Landroger
The great thing about the OLY593 was the high specific thrust (in relative terms the Olympus is a tiny, compact design), it's growth potential/high potential mass flow. A bypass engine is not really ideal for supersonic cruise, and given what was available in terms of two-spool turbojets in the 1960s, the Olympus was the obvious choice for both the TSR-2 and Concorde alike. As far as for ships and power stations, well a turbojet is always going to be favourite, as all the gas energy is contained in the jet efflux; this can be efficiently transferred to the load in question by a gearbox coupled to the HP spool.

howiehowie93
Well the 593 did require a primary nozzle to match N1 against N2, bur apart from that she was a study of deceptive simplicity and elegance.
No mate, generally BI-HEX AF.
This really is fascinating stuff Howie, thank you. As I alluded to a few pages back, the primary nozzle on the OLY593 opened in response to the rising P7, kind of 'after the horse has bolted' in a way. To maintain the correct scheduled value of N1, the control system set, via a needle valve, a finite ratio between P7 and P3. As reheat lit as P7 attempted to rise it upset this ratio and the primary nozzle was opened in order to restore the aforementioned ratio. (Nozzle opens, P7 falls). When reheat was cancelled the opposite happened, and the nozzle closed sharply to prevent N1 overspeed.

Tom355UK
Glad you are enjoying our thread, and thank you for your kind words. (But apologies to your good lady wife though ;)).
Jeepers Tom that is one hell of a question. Assuming there was a market for such a venture (personally not sure right now) I think you are looking at BILLIONS of $, and for this reason alone I think you'd find that a multi-national/continental effort would be required. There is little doubt that technology is not the major barrier here, but economics and political will. (Nice thought though, I do agree).
As far as a powerplant goes, well the PW5000 is a really superb engine, although well down on the thrust requirement for an 'NG' SST. More likely I would have thought would be e development of the Olympus, there was/is still such an enormous amount of potential in this basic design. (But who knows, this is all pure speculation anyway).
And have no fears about posting here Tom, most of us are quite happy to answer away (We've said before that there is no such thing as a stupid question; you are most welcome here :ok:).

DavvaPIt really did not matter what airframe we used for the test flight; the sole purpose was just to find out just what effect (if any) the tank liners had on the performance of the fuel system. (The handsome chap who you see on TV most, installing the liners, Mr Marc Morley left BA and now resides in Australia).
I am honoured to say that I was lucky enough to be onboard G-BOAF for that flight from LHR-BZZ and as far as I could tell, the liners had no impact whatsoever. One amusing :E part of the flight was when we deliberately allowed tank 3 to run dry and see just what the indicated fuel quantity was as #3 engine flamed out (we were subsonic at this point of course). The gauge slowly crept down (in order for the tank to to run dry, the tank 7 & 8 transfer pumps were switched off) and we all watched in eager anticipation/dread....... as the counters reached zero weeeeeee... the engine flamed out. I am being completely honest here, the engine wound down EXACTLY at ZERO indicated contents).
Those 7 aircraft really did look magnificent I know, it was just sad as to the reason they were all lined up there.

Mr.Vortex
Well she was a delta without a tailplane, so the short answer is 'yes', but remember that we used fuel to move the CG backwards and forwards for long term trimming.
OK, this is a little complicated, so bear with me. The intake had a finite limit, in terms of the mass flow that it could deliver to the engine and so an automatic N1 limitation signal was transmitted from the intake 'box' (the AICU) to the engine 'box' (the ECU) full time above Mach 1.6. Now this limitation was referenced against TEMPERATURE compensated N1, (N1/Öq) and at normal ISA temperatures this limit was above the 'normal' 101.5% N1 running line. (The lower the temperature, the lower the effective limit became). At ISA -7 the limit now became less than 101.5% N1, and so the demanded value of N1 was reduced to this value. But this limit signal was always there, it's just that at normal temperatures it was effectively ignored by the ECU. If this limitation signal failed for any reason, the AICU would detect this by way of the ramp angle becoming uncomfortably close to it's MINIMUM variable limit (this limit was scheduled as a function of intake local Mach number) and an amber light would illuminate on the associated N1 gauge, along with an amber INTAKE master warning would illuminate (plus an audible 'BONG' from the audio warning system). The only course of action was to manually reduce throttle setting away from the Mach 2 norm of maximum, in order to reduce N2, and consequently N1 and mass flow demand. There was in intake pressure ratio indicator at the top of the intake control panel that would show where the power setting would have to be set to. It was an indirect indication of intake shock geometry.
This manual N1 datum reset control was only used during flight test trials into just how much N1 would have to be controlled/reduced at low temperatures in order to give optimim intake geometry. It had absolutely nothing to do with afterburner/reheat and had no place in the production aircraft as all the research was complete :ok:

Best regards to all
Dude :O

Mr M2Dude sir !!,
Not quite right here I'm afraid. There are some designs which are coupled to the HP Spool - look up GE LM6000 for that but the majority of installations use the jet efflux to drive a separate (in a mechanical sense) Power Turbine which can be then either coupled to a gearbox or directly coupled to the load and run at a set speed as in power generation - i.e. 3000 or 3600 RPM for the frequency depending on which country. All the controls I've worked on govern the speed of this Power Turbine and the Gas Turbine, often called Gas Producer or Gas Generator, ramps up or down as required. Just being monitored to ensure it is operated within it's limits.

All Olympus installations are like this; ships prime movers, pumps, gas compressors, power generation all the same.

regards
Howie

Thanks Howie ('sir' my armpit :p). The great part about this forum is that we can all (especially me) live and learn. :ok:
I humbly stand corrected and as always am thankful for your posts. (See, you've become a Concorder Howie :))

Best regards
Dude :O

What a marvelous thread!

I have hitherto never really been 'hooked' on Concorde but am discovering some amazing stuff here, and am being 'converted' so to speak (still on Page 8, working my way through).

The input from our 4+ experts is both eloquent and highly informative :ok: You can read all you like about this aircraft, but 'hearing' detail first hand from designers, pilots and F/Es is wonderful.

Great stuff....

Keith

Glad you are enjoying your reads so far Keith, and welcome aboard; you are most welcome here. Anything you want some clarification about (especially my ramblings) or any new questions, well please feel free to fire away and ask. (8 pages so far eh? Jeepers, you've a lot of reading ahead of you :)).

Best regards
Dude :O

Many thanks M2dude....that's great!

It was only when I went forward to make my last post that I realised there are 43 pages to the thread :ooh: will make good bedtime reading :)

I will wait until I have read the complete thread before asking any questions of you guys...in case they have been asked before.

Cheers and all the best

Keith

Okay....couldn't wait until I had completed the thread review before posting a question (on Page 9 now :O). One 'easy one':

I'm curious as to how difficult getting the C type rating was. Presumably only senior BA / AF people could apply but there must have been a huge learning curve involved, even for these experienced foiks.

Cheers - Keith

Keith,
Welcome!
Your question has been answered in detail, but a bit beyond page 9.. read on and enjoy.

CJ

Thank you ChristiaanJ...

Dang! I knew I should have waited :ouch:

I will read on and find the answer to my question in due course. Patience is a virtue :E so they say :)

Thanks again and very best wishes

Keith

Not surprisingly there are other threads on here about Concorde, found this stunning picture on page 4 post #76:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ircraft-4.html


H:ok:wie

What was the ICAO code for the Concorde? What was on the license?

GF

Hi Galaxy Flyer -

When I first got the beast on my licence it was recorded as 'Concorde Series 102 & variant'.

(Translates as British-built series plus s/no. 214, aka G-BOAG)

These days it appears as just 'Concorde'. (I'm surprised it still appears at all since the type isn't current on the register).

It's a while since I filed a flt plan for a Concorde sector, but recall that it was entered as 'CONC'.

ATB

Pedalz -

I'm not the best person to reply to your ramp query - he'll be along later! - and it's been largely answered already, but the bare bones are this;

Ramp 1&2 Green system, back up of yellow, 3&4 Blue, backup yellow.

Any continuous surge at supersonic speed would affect the adjacent engine, hence the requirement to close all 4 throttles.

Cheers,

EXWOK

A certain CFI (I think) at BA flying club, High Wycombe, who was also F/O on concorde, showed me some photographs of an engine that had eaten a piece of intake ramp.
I think he said that the adjacent engine had surged and a piece of ramp went out the front and down the other engine. This resulted in a double engine failure mid atlantic. They landed in Shannon with very little fuel left.

A double engine change ensued.

Question, how fast was the ramp going if the A/C was at Mach 2?

Maybe M2dude remembers the occasion?

First time that happened was on prototype 001 in the very early days, when an engine "spit out" the entire ramp (there's a photo in Trubshaw's book).
The ramps and actuators were 'beefed up' considerably afterwards... I didn't know an in-service aircraft had suffered a similar mishap.

