Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Concorde question

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Concorde question

Old 20th Oct 2013, 06:22
  #1741 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,484
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"There's magic in the web of it..." - Othello

Chu Chu;
It seems to me that if Concorde "failed," it's only because it did not usher in an era of supersonic flight.
I would like to ponder the words, "usher in". . .

"Success" arrives, and sustains itself in many, many forms as does the more practical notion, "copied and improved upon" have many, many expressions.

Our age is one in which the yardsticks that popularly measure and make account of human endeavour are today exclusively material, and less broadly-speaking, financial.

That something must be a "commercial" success for it not to be a "failure" is a "local", temporal measure of our times.

By such "local" measures the U.S. Space Shuttle was a failure as was the Apollo program.

Yet we have Burt Ratan, Elon Musk.

Concorde was different than the "notion" of the "DC3", the "B707", etc. It seems to me that the success of Concorde is measured in knowledge and spirit, a demonstration of technical success and always a singular mark in our history of aviation. I know that the skill, imagination and "slugging in the trenches" over millions of difficult decisions on Concorde has materially contributed to aviation and specifically certain airplanes. The notion of "variations on a theme" is not the only measure of success!
PJ2 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2013, 16:26
  #1742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: equatorial side of the Polar Jet
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb

Concorde might have taken off too early...not withstanding it paved the way for improved airliner design speeds, advanced flight controls and instrumentation,class of comfort and premium service itenerary of all airliners flying today.Where would Fly By Wire technology of today's airliners and bizjets as well as combat planes be..without the pioneering Concorde?It had its design flaws...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?
Trackdiamond is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2013, 15:57
  #1743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trackdiamond
...and the design of adjacent engines must have been seen as a potential hazard during engine failures and fires or tyre blow ups.Comet and VC10 as well as their russian counterparts had similar flaws in their designs.Had the Boeing Supersonic Airliner taken off with its different engine design who knows if supersonic airliner transport might have taken a different track?
Not really. For one thing, the 2707 design was only at the mock-up stage when cancelled, so the practicalities of its engine arrangement hadn't been touched on. If you go back and read the Ted Talbot 'oil and lamp black' story, you can see for yourself that Concorde had solved problems that even US military designs were struggling with half a decade later.

As for the Concorde nacelle/engine arrangement - it didn't really have that large an impact on the F-BTSC accident - because even if the nacelles weren't grouped, the hot gases from the burning fuel would still have had a negative impact on the airflow to the adjacent engine. If I recall correctly, the investigators calculated the way the damage spread through the structure and control connections and proved that even if all four engines were still producing the correct thrust, the fire would still have caused sufficient structural damage to prevent the aircraft making Le Bourget. The nacelle structure itself was proven to be strong enough to withstand an uncontained failure of the engine when it actually happened on the line.

Apropos of nothing, the separate "podded" design was proven to be no protection against damage to adjacent engines when the inboard starboard engine of El Al 1862 took out the outboard as it fell away.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2013, 16:14
  #1744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Concorde training flights.

How was the aircraft operated for base training? I imagine it was a 'rocket-ship' with no payload and little fuel.
Sorry if this has been covered. I didn't want to start a new thread, nor do I have time to read all 88 pages.
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2013, 17:59
  #1745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: equatorial side of the Polar Jet
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DW thanks for the expanded insights on Concorde's engine design integrity.

I believe there is a study looking into deriving Concorde design features for the development of supersonic biz jets now...hopefully with more cost efficient engines!

Last edited by Trackdiamond; 22nd Oct 2013 at 18:05.
Trackdiamond is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2013, 19:01
  #1746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Again, as I referred to earlier, the Concorde "B" on the drawing board when the project was cancelled was intended to do away with reheat/afterburner entirely!

The problems a modern project will run into include the fact that a lot of the research will be in the wind - and sadly a lot of the people involved are no longer with us.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 10:32
  #1747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: equatorial side of the Polar Jet
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cocncorde thrust levers

I know Concorde engines were FADEC. Were the Thrust levers gated like on Airbus? I noticesd cocncorde pilots shovved the levers forward for take off thrust..not the gentle easing forward like most other turbojets..why was there this need?Did they take too much time to spool up?
Trackdiamond is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 11:59
  #1748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, IIRC the "slaming" was needed to ensure the correct activation of the T/O specific mode, or something like that. Perhaps something to do with the reheat, too.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 11:59
  #1749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Go Around & reheat

Thanks for this wonderful thread. Apologies from a non-aviator, but was reheat used in the event of a go around? Did its use depend on conditions, or was it a straightforward yes/no answer?
Tim00 is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 12:49
  #1750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know Concorde engines were FADEC. Were the Thrust levers gated like on Airbus? I noticesd cocncorde pilots shovved the levers forward for take off thrust..not the gentle easing forward like most other turbojets..why was there this need?Did they take too much time to spool up?
The engine was electrically signalled, but it wasn't FADEC; the control system(s) were analogue.
I suspect the zero bypass Ol 593 would take less time to spool up than todays high bypass engines.
CliveL is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 13:20
  #1751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Village Vanguard
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CliveL;
Re, "I suspect the zero bypass Ol 593 would take less time to spool up than todays high bypass engines. "
Yes, I think so. The A333 (RB211s) had a specific technique at high-altitude airports to ensure the engines were stabilized at about 1.1EPR before taking the thrust levers into the FLEX/MCT or TOGA detent. The thrust levers were taken to their detents 'gently', even as FADEC did control the acceleration. Even then, some surging was experienced, again at high-altitude airports, (CYYC for example).
DonH is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 16:19
  #1752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CliveL
The engine was electrically signalled, but it wasn't FADEC; the control system(s) were analogue.
Or FAAnEC, if you will...

