Dear CliveL,
Accept please our admiration reading you in PPRuNe's forum in your difficult condition giving us an example of courage and dynamism who where ingredients of your professional success with your skills and work. :ok:
Best wishes, Thank you,

CliveL, Bellerophon, EXWOK and others; THANK YOU for an immensely interesting thread! Surely the best thread ever here on PPRuNe! Reading what you have written, I can sense the pride and satisfaction you display, even through the forum, from having been a part of the Concorde story. It must have been intensely interesting, challenging and rewarding. I've been at Duxford a couple of times and been inside and around 101, and what an experience it is just to stand next to one! What I'd give to be able to fly the Concorde instead of the 737s I plod around in now... At least I get to enjoy the other end of the speed range in Tiger Moths and Chipmunks :)

I'd love to see one of the ex-BA ones in the UK at some point. It's on my to-do list!

Repeating others I know, but speedy recovery and Thank you to yourself, and others who have made this my favourite thread on PPrune.
Get well soon and again many Thanks.

Concorde Thread Status
 

Dear Mods, given what this iconic aircraft represents, the commitments to those who have spent their lives either designing, building, flying or supporting this aircraft - and to those same special people posting their own personal experiences on here, could we please have this unique thread placed somewhere safe and visible where it won't become 'lost' ?

Thank you

"Sticky" it??

Too many stickies gets untidy.

Thread now linked on the URL summary thread .. must make the time to tidy that thread up sometime ...

Hi
Forgive me for interrupting the thread but it seemed a good place to ask my question with all the knowledge posted even though mine is not a technical query. I have a painting of Concorde in prototype or Development livery I believe, painted in 1982. The numbering on the wing is I believe 1-GEE. I am trying to find some history on the actual Concorde in the painting however after researching for many hours I can find no information on any Concorde bearing these markings. Would anyone have any ideas? The artist was normally meticulous in detail and would not normally paint something that had not existed. Any help would be much appreciated thanks.

leb001,
I'm afraid 1-GEE is a nonsense registration. A British Concorde registration would be "G-" followed by four letters.
But, if you can post a photo of the painting, it may be possible to determine which aircraft it is.

Here's a link to the six development aircraft, with pix of all of them.

CONCORDE SST : PROTOTYPE FLEET

Several had different paint schemes throughout their history, so that may not be definitive. But there are variations that can narrow down which might be in your painting: long or short tailcone, and small window or large greenhouse cockpit visor.

Three of the six are British G registrations, and three have French F-numbers. Three have "...01" production numbers. As ChristiaanJ says, none would be registered "1-GEE" - but that might have been something added for a specific test flight or for some other reason unrelated to registration. They were repainted occasionally (including one painted in BA livery on one side and AF livery on the other, for a time.)

What a great thread to have stumbled upon, spent the better part of this week reading it and wanted to share two of my Concorde stories.

I was up at KOSH when Concorde visited in 1994 and while you can still go on the flight line today, back then you could really get close. I remember walking across the camping area right along the northwest end of 18/36 as she came back from a tour, she was so close you could almost touch her. Coming in it was eerily silent but as she slipped past the noise was deafening and she touched right on the numbers. About two seconds later her wash settled and every tent and loose object in a 100 yard area blew all over the place. It is hard to describe in words but the picture is so visual in my mind today.

The best though was later that day I was departing in the great AC560 on 27 at the same time Concorde went out for another tour on 18. We turned crosswind to the south just as she started her roll. Maximum continuous on the GO-480's as we raced her down the length of 18 where obviously she passed us about half way and vaulted into the sky. Shortly after rotation we were both at about the same altitude and we had almost cleared the end of 18 (Concorde was maybe 1-2 miles in front of us) and she did a magnificent I am guessing 30-45 degree bank to 270 and cut across our windshield in full splendor afterburners and all.

To this day I love telling about the time I flew the pattern with Concorde once. How many can say that (an I am guessing there is only two Concorde pilots who can attest to flying the pattern with an AC560 ever!).