Good question.... not being an "engine man" I've always been amazed how a nice steady Mach 2 flow, slowed down to Mach 0.5 at the engine inlet, is capable of totally choking off and even reversing itself in less than a second.... no wonder it's usually accompanied by a big bang!

CJ

PS I have no record of any of the British development aircraft ever having lost a ramp, notwithstanding the number of deliberate engine surges they went hrough. But then maybe I wasn't told.... :8

Them darn intakes
 

Hi Guys, quite a few little points here, so here's my angle(s):
Pedalz
Ooo yes. The biggest problems we ever had associated with the ramps themselves were wear in the seals at the sides of the forward ramp. Even a few thou' over the maximum allowable side gap was enough to make the intake unstable and susceptible to surging. (It is quite interesting that the rear ramp side gaps were not in the least bit critical, and if Concorde intake development had continued, the rear ramps were going to be deleted altogether). Other failure factors were control unit malfuntions, rapid sensor drift; all of these causing either ramp/spill door drift or runaway. Primary nozzle misbehaviour could also result in intake surges. Having said all that, the monitoring of the intake system was truly superb, and surface runaways, themselves quite rare, would usually be picked up by the control system monitors causing either a lane switch or if that did not work, a total 'red light' failure with the surfaces frozen. No surge was treated as 'just one of those things', and much midnight oil was burned and hair pulled out (so that's what happened to mine :E) to try and find the cause of the surge.
My friend EXWOK perfectly answered the intake hydraulics allocations.:ok:
EXWOK was right on the ball here as usual, in fact above Mach 1.6 an interactive surge was more or less guaranteed. The cause of interactive surge had nothing to do with the wing leading edge position, but to the radially generated distortion field coming out of the FRONT of the surging intake, severely distorting the adjascent intakes airflow. It mattered not if the originating surge was an inboard or an outboard intake, the other guy would always go also, above Mach 1.6.
You might want to take a look at 'When Intakes Go Wrong Part 1:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/42690...-thrust-5.html
and Parts 2 & 3:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/42690...-thrust-5.html
Not to mention Part 3:


dixi188
I can never recall this particular event happening with BA , certainly not as a result of a ramp failure. Although in the near 28 years of operation we had quite a few SNN diversions, none that I can ever recall were as the result of a ramp structural failure. The two major SNN diversions that I can recall were G-BOAF in the early 80s when an LP1 blade failed and resulted in a totally wrecked engine (although a completely contained failure) and G-BOAA in 1991, with another wrecked engine due to running in rotating stall. (Both of these events were covered previously in our thread). ChristiaanJ has mentioned quite rightly the event with A/C 001 spitting a ramp out, and Air France had a ramp failure going into JFK. (Covered previously in our thread, due to certain 'human foul ups'). I am not sure, but I think that this one in JFK DID require a double engine change in JFK. (Usually from SNN a BA aircraft would be 3 engine ferried back to LHR).

ChristiaanJ
Nope, you are quite right, no more French or British development aircraft ever suffered a ramp linkage failure again. The 001 ramp failure was a salutary lesson to the design team, and the intake assembly became tougher than old boots after that, nomatter WHAT you threw at it.:D


Due to the lateness of the hour (and me being up at 4 :eek:), that will have to do for now guys.

Best regards to all
Dude :O

There's a description and a picture of such an incident in the RR Heritage Book about Olympus. Happened in "Mach Ally" over the Irish Sea, even though the front face of the Compressor was wreaked it could still run up to 85% without surging. Can't remember which 85% though and the book is 4000 miles away from me at the moment.

Regards
H:uhoh:wie

Stan Hooker
 

This is for Cristiaanhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif ( and maybe others)

Ive tracked down my old VHS tape of the interview with Stanley Hooker which you said you would like to see, if you PM me your address I will send you a dvd copy
cheers
rod

Howie the engine that you saw WAS the one removed from 001. Flight International said at the time 'Only an Olympus could swallow an intake ramp at Mach 1.9 and still run at 85% N2'

Best regards
Dude :O

M2dude,

The event I was shown the pictures of was probably about 1995 or 96 I think.

The engine LP compressor was very badly chewed by something.

dixi188
This incident could well have been G-BOAD #2 engine then; this one swallowed an intake ramp brake assembly. Details of this incident itself can be found in the links that I posted regarding 'When Intakes Go Wrong'

Regards
Dude :O.

