I partly read the book, "By the Rivers of Babylon". Threw it away when I reached the bit about the Concord with an APU (I am not a Concord pilot).

DunePrune, the book wasn't THAT bad.
And, as you may have seen earlier in this thread, the notion of a Concorde with an APU wasn't all that far-fetched, especially for an El-Al Concorde.

I seem to remember that there was no runway in the story, so the pilot just landed his APU equiped Concord in the desert. I am a desert pilot. The author was off his patch and poaching on mine.

Dune Prune; as a pilot myself I long gave up on the film industry poaching on my patch! Life's too short.... the trangressions too numerous!

Quite right SSD. Those were my only two posts since joining this forum. I'll maintain a decorous silence from now on.

THAT ******ing BOOK
 

Hey DunePrune don't go...... you voiced a perfectly valid point about that book, voiced from the point of view of a pilot too. :ok: I think I speak for the majority of posters when I say that you are most welcome here, please carry on posting. :)
As far as the book goes, well I suppose just like most books it's a rather subjective thing but PERSONALLY I think that book was total crap!! :\ Apart from the old 'Concorde APU' side of things (and I still chuckle at the thought of a sizable pneumatic pipe, carrying HOT passing air through a large fuel tank trying to get certification) there were also several other goofs that gave one the idea that the author was, ahem... not very 'plane minded'. Placing the bomb inside Tank 11 'before it was welded shut' shows total ignorance as far as the way that aircraft are built. The other one was the description of locating a wire by it's colour and the colour of a tracer within that wire. Concorde, just like most aircraft used plain white Poly-X or yellow Kapton Liquid-H cable with circuit identification printed on the cable at regular lengths.
All you did was to voice your very valid opinion here, so don't stop posting DunePrune and stay around.

I'll echo M2's sentiment - stay around Dune and keep on posting. This is a friendly thread! And one that I have found extremely interesting.

Hi all,

I'm a humble PPLer, and have been (speed) reading the last 70 pages...a fabulous story, of engineering and operational excellence, which I will read again at length when time permits.

I have only seen Concorde in the flesh on a few occasions...generally while passing through LHR.

But in October 2003, I had the privilege to watch the final Concorde take-off from Belfast at close quarters. I was standing at the GA Apron at Aldergrove as she took off on runway 07, actually getting off the ground barely 150yds from where we stood. I was among a crowd of local aviation buffs, all of whom had managed to cajole, bluff, and persuade their way into the GA area to see her go. And it was awesome. The afterburner roar rippled through my body, the noise was deafening, the reheat flame was mesmerising, but above all she was a beautiful creation.

Art comes in many forms, and to my mind, Concorde was up there with the works of all the great masters.

Saw BOAG this weekend
 

I was in Seattle for a wedding this weekend, and got to see BOAG at the Museum of Flight.

It was gratifying, but I can't say she's in stellar condition. I'd give her a solid "B" grade. For one thing, it drives me nuts that all the literature and display placards all say "the Concorde." I far prefer Concorde to stand on her own. Her paint was dull and oxidized, and the exhibit sort of stands alone, without much in the way of history or surrounding material. It pained me a bit to see her outside in the Seattle weather, too. The interior is nice, being cordoned off by plexiglass that could stand a replacement sometime soon. I didn't see peeling paint.

That said, it was a spectacularly more enjoyable experience than the last time I saw Concorde F-BVFA at the Udvar Hazy museum in DC, thanks completely to this thread. I noticed things I'd never seen before, and took a much more profound appreciation of things like the curve and droop of the wing leading edge and the complexity of the engine intakes... and I loved seeing the difference in fuel consumption numbers between Concorde and the SR-71 also on display. My wife thinks I'm a genius because I knew why #4 engine was N1 limited below 60kt and what the little 3/4 tag to the left of the engine EGT gauges was for.

Thanks again to all the knowledgeable individuals on this thread.

I daren't use the language my wife uses to describe me for knowing that! ;)

I think M2dude had something to do with developing that 3/4 flag! ;)

My wife thinks I'm a very odd, slightly obsessed, guy who knows too much about airplanes he doesn't fly.

