EXWOK

...and it has to be OAD, because for some reason the nose/visor control panel is black...

The mind boggles, but I've just checked the date on the photo against my logbook, and you are indeed correct!!


...I've no idea why I can remember stuff like that...

Most of us never noticed it in the first place! ;)


Happy New Year

Bellerophon

I feel that I must pick you up there! As I see the guages each engine is consuming 5.4 tonnes/hour. A B747-400 will consume about 10-11 tonnes/hour and not over 20! So over double the speed but double the fuel consumption.

Fair point topbunk - I mis-phrased that, we certainly didn't achieve double the miles per gallon of a 747. I should also have made it clearer that I was comparing it with contemporaries, i.e. -100 and -200. (I recall about 2.5 - 3tonnes per hour per engine on a typical Atlantic sector)

So I agree it wasn't double the miles per gallon - although in terms of mpg the Conc was markedly better in the cruise than the 747 classic. Of course, you paid for it in the process of actually getting to M2 as well as dragging around the pattern at 300kts.

Bellerophon -

And a Happy New Year to you, too.

......well, people are hardly likely to volunteer interesting/incriminating information if they think you're likely to remember it! ;)

Exwok and Bellerophon
 

Between you, you have just about created a 'flash time machine'. An instant image of a real day and a real moment. I'll admit that though I looked at Bellerophon's picture with some care, it was only by reading his text that the image began to make some sense. Then along comes Exwok, casts his eyes over the image and suddenly we are squinting in the glare of high altitude sunlight and listening to the sound of the machine as she arcs across the sky, entirely comfortable with her environment and eye watering pace. Thank you both.

I don't wish to pry on personal sentiment, but having been part of a very elite band - only 97 people have flown Concorde including two women? Is that right? - isn't every memory retrieved by such things as that photograph, just pure, heart wrenching sadness? It is clear from this fabulous thread that the passing of Concorde has left an aching void in the lives of the contributors here.

Definitely thought provoking. :hmm:

Which reminds me, apart from being the vanquisher of the Chimera, Bellerophon has more lately been warships of Her Majesty's Navy - at the battles of both Trafalgar and Jutland, but why a pilot? :)

Roger.

Thanks for the kind remarks Landroger.

No time to expand, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I still miss it even 7years later.....seems like far less than that.

Still, there's no point in carping over something we can't fix, and at least we have vehicles like this one to remind ourselves what it was all about - and I can only add that I'm learning as much as anyone from the likes of M2Dude and CliveL.

All though the number of Concorde pilots was relatively small there were afew more than 97

Britsh Airways------ Air France

Captains 73---------------------- 74

Co-Pilots 62 --------------------- 54


Total 135 --------------------- 128

Grand total of Pilots 263 [ includes two women]

Flight engineers 57-------------------------56

These numbers do not include the French and British flight test crews

There's often so much so deeply buried in our memories, that we don't even know about it anymore until something, like an image, brings it all back in a flash.
To most people, a Concorde cockpit is just a bewildering array of 'clocks' and other bits.
People like Bellerophon and Exwok read it all in seconds.
Even an ancient like me, seeing a cockpit photo, instantly recognises a museum photo, because of the toppled emergency horizon, or because of the odd bits and pieces we used on the autopilot controller on G-AXDN (01).

Yes, two women. One in France, one in Britain.
Unless you also include Jacqueline Auriol, probably the world's first female test pilot, who flew Concorde 001 in the earliest days.

Maybe, and maybe not.
Speaking for myself, no, it's not a void, it's a highlight, that I now like passing on, in the hope other generations will find inspiration in the 'Concorde Story' for their own endeavours.

Christian

BA Crew List
 

Firstly a very big thank you to all who have made this the best read of the decade.

In response to both Christiaan and Brit312 posts, here is the role of honour proudly on display inside G-BOAC at Manchester. :ok:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...e/DSCN0442.jpg

Regards
Andy

Bell Inn Charter
 

Hi Christiaan and all,

A little bit of further digging on this trip has revealed ..

"Brian Calvert was a pilot on the very first commercial Concorde flight, and a regular at The Bell Inn. Ian Macaulay asked whether it would be possible to take a trip on it and Brian made it possible to arrange. As a result, on 19th September 1978 one hundred people paid £100 each to make the first ever chartered flight in the supersonic airliner."

I wonder how many drinks it took them to convince Brian Calvert it would be a good idea :E

There is also a reference to Concorde in the Aldworth Millennium Tapestry that was made in 1999 showing. Aldworth Millennium Tapestry

I am very lucky to live only 30 miles from G-BOAC and have made several visits including doing the technical tours - although nothing like the detail that I have learnt from yourselves http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

In response to Christiaan's question about how the technical tours were done in comparision to F-BTSD at Le Bourget, unfortunatley it only looks like lighting power is supplied to the A/C - no hydraulics seem to be 'left intact' and working which is a huge shame.

For me it only shows that 'she' (or 'he' http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif ) is a very special entity that did prove to be so much more than just a 'machine'. Even though she isn't flying, you still catch yourself standing in awe each time you see her. at first I wasn't sure about AC's new 'hangar', but apart from keeping her dry, I must admit it does add atmosphere to the occasion.