As a Chartered Architect I have always been interested in how people visualise things. Now what has this to do with Concorde? Well when ever I think of her I always have a mental picture of her about to land. Am looking down the runway and Concorde is pitched up at about 11 degrees with the nose and visor down and approx 50 feet above the runway. For me this view of Concorde is particulary powerful as she looks like a bird of prey about to swoop down and kill. The undercarriage reminds me of the birds talons about to make contact with the poor unsuspecting animal. I also feel that this image clearly shows her immense power and also that this is an airliner like no other. I know that many cartoonist have used this image of Concorde and I can understand why.

So my question to all you Concorde admirers is do you have a special Concorde image and if so would you be kind enough to share it with us?

Regards
Nick

I know exactly what you're saying, Nick...

And yes, Concorde evokes images like no other aircraft really does.

Funnily enough, to me the image you describe always evokes something totally different... although it does depend on the exact angle it's taken from.
Seen from exactly the right angle, she has this slight 'smile' on her face, saying "did it again, people... home soon ! ".


Otherwise, oh yes, I have two images.... both sad.

One is the air-to-air video of the Jubilee flypast with the Red Arrows (I don't have the link at hand), when she pulls up and away, saying goodbye.
For some reson, I have never been able to watch that one without a huge lump in my throat.

The other one is this one....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...op-last1fw.jpg

Last time ever.... and somehow one hoped an instant she would disappear from view, and return forever to the sky where she belonged.

And why should I now be furiously rubbing my eyes?
But maybe that answers your question, too....

Christian

Thanks Christian for posting such a bittersweet photo. I think that Concorde's lowered nose can have all sorts of visual meanings. To me in your photo it gives the impression of sadness almost as if she knows that it's the last landing! Maybe am sounding like Private Eyes Pseuds Corner.
I also thought it would be good to share such good memories on here; especially as some of her Prune detractors are having such fun over on their rumour thread.
Regards
Nick

What a wonderful informative and factual thread, I have once again started to read the book "Concorde new shape in the sky by Kenneth Owen" which I have had tucked away for years. This thread and the above book really highlight the complexity of this magnificent aircraft.

Hi Nick,

A more cheerful image !

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...156980ec61.jpg

CJ

"I also thought it would be good to share such good memories on here; especially as some of her Prune detractors are having such fun over on their rumour thread."

Indeed Nick ! :ok:

Nick Thomas
Jeepers Nick, I must have about a million, but I'd like to share a few here. (Some of them I have prattled on about before in this thread, so I apologise for any repetitions).I suppose my very FIRST Concorde image would have to be in Swindon in 1970, when I was this young RAF 'erk' at nearby RAF Lyneham; I heard this loud roar in the sky over what is now Debenhams, and looked up and saw for the very first time Concorde 002, along with her attendant Canberra chase plane.
My next memorable image was at Fairford in the summer 1974. (No longer a young RAF erk, but a still fairly young lad now working for BAC). I'd seen quite a few spectacular take-offs in my short time at BAC, but A/C 101 (G-AXDN) was being flown by a French DGAC pilot (I forget the gentleman's name I'm afraid) and did the most amazing of take-offs. It was the clearest of blue summer skies, and this guy rotated 101 and just climbed steeply into the Gloucestershire sky, and climbed and climbed until she was virtually out of view; truly memorable.
Another image that I will never forget is the view of Concorde taking off from JFK RW31L, viewed from the right side of the runway sat in a truck (I did this dozens of times and never tired of watching the spectacle). It always amazed me how ANY airliner could turn and climb that amazing fashion, and would try and keep her in view as she did an almost complete circuit around JFK. (But I found the view from the aircraft, when seated in the supernumerary seat just behind the captain even more amazing. You'd looked out of the rear L/H window and see nothing but the water of Jamaica Bay going by, very fast and VERY close).
Another GREAT image was in 1995; on a special test flight on-board G-BOAD out of LHR. I was sat on the flight deck with the three guys (just us four on the whole aeroplane) and we were positioned just aft and to the left of the BA189 Concorde service to IAD. We started the supersonic acceleration together, but as we peeled off south for our extensive test flight, the BA189 (can't remember for the life of me the registration) just seemed to streak ahead just like the Starship Enterprise, and was out of sight completely quite soon after that.
And I shall never forget the very sad view of the last ever Concorde take-off, watching from the side of Heathrow RW 27R in November 2003. OAF took off with all her usual grace, but symbolically just disappeared into the overcast, dark and gloomy sky. My own final personal image after 33 years of watching Concorde is that the aviation world, just like that November sky, is a far gloomier place without her.

