PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   Concorde question (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html)

BlueConcorde 19th Sep 2010 17:53


Originally Posted by Bellerophon
I'm not aware of what Haynes may say about Concorde - I don't have a copy of the book and haven't read it - however it is well documented that landings at weights up to 130,000 kgs were permitted on Concorde, provided various conditions were met.

It was a Conditional Procedure called Fuel Saving Landing.

BA did not plan flights to land at 130,000 kgs but the procedure was available for use when required.

In practice it was rarely used, and the occasions on which it was used tended to be following a return to the departure airfield, or a diversion in the early part of the flight, with the aircraft still above the (normal) maximum landing weight, in order to reduce the amount of fuel to be jettisoned.

Nice, thank you Bellorophon for clarification. The books makes it sound like it became something normal. :ok:

By the way, I highly recommend this book to everybody, a different point of view, new photos and nice info regarding this bird.


Originally Posted by M2Dude
Hi again. Yes, the Ronivaniemi charters were supersonic) and VERY popular).

Nice!! Do you have any idea of the route? Supersonic over the North and Norwegian Seas then inbound continent? Or Supersonic only after getting to the Baltic Sea?

Nice info regarding BA004! But if a repair was needed, would BA004 take-off anyway to Gatwick or Birmingham? Has it ever arrived a bit late?


Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
My own question to an aerodynamicist would be :
Looking at the subtle camber of the leading edge, is there any vortex lift at all during subsonic cruise (Mach 0.95+) or is there a fully attached airflow at that speed / angle of attack to obtain the best possible subsonic cruise?
And if so, when does the breakaway first start?


Originally Posted by Jo90
Was there some particular airspeed where the airflow pattern changed markedly?

I always read/heard that above 300 knots the ride became veeeeery smooth, and that below this speed, the vortex became "active". IIRC this is written on Stick & Rudder and/or Calvert's book.


Thank you all, awesome topic!! :D

nomorecatering 19th Sep 2010 17:59

This thread is worth of cutting and pasting all the posts to make a book.

Is it true that the airframs had very little corrosion because during flight they were heated enough that any moisture literaly boiled off.

Does anyone have a photo of the inside of the baggage hold.

HalloweenJack 19th Sep 2010 18:06

thank you as well M2Dude - i am just a humble fan of the concorde , being born after she first flew it was sad to see she was never built in the numbers they thought - but such a lasting legacy on shrinking the world - i doubt anything will surpass in many years.

ChristiaanJ 19th Sep 2010 19:06


Originally Posted by EXWOK (Post 5943930)
Anecdotal rther than aerodynamic evidence here - but there was a noticable buffet as one decelerated, accompanied by a significant step in thrust requirement. That point was where we (flight crew) decided we were in vortex lift.Typical speeds would be 270-280 kts at TO mass and about 230-250kts at landing mass.

We're presumably talking IAS?
For some reason, those figures sound familiar even to me.... (from some other discussion, probably).
It would definitely put optimum subsonic cruise at about 350 kts in the "conventional lift" zone.

Anyone know some definite answers?
I hope so!

CJ

EXWOK 19th Sep 2010 19:09

Yep - IAS. (or technically, CAS before I'm corrected!)

IIRC 400kts IAS was approximately best L/D at departure weights. (Low-level, obviously).

ChristiaanJ 19th Sep 2010 19:45


Originally Posted by HalloweenJack (Post 5943855)
thank you for comfirming what i thought Christiaan , that the vulcan is sadly a `unique` example...

Yes and no....
She's not that unique.... there are many vintage and "heritage" aircraft flying in the UK.

But more than anything else, I think the Vulcan is about as far as the Campaign Against Aviation is willing to go in the UK in terms of a "complex aircraft".
With less obstruction, and some more work, I would have thought a Lightning could have flown in the UK.
A Concorde... no way.

- as even teasin` tina is in a better state that SD (no disprepect - XM715 is kept in taxi condition) , and even so , the wonderful team who look after her have said she wont be flying in displays anytime soon (read ever)
I would say... Teasin' Tina is a different case...
Yes, in a better state than 'SD, overall, and again much less complex than Concorde, and more in the category of the Vulcan.