I bet I know more about Concorde than the Cirrus I'm actually able to fly. Don't look at me that way-- no forum I frequent has ever had a "Cirrus Question" topic nearly as engaging as this one.

Concorde, the love of our lives
 

Nice one guys. I honestly is a pleasure to share my experiences (and feeble knowledge) of the aeroplane with so many wonderful people here, be they aviation professionals, former supersonic SLF or just inerested enthusiasts. Guys and gals, just keep posting away here and remember there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Unless of course it's from me. 'What pert of the aeroplane was manufactured by a division of General Motors in the USA?'.
Oh Shaggy, can't claim credit for the 3/4 flag, or reheat capability indicator', but I remember having a right chuckle when we fitted this highly comples piece of precision engineering (:sad::yuk::sad:) in the early eighties. I thought it was some kind of belated April Fools's joke.

Sad news on the conculsion of the project in Manchester. Lets hope something can move forward in the future.

Onto this 3/4 tab on the EGT? Can someone tell me more? Or point me in the direction? I have one of Concorde's EGT gauges sat on my TV at home. Extra facts about it to bore visitors with would be brilliant!

Hi Philflies
The 3/4 tab mounted by the #4 EGT indicator had in fact nothing to do with the EGT indication at all. It wasa reheat capability indicator and was set by the crew prior to take off. Set to 4 meant that all 4 reheats were required for take-off (and if one failed it then meant that the take-off should be rejected). Set to 3 it meant that a single reheat failure could be tolerated and the take-off could continue.
I hope this helps Philflies.
Oh and check out the website BRINGING CONCORDE G-BOAC BACK TO LIFE - Welcome The fat lady aint singing yet. Also check out the Concorde comes alive thread here too.

UPDATE UPDATE
 

It seems that the Concorde comes alive thread has been deleted. This is such a shame, I tried as hard as I could to keep things civil but others hijacked it again, just as the original thread was. Perhaps we may be allowed to post points about G-BOAC in Manchester here, I do hope so because it is such a fascinating story and is a story still being told.

The thread hasn't been deleted. I have moved it to an internal review place for comment from those higher up the totem pole. It may or may not return depending on the outcome.

Can I suggest that we let the other subject sit for a while ?

Philflies,

M2dude is right, and IIRC there is already a description of this much earlier in the thread.

The background of the 3/4 tab is, that
... on most aircraft you can - at the start of the take-off - 'run up the engines against the brakes', check they all deliver full power, and release the brakes only then.
... on Concorde it was impossible to 'hold the aircraft on the brakes' while going to full t/o thrust including the reheat (not so much because of insufficient brakes as insufficient 'footprint' of the wheels, IMHO).
... so, full t/o thrust (including reheat) didn't occur until the aircraft had already started the take-off roll.

If, at that point, one of the four reheats didn't light (which did happen at times), you did not have an awful lot of time to decide on whether you could continue 'on three' or had to reject the take-off.
Rather than having to check your pre-flight take-off calculations in a sheaf of papers or rely on your memory of the briefing, that little Heath Robinson "3/4 tab" gadget told you instantly whether to RTO NOW, or whether you could continue the take-off.

Sorry to repeat an old story, but Philflies asked the question, and not everybody has read the entire thread.....

Maybe it should be in one of the Misc forums?

Christiaan,
Just to add a bit more to your explanation is that

The reheat decision speed on every take off was 100kts

If the little tag showed 4 then you needed 4 reheats at 100kts to continue
the take-off

If the little tag showed 3 then at 100 kts you could continue the take-off even if one reheat had failed

If above 100kts you could always continue with the take off, even if a reheat had failed [ always required 3 reheats working]

So if it was a "3 reheat day" and a reheat failed prior to 100kts then a further reheat failure between 100kts and V1 would require the take off to be rejected.

Hope that makes sense??

Brit312,

Thanks for that 'add-on'.
And yes, makes perfect sense.