Best regards
Dude :O

In you'll indulge me in another question that's been on my mind recently! Watched & read various things about the noise monitoring on Concorde's flight out of JFK in order for her to be able to fly in & out at the start of her service life.

Obviously a very inventive solution was practiced and executed which resulted in the noise monitors registering no problem whatsoever - indeed, people wondering why on earth no other aircraft doing the same procedure.

However, my question is this - What if she hadn't done this procedure? Would she have been too loud for the noise monitors? Was it actually necessary to perform the procedure? Politically it was a great idea, and no possibility of failure could be allowed at the time. But was she actually too loud in reality for the JFK noise monitors?

- Davva

Short answer: Yes. The procedures were necessary.

Even using them, it didn't take much to generate a noise fine (e.g. on a warm day, departing 31L from intersection KK because the full length wasn't available).

We couldn't climb ahead to 500ft like the blunties do because Concorde would be much further along the runway owing to higher take off speeds and a lower initial climb rate until you'd got above 250kts. We'd then be flying the turn at 250kts rather than the 160kts ish of a blunty so you have a much bigger radius of turn.

The solution was quite inventive and did the job well, taking advantage of Concorde's excellent handing qualities. And it was most enjoyable to fly, to boot.

I flew back from JFK last week and it just ain't the same. :sad:

CJ I love the cartoon. Dude I agree with you about the sight of Concorde taking of on 31L at JFK. Unfortunatly I have only seen it on the ITTV DVD but I would think that seeing it live must have been amazing.
Regards
Nick

DavvaP, Nick, and the others,
If you haven't got it already, try and get a copy of Brian Calvert's "Flying Concorde", which has the story of those first landings and take-offs in New York in some considerable detail.

CJ

Christian, this is a wonderful book by the late Brian Calvert, in that although he goes into quite a few of the more intriguing Concorde technicalities, he does so in a manner that is easily understandable, even by me :{, and gives a wonderful insight into what it was really like to fly this amazing aeroplane. I had the pleasure of working with Brian on a 1994 BBC2 Concorde documentary, my brother had the shock of his life while on holiday in Mauritius the same year, when he picked up a copy of The Times only to see Brian and I 'posing' together in a publicity photo for the programme.
The other two Concorde books that I would personally recommend are 'New Shape in the Sky', by Ken Owen and 'Supersonic Secrets' by Rob and Edwin Lewis. These two books, one old and one quite new, are absolute Concorde classics in my very humble opinion.

Best Regards
Dude :O

In case anybody is interested, I just started off a separate thread
Concorde Books.
Probably too late for Christmas, but maybe useful just the same.

CJ

Nick Thomas
It really was totally amazing Nick, both when viewed from the ground and ESPECIALLY from the 'jump seat'. (We are talking pre-9/11 here of course). The problem was, the likes of my friend EXWOK made it look far too easy at first sight, but when you looked at the event more closely you realised that it was really a combination of a superbly manoeuvrable aeroplane and some superb, highly co-ordinated and disciplined flying by the three guys up front. (After experiencing my very first '31L' in the early 90s, after the turns and throttling were complete I remember saying to the captain 'can we do that again Chris, CAN we? :D).
It used to be quite interesting at JFK, comparing the take-offs of Concorde and the 'blunties', as EXWOK affectionately refers to the subsonics. You always asked yourself 'if Concorde can do that why can't the rest? But again, as EXWOK said, 'it's just not the same'.

Best Regards
Dude :O

JFK 31L, Kennedy 9 Departure, Canarsie transition, Concorde climb


Speedbird 2, cleared take-off 31L.

You call 3-2-1 Now, start your stopwatch, pre-set to countdown from 58 seconds, and slam the throttles fully forward till they hit the stops. Four RR Olympus engines start to spool up to full power and four reheats kick in, together producing 156,000 lbs of thrust, but at a total fuel flow of 27,000 US gallons per hour. A touch of left rudder initially to keep straight, as the #4 engine limiter is limiting the engine to 88% until 60 kts when it will release it to full power. The F/O calls Airspeed building, 100 kts, V1, and then, at 195 kts, Rotate. You smoothly rotate the aircraft, lift-off occurs at around 10° and 215 kts. You hear a call of V2 but you keep rotating to 13.5° and then hold that attitude, letting the aircraft accelerate.