In her case, I would say it's before all a matter of money.
After the Falklands, the Vulcan, in a way, was THE icon among the V-bombers, and the money was raised to return her to the sky (and we know with what difficulties).
Somehow, I can't see that enough money can be found to return a second, less symbolic, V-bomber to flight, however much she's shown us she wants to!
(Yes, I've seen the videos... and I've had the pleasure to meet her in person at Bruntingthorpe a couple of years ago.)

And are you forgetting 'Canopus' ? An even sadder story.


i have read about `SCG` - and yes i have seen your opinion on them elsewhere - they did seem to `big up` the engine testing earlier this year - then went silent , any word on the results?
The "engine testing" was a publicity stunt, where they pretended to do a borescope inspection of one of the engines. In the end they did have a look at two or three of the blades of three LP compressor stages, and proclaimed the engines (note the plural) "were in perfect condition".
The picture below is not a moon crater landscape but a capture from the video published by the museum.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...anJ/Image7.jpg

Draw your own conclusions.

CJ

ChristiaanJ 19th Sep 2010 20:12


Originally Posted by nomorecatering (Post 5943977)
This thread is worth of cutting and pasting all the posts to make a book.

I've been wondering about that too.... just looking for an easy way to do a "copy and save" of an entire thread.
Any ideas?
It would need some editing afterwards, to bring the various sub-subjects together.


Is it true that the airframs had very little corrosion because during flight they were heated enough that any moisture literaly boiled off.
Quite true... it was a pleasant surprise during the major overhauls. People like M2dude can no doubt tell you far more about that.

It would probably have been a major factor in extending the service life, if other things hadn't put an end to that in 2003.

Even if the moisture did not literally "boil off", most of it evaporated, with structural temperatures up to 100°C in many places, as against the -40°C and less in some subsonic aircraft.


Does anyone have a photo of the inside of the baggage hold?
The forward or the back one?
Neither look very fascinating.
For the back one just imagine a short stretch of cabin without any seats or fittings or windows. On Delta-Golf at Brooklands and Alpha-Echo at Barbados, they're now used as a sort of small "entry hall" for the visitors.

CJ

atakacs 19th Sep 2010 21:00


Airbus, on the contrary, returned the Type Certificate to the CAA/DGAC and thereby basically "washed their hands" of Concorde. Even if they were willing to transfer the necessary technical information to a third party, it's extremely unlikely they still would be capable of doing so.
I have always been of the possibly not substantiated opinion that all was done to make sure she would never fly again. I fully understand the significant costs incurred by EADS to provide maintenance but it would have been possible to nicely package all remaining spares and technical documentation, not mentioning the reckless butchering of many airframes.

Shaft109 19th Sep 2010 21:42

1/ What were the wind limits on Concorde?

2/ What was the minimum runway length they could use?

ChristiaanJ 19th Sep 2010 21:57


Originally Posted by atakacs (Post 5944236)
I have always been of the possibly not substantiated opinion that all was done to make sure she would never fly again.

atakacs,

Opinions and remarks like yours really belong on forums like "SCG" or the comments columns of tabloids....

But I'll try to answer you.

The aircraft were "decommissioned".
That means that they were fully prepared as public museum exhibits, rather than being "mothballed", ready to be put back into service.
The purpose was not to make sure they would never fly again, it was to make sure they were safe for the public to visit.
That included draining all fuel, hydraulic liquid, etc.
That meant removing all pyrotechnics, like those in the RAT.
That implied venting and/or removing all high-pressure vessels, such as the emergency slides, fire bottles, oxygen systems, nitrogen tanks.
In the case of the BA aircraft, it also meant removing the electric ground power connections, to avoid incompetent amateurs trying to put ground power back on the aircraft, and start a fire.

Most of these things could have been rectified quite easily. But there was no intent to ever fly any of these aircraft again, so there was no effort made to "mothball" the aircraft, which would have been done quite differently, such as inerting some of the systems, dropping all of the engines, etc. and, far more importantly, keep a maintenance structure in place, not allow public access to any of the aircraft, etc.

Once Airbus relinquished the Type Certificate, that was the end.


...it would have been possible to nicely package all remaining spares and technical documentation
Nice one...
You clearly have no idea what that would have been involved.
Just the spares alone... most of them are "lifed", and would regularly need to be either retested and requalified, or would have to be binned and replaced.


