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.