one of my favourite Frenchmen. Not only was he a very fine engineer but also a very nice guy.
Maybe stretching it a bit to describe him as the creator of Concorde, but he was certainly one of the principal midwives on the French side.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I have an operational question regarding flight crews and aircraft. For routes between Europe and NYC, did crews fly roundtrip flights each day? Or would they layover before returning?
I have an operational question regarding flight crews and aircraft. For routes between Europe and NYC, did crews fly roundtrip flights each day? Or would they layover before returning?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Layover: BA001 landed as BA002 was taxying out, so a there and back was impossible with those timings.
In the days of BA001,2,3&4 operations it was possible to operate BA002 JFK-LHR then BA003 LHR-JFK and this occasionally happened if there was a sudden crew shortage or other disruption.
I did it once and it was a heavy day's work.......
In the days of BA001,2,3&4 operations it was possible to operate BA002 JFK-LHR then BA003 LHR-JFK and this occasionally happened if there was a sudden crew shortage or other disruption.
I did it once and it was a heavy day's work.......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TAT thing
OK, so the skin temperature at the stagnation point will be equal to TAT. This can be taken as the hottest part of the aircraft (behind it, the skin temperature will be less than the TAT).
The temperature shown in the top window of the flight deck gauge is TAT, with the legend 'TMO 128C' beneath it. So the aircraft was flown with reference to TAT, and provided TAT was no greater than 128C then the skin rearward of the stagnation point would be <128C?
The temperature shown in the top window of the flight deck gauge is TAT, with the legend 'TMO 128C' beneath it. So the aircraft was flown with reference to TAT, and provided TAT was no greater than 128C then the skin rearward of the stagnation point would be <128C?
MACH 0.5.ISA -5: TAT = -50.6°C. ISA: TAT = -45.3°C. ISA +5 TAT = -40°C
MACH 1.0. ISA -5: TAT = -18.5°C. ISA: TAT = -12.5°C. ISA +5 TAT = -6.5°C
MACH 1.5. ISA -5: TAT = 34.8°C. ISA: TAT = 42°C. ISA +5 TAT = 49.3°C
MACH 2.0. ISA -5: TAT = 109.5°C. ISA: TAT =118.6°C. ISA +5 TAT = 127.6°C
Hopefully it all makes a little more sense with some 'real' numbers. You can see that as Mach Number increases the gap between SAT and TAT increases hugely. The Mach 2, ISA +5 case was particularly significant for Concorde, as it breached the 127°C/400°K airframe temperature limit (TMO) and Mach Number would therefore be automatically reduced by the autopilot. (An overspeed warning would be generated at TMO +7 (134.°C). Fortunately sustained ISA +5 or above conditions were relatively rare over the North Atlantic but not unheard of either.
Last edited by M2dude; 16th May 2012 at 22:06. Reason: ISA+5 Typo
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INS
stilton
Actually not technically correct mate. The generation(s) of aircraft after Concorde does not use INS as such at all. They either use an Inertial REFERENCE System (IRS) or an Air Data and Inertial Reference System (ADIRS). In both cases inertial data, such as attitude, present position, heading (both true and SYNTHESISED magnetic) acceleration data etc. are output to various user systems. (eg. FMS, EFIS, Autopilot etc.). Wind data, being a function of True Air Speed (TAS) and Ground Speed (G/S)requires in the IRS case TAS data to be input into the IRS from an Air Data Compter, whereas in the ADIRS case we can have muliple ADCs/IRUs effectively crammed into one box, and so wind is kept 'in house'. In either case the autopilot steering signals (LNAV/VNAV) come from the FMS and NOT the IRS. (If you like you could say that an INS knows where it is and where it wants to go, where an IRS just knows where it is and hasn't a CLUEwhere it's going to. In all cases GPS data is fed into the FMS itself, as 'just another input'.
Although Concorde HAD no GPS, (The most difficult part was always finding a part of the upper fuselage where chunks could be cut out for locating antennae) it was coming! EGPWS was being mandated, which required a simplex GPS antenna mount, and GPS updating for the INS was being seriously looked at. In the first case, the EGPWS requires accurate present position to check agaings it's terrain database for known obstacles and the latter case was because the Concorde INS navigational accuracy fell outside of future (now actually) long range navigational accuracy requirements.