.. not mentioning the reckless butchering of many airframes.
Quite what are you talking about here? No airframes were "recklessly butchered", unless you're talking about Fox-Delta, which was not really worth saving because of serious corrosion.

CJ

ChristiaanJ 19th Sep 2010 22:25


Originally Posted by Shaft109 (Post 5944295)
1/ What were the wind limits on Concorde?

You are presumably talking about landing and take-off.
Head winds... I doubt there was much of a limit, they would have made for both a shorter landing and a shorter take-off.
Tail winds... more of an issue... at max take-off weight in particular they would increase your take-off roll.
Cross winds.... not funny... and there are very definite cross wind limits in the manual.. I can look them up, but the pilots here can probably tell you far more about them than I can.


2/ What was the minimum runway length they could use?
Nice one.... With nearly half of the take-off weight being fuel and payload, the allowed runway length varied hugely, and it was carefully calculated for every flight.
Sorry, I have no figures.
But with only a few passengers and little fuel, Concorde did some pretty spectacular take-offs from some pretty short runways.
St Maarten in the Dutch Antilles comes to mind.

CJ

atakacs 19th Sep 2010 23:07


Opinions and remarks like yours really belong on forums like "SCG" or the comments columns of tabloids....
Sorry I you feel in any way offended - certainly not my intent. :=


But there was no intent to ever fly any of these aircraft again
Well the end result is somewhat similar to what I just proposed.

I accept that the actions undertaken where just the consequences of the decision not to fly one the finest piece of human engineering to date ever. Although - as you so eloquently put it - I certainly have no idea what I'm speaking of I still feel that this decision has been rather harsh and I'm to date not fully convinced that all alternative where fully explored.

Just my 2c anyway

DozyWannabe 19th Sep 2010 23:23


Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
Quite what are you talking about here? No airframes were "recklessly butchered"

I think he's referring to the airframes (Fox-Bravo and Delta-Golf off the top of my head, probably others) that required an angle-grinder be taken to them in order to transport to their final destinations via road or waterway that as a result will never be structurally airworthy again.

ChristiaanJ 20th Sep 2010 00:37


Originally Posted by atakacs (Post 5944401)
Sorry I you feel in any way offended - certainly not my intent.

Sorry, no. I don't feel offended.... I suppose I've just seen too much of that particular "conspiracy theory"....


I still feel that this decision has been rather harsh and I'm to date not fully convinced that all alternative were fully explored.
Think back a moment to the 2003 context.

Due to the economic and political situation at the time (to put it simply), Air France was already flying their Concordes nearly empty, and wanted out.
BA wasn't doing marvelously either.
Airbus (being a company, not a charity) explained that in that case BA would have to carry the full cost of the maintenance.... which WAS already going up as a consequence of maintaining a 35-year old antique flying.
So BA decided to end the service as well, even if in the end at least they went out with a bang, not a whimper.

In those last months, people like Rod Eddington and others DID have a very serious look at keeping one or two aircraft flying in a "heritage role", and there was even a look at a joint venture with the "Alliance" project.

So yes, all of the alternatives WERE explored, but, AT THE TIME, none of these were found to be viable.

So, British Airways, Air France and Airbus all drew their conclusions, which made sense AT THE TIME, and closed down the Concorde operation.
And, instead of scrapping the aircraft, every single one of them went to museums.


Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
I think he's referring to the airframes (Fox-Bravo and Delta-Golf off the top of my head, probably others) that required an angle-grinder be taken to them in order to transport to their final destinations via road or waterway that as a result will never be structurally airworthy again.

The two airframes that "had an angle grinder taken to them" were Alpha-Alpha and Delta-Golf.

For a start, neither would have flown ever again, anyway...

Alpha-Alpha was never modified to post-2000 standard and would have slowly rotted away at LHR. Taking her to East Fortune was a great initiative, IMHO.

Delta-Golf was an ancient certication airframe, and cannibalised for years and years for spares, and destined for scrapping.
Instead, she's now at Brooklands, and rebuilt as one of the most interesting Concorde exhibits.

As to the "angle grinder", you really have to know where to look to find the traces......
And yes, I've seen both of them.