(My god, that makes an awful acronym! )
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 20:03
  #1753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'Dry' thrust was used for a go-around, except in the case of wind shear when 'contingency' was used. (A bit more than full thrust and reheat).
EXWOK is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 20:37
  #1754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: South Wales
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Hi all, slowly working my way through this thread, 3 days and up to page 15! Should be finished by Christmas. Hehe Absolutely fascinating reading, so good to have memories of the people who made, flew and maintained this incredible aircraft. My only reminiscence is trying to persuade my parents that they could not hear Concorde go supersonic when living in Bournemouth, OK they could and once being held at Filton, whilst she landed. Has anyone seen the BBC items reflecting 10 years since last flights. Which includes something from page 5 or 6 of this thread. The SR71 asked to wait for Concorde to proceed! I am sure these pages are far more interesting than the books, as one can ask questions, I just hope it is being saved somewhere for reference or for sale to help maintain this very informative site. Thanks to all the professionals who give their time and all the questioners for such interesting questions. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_clap.gif
dowot is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2013, 01:01
  #1755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Concorde hymn...

Thankyou.

Thankyou all, EXWOK, Bellerophon, CliveL, ChristiaanJ, M2Dude, Brit312 and landlady for providing these wonderful stories directly from "the horse's mouth". I love it. Please, since landlady is already publishing her piece of history, maybe you others could at least join forces and use this excellent, brilliant and awesome thread as inspiration?

I have read this thread for breakfast every day the past week and finally catched up and never got this sorted out.... HOW is it possible that Airbus now "operates" (weeeell, you know what I mean...) Concorde?

I have tried to follow all clues, looking up companies on Wikipedia and who was subcontractor to whom, but it's just a big mess and I need help to sort it out. Is there anyone who might help shed some light onto this?

Sorry if my post is long, but this is such an amazing aircraft and since I come from Sweden where all we have is a tiny (but hugely effective!!) SAAB Gripen I am in awe to you who have created a milestone in aviation.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 21:28
  #1756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How was the aircraft operated for base training? I imagine it was a 'rocket-ship' with no payload and little fuel.
It was indeed! I have spoken to many Concorde pilots and most confirm the unexpected phenomenal climb rate at light weight in base training. They were briefed to level off at 1,500 feet but on their very first flights on the real aeroplane (it'd been all sim prior to that) some went way beyond. I'm told the record was 4,000 feet! One told me "I used to get it turning - that cooled things down!".

My one and only Concorde flight (G-BOAD) was Manchester to Paris via the Bay for 60,000 feet and M2. I was lucky enough to be in the jump seat for the entire flight so didn't suffer 'small window' limitations! My most memorable view was about 50,000' over South Wales looking through the windscreens. The whole of SW UK was visible on that glorious August day in 1999, with the scattered occasional cu looking as if they were on the ground! The bright yellow of the beaches around the coasts of Wales and England stand out in my memory, as well. As do other aeroplanes flying west-east very far below us!

At 60,000' the sky was amazing - dark blue fading to very dark overhead. And of course the curvature of the Earth clearly visible.

Despite flying interesting aeroplanes for well over 30 years myself, that flight in AD is a magnificent highlight I will never forget!

For those who want to sit in the P1 seat and try out those lovely cabin seats, come and see our G-BOAC at Manchester!
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 23:45
  #1757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My only reminiscence is trying to persuade my parents that they could not hear Concorde go supersonic when living in Bournemouth,


Dowot.
Well the following may be of interest to you.


When working with the guys at Alderney the boom from Concorde rattled the windows. On enquiring I was told that the AF Concorde usually ignored the noise restrictions and opened the throttles early so it was a regular event and to hell with the complaints.


I was at Heathrow and a guy I worked with said he heard the boom in the Bracknel area. This was confirmed as the AF Concorde and the boom was bouncing off the clouds hence him hearing it at Bracknell.
beamender99 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 00:04
  #1758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Age: 48
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Considering there is a thread going regarding an aircraft flying some distance with an engine shut down, what was possible with the Concorde?

If it lost one at cruising altitude? If it lost another could it fly on only two?
ruddman is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 11:07
  #1759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This post mentions that on three engines, dropping to subsonic, Concorde would lose 30 - 35% range. Much more of a reduction than subsonic planes, but still enough to get to a safe airfield.

On two engines it'll still fly, although with a further reduction in range and possible loss of some hydraulic systems (depends which engines failed).

If I remember correctly, there was some mention of a possible single-engine (plus reheat) go-around, which suggests that at landing weight it might have been able to maintain flight on only one engine.
Slatye is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2013, 08:56
  #1760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 66
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incident - Christchurch NZ

I was speaking today to an aircraft engineer who had been working at Christchurch airport in NZ when Concorde visited.

He recalls Concorde suffering damage on the ground and a repair having to be made to a wing skin.

Anybody have any details about this incident?

Last edited by garylovesbeer; 2nd Dec 2013 at 19:01.
garylovesbeer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.