Cheers
Andy

ChristiaanJ
 

Oooerr CJ! I would think Hanna Reich would turn in her grave if she heard that! := I believe she even test flew a V1 (Doodlebug)!! :eek:

Roger :)

Roger, you're so right.
She was the first French woman test pilot, and maybe also the first woman with a formal FAA(?) test pilot license.
She did fly a few 'hairy' aircraft.
But indeed nothing like Hanna Reitsch flying the V1 "Reichenberg", or the Me-163, or a very early Focke-Wulf helicopter before the war!

CJ

Would that be The Bell Inn in Stilton? Wonderful memories when downroute at RAF Alconbury.

GF

Nope, at Aldworth (hence the tapestry): Bell, Aldworth, Berkshire, RG8 9SE ? The Good Pub Guide

"The Bell Inn" is a pretty common name for a pub in the UK.

Live Aid.
 

A Concorde question arose in conversation last night - standing in the kitchen avec bier and churning over the past, as you do. The subject of party 'rock anthems' inevitably brought up Live Aid and the fact that mine host and his wife were actually there.

It is his impression that during the London concert, Concorde flew directly over the stadium and 'waggled its wings' in salute, at which the crowd went wild, as they say. :) Can anyone confirm this?

Roger.

Roger,
I've never seen that mentioned.... would be really interesting to know if it actually happened.

Of course everybody knows about Phil Collins "being in two places at once" thanks to Concorde, but with the right timing an overflight of Wembley sounds quite possible.

CJ

Only mention that I found on the internet about this, was on the bbc website from a comment from "Paul Goes, Luxembourg"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3207836.stm

I'm sure there will be more informed people to comment on this though ;-)

That was obviously a personal memory... so it did happen!

CJ

PS I was just reading all the other comments from that BBC link.... Sad.

Sky Channel 549 now :
Concorde The Final Flight
followed by Concorde and Beyond

Another thing I've found today whilst searching for all things Concorde, were several mentions about the eclipse chasing that Concorde did during its lifetime. One really stood out and that was the chase during 1973. Here's a link to a photograph taken:

Concorde During Eclipse | Surfer Jerry

The intriguing part of the 1973 story though is the special "window" put into 001 to view the eclipse through. ChristiaanJ, you've posted previously on another forum about this (dated back to 2004 :D) - are there any photographs of the windows installed for this event?

Chasing The Sun: A Supersonic Celestial Observation | Scienceray

It sounds a completely magical experience!!

There were two 'sessions' of eclipse chasing by Concorde.
The first one was the 1973 chase over Africa by Concorde 001, which lasted 74 minutes in all.
The other one was the one in 1999, when three Concordes did a brief chase, but without any special equipment on board.

BTW, the picture from "Surfer Jerry" is a very nice and impressive PhotoShop creation... but it's not real. There was no other aircraft accompanying 001 during that flight....

Your 'ScienceRay' link describes the 1973 flight in good detail.
IIRC there were three windows installed in the roof.
I've seen photos of the installation, but I'm not sure if any of them are on the internet.
If you're really interested I can ask the Musée de l'Air.
The windows were removed after the flight and the openings blanked off, but if you know where to look you can still see them.

For those who read French, there's a great description of the flight in André Turcat's book "Essais et Batailles".
And because he was flying the plane.... he himself never saw the eclipse as such.

CJ

In earlier posts we were talking about the complex shape of the wing.

Looking through my 'archive', I've finally found this photo again... been looking for it for ages.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...nJ/concii3.jpg

Kinky .... !!


Found on the net a few years ago. It's either 002 (G-BSST) or 01 (G-AXDN) at Fairford.

All Concordes have this 'kink', but the interesting thing is, that it's only visible from one very precise spot in line with with the wing leading edge. A few metres to the left or right, or forward or back, and the 'kink' disappears.
Many people are not even aware it exists.

Happy 2011 to all !

CJ

I think it is 002 - 101 had a take-off performance camera 'target' painted on the fuselage between wing and cockpit and it looks to me as if the intake doesn't have the cut-back leading edge. In addition, the front of the intake was 'black' on 002 but white on 101 as in roll-out photo below.



http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/.../01Rollout.jpg

And of course a happy 2011 to all!

CliveL

The clincher being that 002 carries the legend "SUD AVIATION FRANCE", whereas G-AXDN carries "AEROSPATIALE FRANCE". :)

Happy New Year, all!

OK Hercule :D

CliveL

For a second, 'astings, I thought I 'ad been premature...

Later photographs of 002 show her bearing the Aerospatiale name, like her sister ship - she'd presumably been repainted at some point. However, the photo of 101 Christiaan posted is captioned on concordesst.com as being taken at her rollout, which I am presuming means that she never carried Sud Aviation titles, the companies presumably having merged before 1971.

Yes, you are right - on her first flight G-BSST had Sud Aviation logo; in 1971 and now at Yeovilton she carries Aerospatiale. Sud became AS in 1970.