The F/O calls Positive Climb and you call for the Gear Up. On passing 20 feet radio height, and having checked the aircraft attitude, airspeed and rate of climb are all satisfactory, the F/O calls Turn and you slowly and smoothly roll on 25° left bank to commence the turn out over Jamaica bay. Some knowledgeable passengers will have requested window seats on the left side of the aircraft at check-in, and are now being rewarded with a very close look at the waters of Jamaica Bay going by very fast! As you accelerate through 240 kts, the F/O calls 240 and you pitch up to 19° to maintain 250 kts and keep the left turn going to pass East of CRI.

54 seconds from the start of the take off roll you hear the F/O counting down 3-2-1 Noise whereupon the F/E cancel the re-heats and simultaneously throttles back to noise abatement power, around 96% as you pitch the nose down to 12° to maintain 250 kts. It is less than a minute from start of roll and already 435 US gallons of fuel have been used.


Speedbird 2, contact departure, so long.

Turning through heading 235°M, the F/E quickly re-applies full dry power as you pitch up to 17° to maintain 250 kts, but simultaneously reduce the left bank to 7.5°, in order to increase both the radius of turn (to stay on the optimum noise abatement track) and the rate of climb (less bank, higher RoC).

On climbing through 2,500 ft you increase the bank angle back to 25° left bank and as you approach the 253° radial JFK, you hear 3-2-1 Noise from the F/O for the second time. The F/E actions the second noise-abatement power cut back, you pitch down to 12° and, if not in cloud, sneak a quick peek out of your left hand window, looking for the car park by the Marine Parkway bridge, as you would ideally like to pass right over the car park, if possible, as we tip-toe quietly across the Rockaway Beaches, in order to minimise the noise impact on the residents.

Keep the left turn going and intercept the 176° radial outbound from CRI, and at 5 miles DME from CRI, call for the F/E to slowly re-apply full climb power as you pitch up to maintain 250 kts. We are still in US territorial airspace, below 10,000 ft, and subject to statutory speed control.


Speedbird 2, present position direct to SHIPP, climb FL230, no speed control.

The F/O selects direct SHIPP in the INS and tells you that she has selected that information into your Flight Director. Having checked that the gear lever is at neutral, you call for the Nose Up, and then the Visor Up. Flight deck noise levels drop dramatically as the Visor locks up. Now more than 12 miles away from the coast, we are clear of US speed control requirements so lower the attitude to 9°, accelerate to VMO, currently 400 kts, and ask for the After Take Off Checks.


Speedbird 2, present position direct to LINND, climb in the block FL550-600, accelerate Mach 2.0

Call for the Climb Checklist at Mach 0.7, which will trigger the F/E to start pumping fuel rearwards to move the CG aft, then when he's done that, straight into the Transonic Checklist. Maintain 400 kts IAS, and around 24,500 ft, at M0.93, ask for the re-heats back on, in pairs, and raise the nose by 3° to maintain 400 kts as they kick in.

Precise, smooth flying is required through the high drag transonic region, as the mach meter creeps up towards Mach 1. A sudden flicker on the VSI and Altimeter confirms that the shock wave has just passed over the static ports, and the aircraft is now supersonic. A quick glance at the elapsed time indicator shows that you’ve been hand flying for just over 9 minutes since the start of the take off roll.

Another fun start to a day in the office, and to think we got paid for doing it!


Best Regards

Bellerophon

Thanks, Bellerophon !

That just went into my 'archive'.

Maybe it should be printed out, plastified, and used as a briefing sheet for the Brooklands simulator, where the JFK 31L take-off is still one of the favourites !

CJ

Thanks Dude and Bellerphon for such graphic descriptions of JFK 31L take off. Nearest I came to experiencing anything like that was landing at Kai Tak in the 80's!
Out of interest Bellerphon was there a supersonic acceleration point for JFK departures or as you were soon over the ocean, was it a case of it happened when it happened?
Regards
Nick
P.S Thanks Christiaan for your Concorde book thread. I am hoping that Santa brings me the Haynes manual!

Great thread, its taken some time to read through
The anecdotes from landlady , m2dude and the others are great

My main recollections are after coming back from Detroit to LHR, sitting on the National Express bus at dusk as Concorde took off from the runway parallel to the road, the whole bus shaking and watching the 4 engines glowing blue as she took off - brilliant. Sadly after that the next experience was passing 4 of them parked up after the AF disaster

As an Engineer I love things that push the envelope and limits - Concorde is one of those
Having just returned from Chicago on a 767, as capable as it is, I know what I would prefer to be riding in :ok:

I sadly doubt that we will see these flying again but I really would like to see effort in the next supersonic airliner rather than A380's and the like

Evening Chris :ok: Thought I recognised the username.