Not recently having read the thread - apologies if already mentioned but I used to stall a Delta model aircraft which would pitch up at the stall and roll on its back which I believe happened to the french aircraft.
Model recovery was simple as it then pitched down and accelerated. Whilst in the high Reynolds number regime probably similar for Concorde.
Once the centre of lift had walked far enough forward I doubt if a tail chute would have made much of a difference to the radical pitch up that followed.

No detail on tail cone internal structure (for parachute housing) on these 1967 Frank Munger tech diagrams for 'production' version of Concorde, perhaps not surprising. The diagrams also show the mechanical back-up flight control systems. The tail bumper is shown without wheels. Was this the config for the prototypes?

Concorde tech diagrams

I can't help but think that a) who would spend the time to really draw such a diagram today (and be paid) for a magazine and b) that type of thing would look great mounted and printed for a wall! Or for the latter case I need medical intervention :)

Without going through this entire wonderful thread can anyone refresh my memory as to whether Concorde ever incorporated GPS updating to its triple inertial units ?

stilton, I was never qualified on Concorde but, to the best of my knowledge, No.

Looks like it.

GPS
 

Stilton, see post 1631

I have just found this publication on a Facebook page dedicated to Concorde.
RIP one of our own.

Mach 2 Magazine pdf.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NUJ...Q_qz0A8X96p-sw

Hi, for some strange reason I have only just come across this thread, I have looked at some of the early posts and can answer a few questions.
I was a development engineer on the AICU in 1972 and put the first AICU together and got it working.
I am now a volunteer at Aerospace Bristol and we have this box in the archives, it was used on the intake rig by Roger Taplin, half way down the hill at Filton,
There are no secret components used in the AICU, TTL 54 series was used, and these are the milspec version of the 74 series TTL. they are better quality, reliability and better tolerance, and more expesive. They were not available to all countries.
I worked with Ted Talbot at the time and in 1990 he recruited me to be the design manager for aircraft conversions and my first job was to manage the design of the VC10 tankers. There was mention of the leggy girl at Tangiers, that was Liz Pedley, a Cambridge maths graduate systems engineer, she married a GW systems engineer. I worked with her on many a long night sorting out program problems. I was the one who went to Casablanca to do the program program change to the AICUs that someone mentioned being removed from the aircraft and lined up on a desk in the Air France office. While I was there Turcat came in and sat at the table to watch.
I used a prom blower to blow the fusible links not a 9 volt battery, just as Liz would have done at Tangiers (the same prom blower)
Regarding the 1990s modifications to the AICU pcbs for obsolete components, I was requested by John Churchill, who designed the replacement boards, to give him some help. I was amazed that the test specs were still approved by my signature, which meant they had not changed since I moved on around 1978 when I moved to Stevenage. In about 1974ish we bought all the remaining proms as they were stopping being manufactured.
I will try and read the rest of the threads to see if anything else has been asked.

Concorde Thread Re-Mixed
 

I have just rebuilt my website that re-organises this long Concorde thread by subject.
You can find it here: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...rde/index.html

Over 2000 posts are organised into 160 subjects.
Around 40% of the posts on the thread are excluded because I can't pick up a subject from that post so please contact me if you feel that you contribution has been excluded.

The project is here: https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads.
Issues can be raised here: https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads/issues or PM me with ideas.

Paul
I was just coming here to ask that someone preserve the invaluable information in this thread, and here you have done so.
Amazing coincidence!
Thank you. A monumental effort and a piece of history preserved, hopefully forever.
Again, thank you.

Thanks. It's posts like this that make all the work that I have put in feel worthwhile.

Why was there no possibility to add any APU on the concord ?

I would think weight was the main reason for not fitting an APU.
Around the time of development, long haul aircraft like the VC-10, B707 and DC-8 didn't have APUs and major airports had suitable ground equipment to support these, ie. GPU, Air Start, Air conditioning.

If you go back to the first post of this thread you’ll find the answer

I assumed that Aviator28pm 's post was a (rather weak) joke.

Yes, I am sure this is so. If Concorde was a "waste" of taxpayer`s money, well, it provided the foundation for Airbus both in engineering solutions as paving the way fore European crossborder cooperation. Hydraulic systems architecture on A-320 (which I know) is a bit similar, also brake fans look wery much the same on A-320. I like to point that out to young engineers whan providing training/intro.

I'd just like to thank Stilton for asking this question to create one of the greatest reads, for me anyway, on the internet. Just finished my annual re-read.

Thank you, it was just sheer good luck such a simple question would inspire such an incredible response and from such experts on this magnificent aircraft

Came across this non-attributed but interesting photo of Concord in an unexpected environment..
I can only imagine the thrust available at -40 and the noise must have been heard for a hundred miles across the frozen tundra.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c4c455649.jpeg