M2Dude, ChristiaanJ & Brit312. Thankyou for your informed explanations much appreciated. It took a little while trawling through pics on Google images to locate this intruiging tab. It does not appear on most pics, was it a late modification?

Mrs Philflies despairs of the energy wasted looking for this obscure feature! oh well.

Anyway, with the risk of looking daft, is it not by the No 1 EGT? (M2..said No 4 which is maybe why it took me so long to find)

Regards

It's on the captain's side - no. 1.

Apologies if this (or something like this) has been posted before.. Lots of pages are taking lots of time to get through!!

How it's done....

:ok:

Humble aplogies to all, of course its mounted by the #1 EGT gauge (ANOTHER senior moment on my part). The RCICS, Reheat Capabilty Indication Control Sub-system (Oh OK then, I just made that up :*) was fiitted in the very early days of Concorde operation. It looked at first sight a belated April Folls joke, but as was said (much) earlier prior to this amazing piece of technology the #3 INS CDU waypoint thumbwheel was used as the reheat GO/NO-GO indicator.
And NB2A, no apologies needed from you sir. A great link to the video starring Dave Rowland and Roger Bricknell (sorry Les).

Best regards to all
Dude :O

BN2A
 

Many thanks for those three clips, that's a half hour out of my life I don't begrudge or regret one bit. :) I'm just so glad the crew were all British and were speaking in the completely clear and unhurried, relaxed yet alert tones of people who know what they are doing. I could understand virtually every word.

Dave Rowland's explanations were very clear and made such a lot of sense when they were happening as part of the sequence. Flying Concorde must have been so, so satisfying? Every flight must have been a small triumph and to think you guys got paid for it!

And yet again Dude, I simply marvel at the amazing systems that made the aeroplane do what it did - and not a digital circuit (except the later engine/intake control processors?) in the place. Truly amazing. Thanks again guys.

Roger.

Roger, they're clips from a far longer video (available both as VHS- 2 tapes- or on DVD) from a firm called IITV.
I'm not even sure about the copyright issues of the UTube clips....
But I can assure you the full video is worth watching (and owning...).
Starts off with a full walk-around at LHR, and a lot more 'stuff'.

CJ

Video
 

Christaan

That video company is ITVV - Intelligent Television and Video. DVD copies are still around on Ebay. 300 minutes of pure delight.

Sorry for the typo.
I've got the two VHS tapes rather than the DVDs.

But "pure delight".... yes.
If you're a Concorde 'enthusiast', get your hands on a copy. You won't regret it.

CJ

A comment was made to me a very long time ago that BA/AF were looking at upgrading her avionic systems [before retirement].

Is this true? What extent of upgrades would occur if they had gone through with it?

Interesting... but unlikely.

The first question : why? The old analogue systems still worked well.

Second question : who? There were only 14 aircraft in service... who would paid the immense bill for redesign and recertification?

A third question : we know one of the major factors in the 'end of service' decisions were related to the rapidly increasing maintenance costs (as billed by Airbus). A complete upgrade of the avionics (digital, glass cockpit, etc.) would not necessarily have resulted in less maintenance costs.... it would still have been for only 14 aircraft.

In the end, the only real and 'visible' avionics upgrade was the installation of TCAS, and that was only because it was made mandatory.

CJ

In actual fact BA looked very seriously in the mid 1980s at a limited glass cockpit, where the primary flight and engine instruments would be replaced by and EFIS/EICAS setup, ala Boeing 757. Studies were quite advanced, the main cited advantage was 'reduced cost of ownership.' It seems that the reason it never went any further was, now here's the irony, 'increased training costs. (You have to remember that the 757 was the only glass cockpit BA had at the time, with nothing much else on the horizon).
There would certainly needed to be other upgrades avionics wise, in the fullness of time, but the glass cockpit was not really top of the list. Glaring requirements were improved navigational accuracy, as well as EGPWS together with predictive and reactive windshear protection. (Although to really get the most out of this an EFIS type system is crucial). We (BA) were already looking at both EGPWS and the replacement of the DELCO Carousel 1VAC INS. The Litton 92 had been suggested early on, as it was the only laser INS available with a GPS card fitted, but it is possible that given time an IRS with separate MMR interface would have been used. (This of course now requires an FMC, with a potentially rather involved VNAV profile). As far as EGPWS (and GPS navigation), the main problem was going to be 'where to put the darned GPS antenna' up there on the fuselage crown, but this was being looked at right up to 2003. Providing there was an adequate way of displaying the warnings, predictive windshear protection would have been a breeze, as the Bendix RDR4B radar system (itself retrofitted in the mid 1990s) had the PWS capability merely disabled on Concorde). As Concorde was a highly profitable enterprise for BA during the vast majority of her service life, it is my view that natural avionics updates, such as those described, would have found their way onto Concorde given enough time. (EGPWS, GPS NAV as well as PWS protection would almost certainly have been on board by now).

