It is easy [by looking in my book] to confirm the starting sequence was
3421 or for a Push Back it was 3 then 2 followed by 4 then 1, after pushback was complete

Now the hard part is to remember why, and perhaps it was because that is the way in BOAC/BA we had always started engines, but on previous aircraft I do remember there being a reason such as brake pressure or electrics, which was not the case on Concorde. However I seem to remember that the hydraulic pump layout on pre production Concordes was not always the same as the airline version, so this might have had some influence

However by starting 3 then 4 first it did allow engine start to commence with the passenger finger still in place. Now unlike the French the flying control checks were carried out by a pilot as engines were being started and it started with "Blue" being selected which was sourced from 3 and 4 engines.
Now I think this was only because 3 and 4 were the first engines to be started rather than the reason, but it was handy to speed things up.

Now I have heard a rumour you understand that sometimes when things were running late the 3 and 2 engines would be started at the same time, but you have to understand this is only a rumour:ooh:

Unlikely Information
 

Hi, Just caught this question on a search, a bit more info.

My Father was Project Manager for the testing of the engines. I remember spending a few weekends with him driving around to look at suitable railway tunnels. I didn't remember where it was but your post identified it.

Once the test-bed was set up dead birds were collected to be fired in to the engine. As stated it was to prove a disk destruction would be contained within the housing: it was.

There were problems with some break-ins, the company put up various hazard signs to scare away local youths (presumed responsible), it worked but then they had to take them down a reassure the local council there were no such hazards.

My Father was also responsible for the flying test bed, placing an Olympus in the bomb bay of a Vulcan bomber.

Hope this helps.

Seats
 

Guys - not really a technical question but probably of interest.
Like ShaggySheepDriver I'm one of the guides on Alpha Charlie at Manchester. As part of the tour we always say where the Queen sat. But people always have questions about others.
e.g. - David Frost was always towards the back but was he actually at the back in R26 ?
Question is :- Are there any interesting people with quirky stories who sat elsewhere ? (As per that John Cleese story a few pages back).

Hi all,

Sorry for bump this tread but I'm just wonder why Tank 8 is bigger than Tank 6
which is sit left to the tank 8. Is there any specific reason for this?

Thanks for all of yours reply

Best regards

No specific reason that I know - just that the wing is a bit deeper in that area so same planform area holds more fuel.

M2 dude
Firstly thanks for a very interesting thread. Regarding post 88 (I know it was last year) and the hydraulic systems, the use of M2V would also be required as the pipes were Titanium and Skydrol (ester) based fluids will cause hydrogen embrittlement in Titanium and cracking. For me I had a couple of years working on the aircraft at BA in the late 70's and was always reminded that the design was in the best British military design tradition and training as a gynacologist would have been handy when replacing any component! Good times.

I'm so glad and flattered at your comments, thank you very much spannersatKL. You are so right about working on the lady. It often seemed like gynacology, or even 'brain surgery 'for fun and profit' a lot of the time when changing stuff on 'The Rocket'.
M2V really was great stuff though, although now it is as rare as rocking horse excrement. (Got any spare)???

Best Regards
Dude :O

Dude/SpannersatKL
 

The old "fourteen fingers and rubber legs" syndrome? Been there, done that, got the bad joint pain to prove it. :sad:

Roger

Thanks for that snippet of info, spanners, I'll pass it on to whom it may concern.
Hummm, half of it was French, and I can confirm they were quite good too at the kind of design you are referring to....
My own field was the AFCS, and one of my experiences was discovering, (quite recently) that the prototype Concorde AFCS controller had obvious family relations with the one on the VC-10 (so not military).
Logical, both were designed by Elliott.
Now 40 years ago in my case, so the scars have gone, but I do know what you are talking about! And yes, good times.

Same question here....
Concorde always leaked as a sieve... (escept at Mach 2) and still does to this day. We collect the M2V in the drip pans, filter it, and re-use it, but a few uncontaminated drums or boxes would be very gratefully received.... never mind the "Best By" date.

CJ

Bellerophon

I remember that -- the initial rotation was pretty normal other than being a bit faster, then from there it was brought up to a very steep climb (it feels worse than it is, but I was guessing it was around 22 or so degrees -- it has to do with eyeballing the angle of the horizon to the plane's current path -- 22.5 degrees is 1/4 the way up, 30 is 1/3, 45 is 1/2, 60 is 2/3's and so forth). Clearly I'm not a human ADI :}

How many shockwaves does the concorde's inlet produce? I've been told it was like 3 or so, but looking at some diagrams it looks like there are 7... two stronger ones, three weaker ones, a bendy stronger one, a gap and then the terminal shock.

Regarding the engine start-up, was Two-Engine Taxi out ever considered/used in an effort to save some of the vast amound of fuel consumed before take-off.

Related I guess to the above, was there a minimum time limit after engine start before which full thrust could be applied?

1. Yes ( of course if you have more then 2 )
2. Yes ( every engine, even the one in car or a motorbike etc. )

Jane-DoH
OK here we go:

1) The first shock was generated from the top lip of the intake

2) A second shock is generated from the fwd ramp hinge

3) A third isentropic fan shock is generated from the progressively
curved section of the fwd ramp

4) A 4th shock was generated fron the bottom lip
5) A terminal shock system is generated by the coalescence of
still supersonic and now subsonic air at the upper section of the ramp
area.

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...corde/Shox.jpg

Hopefully these two diagrams will help. The first hand illustration above gives the 'theoretical' shock pattern and the second below gives an illustration of practical flows within the inlet. Both assume critical operation at Mach 2.

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...ockComplex.jpg
I hope all this blurb helps


Best regards
Dude :O

During the take off roll there was a power check called (by the FE, I think). I've heard this on recordings and videos variously as "power checked" and "Power set". Assuming they are one and the same check, which is correct?

Dude, those are very nice illustrations, but I would make a small correction to the lower picture - the bleed flow is shown as entering the void at the front of the slot between the front and rear ramps whereas in reality it goes (sorry went :-( ) in at the rear behind the terminal shock. The increase in pressure behind that shock was the 'drive' for bleed flow.

Regards

CliveL

?

I think you are referring to the 100kt call, when the F/E was expected to give a call as to the state of the powerplant [both engine and reheat] achieving desired power for take off. He was assisted in this decision by the illumination of 4 green lights [ one per engine] which came on if the engine power was OK. Should one green light fail then he would confirm the correct engine operation by observing that engine's N2 and Area position

If all OK at 100kts the F/E would call ---- "Power Set"
If not all Ok then he would call ----------" Engine Failure" which would
result in a rejected Take off

In the early days there was no concession and every take off had to have 4 green lights illuminated so the call then was " 4 Greens" , but when the concession came along that term would not fit so the change in call

The concession were
1] one green light out [seeabove]
2] and basically if weight, and airport conditions allowed it a take off could be continued even with one reheat failed at 100kts

Up to 60 kts the F/E could reselectt a failed reheat so hoping it would be
OK by 100kts
At 100kts the conditions in the above concessions applied
Above 100kts the take off would continue even if a reheat failed however
if another fails when below V1 the take off would be rejected

So finally to answer your question the correct call [well in 1998] was

" Power Set "

:OCliveL
Clive, thank you so much for your correction; I will ammend this diagram in my files immediately. :ok:
(As always you are of course 100% on the bal. And what do aerodynamisits know about aerodynamics anyway :) :D :)).

Best regards
Dude :O

Well if you ask two aerodynamicists about a problem you will probably get at least three opinions, so there is at least one in three chance of being right whatever you say:ok:

CliveL