CJ

john_tullamarine 20th Sep 2010 11:26

Can we keep on the paths of righteousness please chaps .. lest those who might think the Concorde threads are taking up to much of Tech Log smite us all ...

I appreciate that some of the folks here are very one-eyed in their support of the Grand Lady but let's stay away from the arm waving and non-techo argumentative posts please.

landlady 20th Sep 2010 12:09

nomorcatering: I for one would be very unhappy if any of my posts are cut and pasted into a book. This would be plagerism. I have a publisher intersted in a book which I have already started, and when I finally hang up my wings, I will spend some time completing.

To the moderators : I guess it's me you referring to with my non-techy posts. I won't be posting on here again, as I have said from the start, I am not technical but my recollections of events on Concorde have interested some.

What a shame, this was the best thread on pprune for years.

Maybe Jetblast is the place to be!

Warm regards,

Landlady. (Supersonic tea-bag squeezer to the stars.)

john_tullamarine 20th Sep 2010 12:14

To the moderators : I guess it's me you referring to with my non-techy posts.

Absolutely NOT the case !! I should have been a bit clearer. What I was concerned about was several posts moving into denigration of organisations. The reference to non-techo probably would have better been expressed as, say, non-directly-Concorde relevant posts ?


I won't be posting on here again

Please stay with us - your comments balance the shop front views of life and are valued - really they are.

nomorecatering 20th Sep 2010 12:53

Landlady, rest assured, I'm not about to publish a book. Was merely thinking out aloud.

Indeed, put me down for the 1st order for when your book comes out.

This thread is the best in the 12 years I have been reading pprune. the only way is to make this thread better........ is for it to be read on a cold winters night, a log fire softly crackling in the background, seated in a comfy chesterfield lounge with a tumbler of the finest rum or scotch or maybe coniac.

Absolute Bliss!

forget 20th Sep 2010 12:55


Please stay with us - your comments balance the shop front views of life and are valued - really they are.
Seconded. :ok:

landlady 20th Sep 2010 13:30

Thank you!
 
Thanks for clearing that one up!

I wondered if perhaps I was posting in the wrong place. Maybe there should be another thread for anyone who has memories that they would like to share, or links with Concorde which aren’t spanner related…..however, I do have a little story for today.


This concerns the type of traveller that we have all met…the ones who like to practise a little ‘one up-manship’. ;)


It was a pea-souper of a day at LHR, and we were trying to get away on the early JFK, but our delay-due-fog was getting longer and longer. A businessman was getting himself into a right old state about the fog, and summoned me to his side. (This was taking place in the rear cabin, as a matter of interest.) He told me in no uncertain terms that this was Concorde, (full marks there for observation for a start), and not only could she fly in a bit of fog, but also in zero visibility. Furthermore, he would be having lunch with Lord King a week on Thursday, and have no doubt about it, he would be having words. (Lord King was our Life President for those who don’t know, and what a gentleman!) Now, would I please run along to the flight deck and tell the captain to stop b*ggering about and get the show on the road. I informed him that nothing would please me more, and went forward, but before I got to the flight deck I thought I would have a little chat with the passenger sitting at 1A. Lord King. :ok:

I told him that there was a passenger down the back who would be having lunch with him on Thursday of next week, and I felt it only fair to warn Lord King that his dining partner was not a happy chap. The lovely John King put his half-moon specs on the end of his nose and fished out his pocket diary, telling me that on Thursday week it would be his wife’s birthday, and there would be a family party. He stood up and asked me to take him to the gentleman in question, giving me a little wink.

We arrived at the seat of our disgruntled passenger, who was more than a little surprised to see Lord King standing in front of him. He began by saying how embarrassed he was that he had no mention in his diary of the impending lunch date, and slipped the gentleman his card, saying he should contact his P.A to re-arrange. As he began to walk back to his seat he paused, turned around and said,’ by the way, what is your name?’ at which several of the nearby passengers actually laughed out loud. Red-faced businessman troubled us no more.:\


Of course, not all SLF are problematic, but blimey, the ones that are cause us no end of grief!

Warm regards,

Landlady. (Supersonic tea-bag squeezer to the stars.)


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:35.


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