Best regards
Dude :O

Stretchy bit
 

When we are doing the cockpit section of our tours at Manchester on Alpha Charlie we always show guests where the expansion gap is. The other day one of the guides had someone who had been involved in Concorde and he seemed to remember that the expansion was visible somewhere else.
Is this true ?

Thanks Dude for the info... something I didn't know either.
Wasn't there also an issue with RVSM (reduced vertical separation minima)?

CJ

Actually NO CJ. The old steam powered:} analog electro-mechanical Air Data Computers met RVSM minima quite comfortably when trials were carried out, and that amazed the hell out of most of us. (But a Penny & Giles DADC was still being looked at in the early to mid 90s as a potential ADC replacement).
As far as the expansion joint question goes John, there were several expansion joints all over the aeroplane but I don't recall personally being able to see evidence of thermal expansion anywhere else than the aft flight engineers panel. Perhaps someone else here may know something?.

Best regards
Dude :O

Thanks Dude,

It amazes the hell out of me, too.
Steam-powered clockwork describes it quite well.....

I was equally amazed that the ADCs on Sierra Delta still work (as described elsewhere).

CJ

Hi all Concorde gurus,

Could somebody shed a light to me on how the de-air system work on Concorde and none of the subsonic commercial aircraft have it? Also, if possible,I would like to know that among 32+ fuel pumps,excluded EDP, in the Concorde which one is the most powerful.

Thanks for yours reply. :8

We cannot let this thread be consined to the annuls of forgotten history

There must still be a million questions that you always wanted to ask about this wonderfull plane

So here is mine

On Wikipedia they tell us there were 20 Concordes built, 14 production and 6 pre production

Also Wiki tell us there were 67 olympus 593 engines built

Forgive me but this does not seem possible, not enough engines were built to satisfy 'new' engines for 'new' planes on the production line


Does this mean that the 6 pre production a/c donateded some engines to production aircraft so some BA and AF planes flew, even from new, with 'used' engines??

Many thanks

All questions still welcome!

Not quite....

There were two prototypes, 001 and 002 (the ones with the odd porthole visors).
There were two preproduction aircraft: 01, the British one, with a full 'look-through' visor' and 02, the French one, the first one that looked like the production model, with both a 'full' visor, and the 'pointy' tail.
Then there were two 'near-production' aircraft, that were used for certification, route-proving, and suchlike, but that never entered airline service (201 and 202, now best known as 'F-WTSB' and "Delta-Golf").

And yes, then there were 14 production aircraft, that in the end all made it into service with BA and AF.

This is still a slight puzzle.....
The '67' figure probably refers only to the version of the 593 engnes for the production aircraft (4x14=56, plus spares), and not to the earlier versions used for development/testing, for the prototypes, the preprods and the cerification aircraft.

AFAIK, all the production aircraft flew with 'new' engines.

Funnily enough, there's a current discussion on a French Concorde forum on the same subject, trying to figure out not only exactly how many engines were built, but also the "where are they now?".

It would be a nice item to add to the "Concorde Story". We may have to appeal to the RR Historical Trust to open their archives, and tell us exactly how many Olympus 593's were built, and what they can tell us about their history.

CJ

Were there not 21 airframes built? The ones ChristiaanJ lists above, plus the one used for heat and stress cycling in the 'rig'?