Thanks to all those who made this and many other Concorde memories BA/AF both for me!

Remember the occasion well AC560. Was standing at the barrier paralleling the runway during one of her take offs, right where the main gear broke ground. Thought we were insanely close, seemed you could have reached out and touched her, and don't mention the noise. Beautiful, beautiful, what an experience. I'm sure the nanny state that prevails today would have the barrier so far back you would need binoculars.

Former Concorde Captain Keith Myers was one of my IR procedural instructors around 13yrs ago at Redhill. He had some fascinating stories about the early days of operations. Flying circuits at Shannon for example.

I recall a story about timing from break release to Supersonic, I think, from Shannon. Would 9 minutes be realistic? I forget the detail.

Concorde question
 

For what it's worth I vividly remember Concorde flying circuits in Marrakech (AF training)... Was quite a sight!

NineEighteen -

9mins brake release to M1.0 sounds about right from SNN; out of JFK we consistently achieved M1.0 10mins after brake release and that was with a noise-abatement departure which added a little time.

10 minutes to Mach 1?? What rate of climb was obtained once everything was stabilised and climb speed was reached (obviously without any step restrictions)?? In my world (and everyone's now, unfortunately) a full contingent of passengers would be lifted to maybe +/- 20,000 feet in that time, not supersonic territory at that altitude without government instructions and an enemy!!

I take it Barbados was similar? 3 2 1 Now, and the next touch of the throttles was at top of descent at the other end??

Been stated before, but John Hutchinson's interview on the OmegaTau podcast, and the video of Dave Rowland and Roger Bricknell going to JFK and back are essential for any self respecting enthusiast... I don't suppose they are the real names of some of the experts contributing to this thread are they?

:ok:

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/...psdhjytbo2.jpg

Many thanks. I have posted a photo and waiting for it to be approved by a Moderator but I am unsure if it is too big in size

@ BN2A

I'm sure the real experts will "adjust" my understanding - but I believe Concorde, loaded for the transatlantic "Sierra" routes, could hit about 5000 fpm peak VS when climbing at 400 KIAS between ~10,000 and ~28,000 feet (wherever 400 KIAS = M 0.99). Leaving a coastal airport (New York, Barbados, Dakar), she would quickly be clear of land and could more or less transition directly through Mach 1 as soon as she reached 28-30,000 feet.

Those 4 Olympus engines could maintain Mach 2 with no afterburner at 50,000+ feet, so they had tons of excess power down low. Again my understanding is that they stayed at 100% dry thrust from brake release until TOD (except for subsonic cruise segments), with the AB added for takeoff, and when accelerating from Mach 0.96 through Mach 1.7.

Mach 2.00 was reached in about 30 minutes @ ~51,300 feet, depending on atmospherics - a relatively long slow slog compared to the initial climb and acceleration.

From inland airports such PDG or Heathrow, there was a "pause" for level subsonic cruise (M 0.94-0.96) in the high 20s until clear of the coastline by 20 miles (over La Manche or the mouth of the Bristol Channel.)

@ leb001 - greenhouse visor, BA livery, and short tail - probably G-AXDN (aircraft 101). Although I'll defer to the experts, as always.

NineEighteen

Try this link: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/42398...ml#post6129540

Many thanks :-)

leb001,
While it's a nice pic, the artist has been taking a fair amount of artistic liberties....
For instance, the door located at the forward end of the wing, just forward of the emergency exit, is pure fiction.
The tail is something between proto and production.
As said, the registration is a few paint smears, and does not correspond to anything real.
AFAIK, G-AXDN (01) never had a British Airways livery.
I'd suggest the picture could have been inspired by DG, or SA (but in that case the BA livery is on the wrong side), or one of the production aircraft delivered to BA in the period that livery was used (such as G-BOAC).

I would consider it as a generic British Airways Concorde from the early days. I don't think there was an attempt to carefully depict one particular aircraft.

Hope this helps!