Sorry for such a long winded blurb, but I've been away for a while and am gradually looking back over our wonderful thread to see if there is anything I can contribute to/prattle on about.
All modern jet transports still use INS, it's output is used for more than just navigation, e.g. Attitude indicator, vertical speed input and others.
GPS (and other sources) merely update and refine the INS position.
I am sure Concorde would have done the same.
GPS (and other sources) merely update and refine the INS position.
I am sure Concorde would have done the same.
Actually not technically correct mate. The generation(s) of aircraft after Concorde does not use INS as such at all. They either use an Inertial REFERENCE System (IRS) or an Air Data and Inertial Reference System (ADIRS). In both cases inertial data, such as attitude, present position, heading (both true and SYNTHESISED magnetic) acceleration data etc. are output to various user systems. (eg. FMS, EFIS, Autopilot etc.). Wind data, being a function of True Air Speed (TAS) and Ground Speed (G/S)requires in the IRS case TAS data to be input into the IRS from an Air Data Compter, whereas in the ADIRS case we can have muliple ADCs/IRUs effectively crammed into one box, and so wind is kept 'in house'. In either case the autopilot steering signals (LNAV/VNAV) come from the FMS and NOT the IRS. (If you like you could say that an INS knows where it is and where it wants to go, where an IRS just knows where it is and hasn't a CLUEwhere it's going to. In all cases GPS data is fed into the FMS itself, as 'just another input'.
Although Concorde HAD no GPS, (The most difficult part was always finding a part of the upper fuselage where chunks could be cut out for locating antennae) it was coming! EGPWS was being mandated, which required a simplex GPS antenna mount, and GPS updating for the INS was being seriously looked at. In the first case, the EGPWS requires accurate present position to check agaings it's terrain database for known obstacles and the latter case was because the Concorde INS navigational accuracy fell outside of future (now actually) long range navigational accuracy requirements.
Sorry for such a long winded blurb, but I've been away for a while and am gradually looking back over our wonderful thread to see if there is anything I can contribute to/prattle on about.
Thread Starter
Agreed and well said, my point was and is that an Inertial source, whatever form that may take is still an invaluable input even these days.
The previous poster had insinuated that a GPS installation in the Concorde would have completely replaced the existing INS fit.
Not that simple.
The previous poster had insinuated that a GPS installation in the Concorde would have completely replaced the existing INS fit.
Not that simple.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 600. West of Mongolia
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humble apologies stilton. (A definate case of RTFQ then). You are quite correct in your comment, inertial position is still the 'prime' source of navigation, in modern aircraft with GPS etc being used to refine this position. GPS can never on it's own replace an INS/IRS, in fact at the moment it's difficult to imagine what ever could. (And after all an aeroplane is not an aeroplane without ATTITUDE 
).
Best Regards
Dude
).Best Regards
Dude
Last edited by M2dude; 18th May 2012 at 10:49.
Thread Starter
No apology necessary whatsoever, you brought a more accurate and refined aspect to the conversation.
Despite the advent of GPS , in my humble opinion having three independent inertial sources on board that function perfectly well without any updating from any source is invaluable.
Despite the advent of GPS , in my humble opinion having three independent inertial sources on board that function perfectly well without any updating from any source is invaluable.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir James Hamilton obit
Saw the obituary for Sir James Hamilton with heavy emphasis on the design of Concorde's wing, thought others here might be interested:
Sir James Hamilton - Telegraph
Sir James Hamilton - Telegraph
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Roy Chadwick really contribute to delta wing design? I though Kutchmann and his team did most of the ground work developing the basic delta (as fitted to Chadwick's Vulcan) into the thin narrow delta with vortex lift.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well AFAIK, the basic delta concept was devised by Lippisch in Germany, and developed there during WWII.
It would be true to say that Chadwick was one of the first outside Germany to use it, but that was essentially with a rounded leading edge, which is a very different animal from the slender delta with a sharp leading edges to deliberately produce strong vortices which give non-linear lift at high AoA.
That concept was definitely the brainchild of Kuchemann and his team (mostly fellow Germans
) at RAE Farnborough.
It would be true to say that Chadwick was one of the first outside Germany to use it, but that was essentially with a rounded leading edge, which is a very different animal from the slender delta with a sharp leading edges to deliberately produce strong vortices which give non-linear lift at high AoA.
That concept was definitely the brainchild of Kuchemann and his team (mostly fellow Germans
) at RAE Farnborough.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Poland
Age: 40
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine rating modes
Welcome everyone. I am new to this forum and thread but must confess that I have read all the pages of this amazing topic. I am an aviation enthusiast flying on different planes in FS9. One of them is SSTSIM Concorde. My question concerns engine rating modes in general with Concorde in mind.
AFAIK (and this is a perfect time and place to fix my knowledge) engine rating modes on ordinary turbofan engine are:
- TO- dictated by safety - full power in order to get obstacle clearence/ GA
- CLB - cut down in power for engine prolonged life, but still high to get to fuel efficient altitude ASAP
- CRS - for economic and long, stable flight
Concorde is not an airplane, so things look quite different, huh?
We have a pair of switches, one is take off - flight, second climb- cruise, so we have:
1. Take off with TO and CLB
2. Climb with FLT and CLB
3. Cruise with FLT and CRS
4. Descent with FLT and CLB
5. Approach with TO and CLB
Can somebody explain, what really engine rating modes change in the work of the engine, why we have CLB again for descent (when they work close to idle) and why there are two systems overlapping?
I don't need strict numbers, just general idea confronted with ordinary planes. Thank you in advance.
Dan
AFAIK (and this is a perfect time and place to fix my knowledge) engine rating modes on ordinary turbofan engine are:
- TO- dictated by safety - full power in order to get obstacle clearence/ GA
- CLB - cut down in power for engine prolonged life, but still high to get to fuel efficient altitude ASAP
- CRS - for economic and long, stable flight
Concorde is not an airplane, so things look quite different, huh?
We have a pair of switches, one is take off - flight, second climb- cruise, so we have:
1. Take off with TO and CLB
2. Climb with FLT and CLB
3. Cruise with FLT and CRS
4. Descent with FLT and CLB
5. Approach with TO and CLB
Can somebody explain, what really engine rating modes change in the work of the engine, why we have CLB again for descent (when they work close to idle) and why there are two systems overlapping?
I don't need strict numbers, just general idea confronted with ordinary planes. Thank you in advance.
Dan
Last edited by Gnato; 5th Jun 2012 at 10:20. Reason: Spellcheck
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main gear stresses
I just watched a video of Concorde turning onto a runway prior to takeoff. The turn was sufficiently sharp for the aircraft to be virtually rotating around the main gear. This is the equivalent of a vehicle the size of a small truck being dragged around in a circle whilst at the same time carrying a load of around 90 tonnes. Howcome it didn't screw the main gear straight out of the wing?
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have done before, I'd like to add my thanks to the many contributors who continue to make this such an engrossing thread 
As I look to my left, on the wall is a framed, fading, roughly A2 photo of three of these fabulous aircraft, outside the hangar at Filton in the mid-seventies - presented to my grandfather, who worked there on Concorde production. When I was about ten years old, I was lucky enough to be taken by him on a tour of the works, and can remember being allowed to have a good look around the inside of the aeroplane.
The photo that hangs next to it was taken a few years ago by my bestest flying buddy, Alex, as we thermalled out together over the Brecon Beacons, sitting in bucket seats, suspended, by looms of kevlar, from large, sailcloth kites...
Not too difficult to see where my own inspiration for flying came from
As I look to my left, on the wall is a framed, fading, roughly A2 photo of three of these fabulous aircraft, outside the hangar at Filton in the mid-seventies - presented to my grandfather, who worked there on Concorde production. When I was about ten years old, I was lucky enough to be taken by him on a tour of the works, and can remember being allowed to have a good look around the inside of the aeroplane.
The photo that hangs next to it was taken a few years ago by my bestest flying buddy, Alex, as we thermalled out together over the Brecon Beacons, sitting in bucket seats, suspended, by looms of kevlar, from large, sailcloth kites...
Not too difficult to see where my own inspiration for flying came from