Many thanks for all the help. During my research the livery seemed closer to G-BBDG, The Brooklands Concorde. I really do appreciate your help guys....it seems the artist may have been having a fun day taking liberties! Thanks again

A new era for Concorde?
 

Long time lurker - I was addicted to this thread real-time from late 2010 - I guess I must have broken away at some point and didn't realise the posts were still coming.

I re-read most of it mid-2011 and came back recently to read all over again.

I have a question that I don't think has been covered (but will happily stand corrected).

But first, my love of Concorde has been life-long - each time I go to Barbados I visit the exhibit there and it brings a tear to my eye every single time without fail -- and, I didn't design, engineer, maintain or fly her -- so I can fully appreciate the emotions the beautiful lady must evoke in those that did.

in about 2002/2003, I was finally in a position to financially support a flight on Concorde, but it never happened in time before the shutdown - honestly, this is one of the biggest regrets of my life.

This thread is my favourite read of all time - absolutely and totally priceless and the full and generous contributions from the people that were there are so very much appreciated.

And now, to the question.

Concorde was limited to 60k feet and M2.04 for all the reasons stated.

Just suppose for a moment, that these restrictions were removed.

I've read of her attaining 68k feet and M2.23 (from memory), but what could she have achieved in the opinion of those qualified to judge such things.

If all altitude and speed restrictions were removed (and related issues solved), then what could have been the result - I am assuming that range would have gone up quite considerably?

Thanks again to all for this stupendous thread.

Bit of a hypothetical question requiring a judgemental response!
My short answer would be not much more than the certified limits - at least not without significant modifications.
FL680 was achieved at the end of a zoom climb, so the Mach No was a lot less than 2.0
M2.23 was in a shallow dive. The object was to demonstrate sufficient margin to avoid surge following the worst temperature transient specified in the TSS regulations. To that end both the intake laws and engine operating lines were tweaked as functions of Mach No to minimise intake flow distortions and maximise surge margin. The result was a long way from the performance optimum one would need for steady cruise.
The power plant was being pushed to its limits at this Mach No.
(As an aside, the subsonic rules make no mention of temperature transients as a cause of Mach exceedences. Some recent incidents suggest this could usefully be reviewed)
The altitude limit could perhaps be more readily expamded. The aircraft normally flew a cruise climb bcause at Concorde cruising altitudes there was no ATC conflict. The altitude was very sensitive to ambient temperature and aircraft weight. FL600 would be associated with end of cruise on a coolish day.
To usefully increase cruise altitude would require more engine thrust, but this could only be obtained by increasing engine TET which would screw the engine fatigue life.
Increasing Mmo from 2.04 would need an increase in Tmo (400 deg K) at any temperature above (from memory) ISA. This in turn would affect the airframe fatigue life unless the structural material were changed. Even then, there were a lot of nonmetallic bits (seals etc) that would also have needed replacement.
Sorry if this is a gloomy assessment, but that is the way I see it!

Thanks CliveL - not gloomy at all, just realistic.

It certainly helps to better understand the context of the FL68 and m2.23 figures.

I had assumed from these figures and other comments that she had more speed, more climb and was held back by operational parameters, when in fact she flew close to her limits as a matter of course. In my mind, this is yet more proof of the incredible engineering and design.

I was interested to read, some months ago, of attempts to recreate the texture of shark skin in a paint in order to reduce drag on "the bluntys".

This made me wonder how much engineering/materials time was spent on reducing drag due to texture, fairings and so on - in fact, how significant that actually was.

Would rrivets, wheel bay doors etc have any sort of significant impact on drag? Does localised flow disruption actually reduce drag under some circumstances?

I would imagine that much attention was given to ensuring the nose droop mechanism was as seamless as possible, especially in the zero position - can anyone comment or elaborate on these aspects please?

Or, am I over-emphasising the significance of these aspects.

There was a lot of work devoted to minimising drag of surface discontinuities etc, but almost nothing on skin surface changes. I'm not sure we understood enough about supersonic skin friction with kinetic heating added to really be qualified to speculate on the effects of varying the surface.
The most troublesome parasitic drag items were leakage losses, especially from the powerplant

A question please:

I have listened to Mike Bannister on Concord's last ever flight. On the transcript he requested takeoff clearance at a specific minute and seconds - I paraphrase: "In a perfect world we'll be wheels rolling at 10:30 and 16 seconds.."

Can somebody explain the accuracy required there please?

I remember the paint job underneath was as rough as the proverbial bear's rear. The painters were forever trying to keep it nice and slick after the leaking fuel had done it's magic. :ok:

Thanks for the replies CliveL and Turin.

Well, going to BGI tomorrow, so will sure to give everyone's best regards to Alpha Echo...

INS Memory
 

How exactly would you get the INS into memory mode so you could input the two digit code to activate the route section.
M2dude?

I do not think the Concorde INS had a data transfer unit for route planning, but it could have.

Even the early F-16 in 1979 had no such doofer. They came about in early-mid 80's. The Shuttle probably had data transfer cartridge that the crew could use, otherwise previous platforms prolly had their stuff loaded via a hardwire connection to another computer or via a data link RF system, as we did with Apollo.

In late 60's and until early 80's, we high tech pilots and navs would type in the the stuff!! 'course, the A-7D had the projected map and we could slew it around and enter coordinates using it without having to type. That was late 60's, and nobody else had that until the 80's.

That's what Gums remembers.

Goodbye André Turcat !
Thanks

Good by, Sir!
Mort d?André Turcat, le pilote d?essai du Concorde

Concorde Eastbound Routes
 

Having just bought a new computer I have dug out my FS2004 PSS Concorde simulator and thought I'd give it a go now that I have more spare time. However, I realise now that all of the tutorial videos and books I have read about Concorde flights tended to detail westbound flights. I'm just curious about what eastbound routings were into Heathrow where and where the decel point was. Could anyone help or know of any sources of information on the eastbound routes please?

JohnA
 

Great to see some facts from an expert. It was a long time ago and memories fade, but one cannot get away from the knowledge that we were on the edge of our operating limits, especially when operating out of Casablanca on the engine surge programme and max cruise.
Sorry to read about Andre'

All the best to you for 2016.

@tomahawk_PA38

Here's a chart of AF Concorde routings: Concorde route

Given that BA and AF used the same "Sierra November/Sierra Oscar" EB oceanic routes, and Paris and London are about the same longitude, the decel point was likely nearly identical as well.

Handwritten note is a bit small, but I believe it amounts to "50nm east of BISKI."

Waypoints change, however, and BISKI no longer exists - the closest approximation to the actual decel point that I see on a current chart looks like it would be MOSIS. Mouth of the English Channel, just west of the Scilly-Ushant line.

Deceleration clear of land then takes you directly up the center of the channel to SSW of Southhampton (roughly, ORTAC), and then hang a subsonic left to Heathrow.

But I'd also love to hear if someone has more authoritative info.

Just an observation and not my aisle but looking at flight deck images the INS display and keyboard looks like those I last witnessed on some older 747 classics in the very late 80s...in that case the "memory mode" was a page or pages on the flight plan containing lots of Lat/longs...

Concorde eastbound
 

@tomahawk, pattern is full

You really need an input from a BA pilot, but my memory is that the approach to LHR was up the Bristol Channel not the English Channel.
Original decel point was moved back about 100 n.ml to avoid secondary boom effects over West Couhtry. This put it somewhere south of the southern tip of Ireland

I concur with CliveL. The normal inbound and outbound route was up the bristol channel.

Flying east-west or vice versa along the English channel is generally not possible due to the multitude of military danger areas, although there are north-south airways between the danger areas.

Thanks, guys - I knew the OB route was out the Bristol Channel (described in detail earlier in this thread), and where the SN/SO eastbound routes rejoined at BISKI.

I see where "hanging the left" further out and decelerating up the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel is almost certainly correct, and makes more sense, for BA.