My own humble black and white photos of 101 roll out show her with the Aerospatiale logo.

I guess from that data one could approximately date the LE photo that Christiaan posted.

CliveL, DozyWannabee,
It's always fun doing a bit of 'aero-archaeology'.... isn't it?

You're both right.
At the roll-out, 01 was already marked "AEROSPATIALE", and the tracking camera 'target' was already painted on the right-hand side (but not on the left!).
So the earlier photo in question is definitely 002.

I recently re-scanned my ancient 'Filton' photos... only black-and-white, but maybe worth adding them to the 'records'.


G-AXDN being moved out of the hangar.
Interestingly, no tracking camera target on the left-hand side.... it must have been added very soon after, because I have a photo from a few weeks later, where it's in place on both sides.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...nJ/img039w.gif


Roll-out or not, G-AXDN still wasn't quite finished... three of the four engine nozzles/thrust reversers are still missing and replaced provisionally by 'space frames'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...nJ/img040w.gif


This one again confirms the "AEROSPATIALE" marking. Also, somebody hadn't gotten round to painting the tail cone yet....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...nJ/img041w.gif

CJ


Oh, and a PS....

Another 'kinky' photo, this one of 001 when still outside the Le Bourget museum.

http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/fwtss7.jpg

(Photo from the ConcordeSST.com site).

Interestingly, the 'concordesst' site has a photograph of G-AXDN under construction and I would think about 2 weeks from rollout where "British Aircraft Corporation" has been painted on but there is a big gap where "Sud Aviation/ Aerospatiale" should be. This would be in November/early December 1971 I think. Just maybe this was the time when the new French company were making up their mind how they would like to be known. I know they didn't like the simple use of company initials - Societe Nationale Industrie Aerospatiale if I remember correctly and one must admit that Aerospatiale sounds a whole lot nicer than SNIAS! Maybe Christiaan could comment?

CliveL

CliveL,
I should have kept a diary... never did.

According to the ConcordeSST site, the roll-out was on 20 September 1971, but (according to various internet items) Aerospatiale was already formed in 1970.

Looking at the general mess, the photo you mention (see below) was several weeks, if not a few months, before the roll-out.
Look closely.. I would say even the leading edges are not in place yet.

http://www.concordesst.com/pictures/gaxdn7.jpg

CJ

CliveL, ChristiaanJ,

About the picture above, AEROSPATIALE FRANCE is already painted on the aircraft (although obscured by a sort of cover).

Cheers (and happy new year) to all contributors & readers.
AZR.

ChristiaanJ

Although it looks messy and there are parts missing (LE, nozzles and probably tail cone) none of them would take long to fit, which is why I estimated a couple of weeks before rollout, but I wouldn't quarrel with a longer time.

I knew the company merger was in 1970, but AS took a while to decide that they wanted to be known as Aerospatiale, so I thought that maybe, just maybe, this fell into that time slot. Obviously it didn't.

AZR

Your eyesight is better than mine! I had to fiddle with PSP to see it, but yes, the Aerospatiale logo is there. I was fooled by seeing the red fuselage stripe underneath into thinking that cover was more transparent than it actually was.

CliveL

Was there a reason - other than it was the second example built - that the French pre-production model had the longer tail assembly fitted, whereas 101 did not?

Maybe somebody else here has the more complete story?

01 first flew in December 1971, 02 in January 1973, more than a year later.
So I suppose a lot of the planned improvements "came to fruition" just about then.

Apart from the new visor, 01 still looked a lot like another prototype, while 02 was externally almost indistinguishable from the production aircraft (long tail, new nozzles/thrust reversers, tail wheel, etc.).

However, from my own limited experience, as far as the cockpit layout, and systems like the AFCS, were concerned, 01 was already far closer to the production version than to the prototypes, which were still very much mid/late '60s designs.

The two prototypes were very much experimental and proof-of-concept aircraft, and it's interesting to see in how many aspects they differ from the final production aircraft.

CJ

First of all a hearty 'Happy New Year' to all our readers. As I've been 'away' for a week or so, I hope you will all indulge me as I answer a few posted points. (I totally agree with what Bellerophon said about restricting our posts to the 'techy' and nostalgic stuff, so will not respond to anything else here) :ok:.

CliveL
I accept and understand of course Clive that this was a difficult issue to predict with any certainty, it was just a shame that's all, that the Type 28 never fully lived up to its promise and potential. However, the one aspect of the SNECMA design that was very poor indeed was Secondary Nozzle system integrity. Throughout the operational life of Concorde, there were almost more operational disruptions due to short-fallings here (bucket runaways) than any other issue. It was only near the very end of Concorde's operational life that modifications were finally forthcoming from SNECMA to address this.

Poornamechoice
I am so sorry to dispel this particularly charming story, but there were absolutely no keys as such for Concorde, Sorry :sad: (But I am so glad that you are enjoying this wonderful thread).

ChristiaanJ
Oooooh speaking for myself (and I suspect a whole lot more of the BA Concorde familly) there is a void alright. Having lived with the 'lady' day in, day out for almost 30 years (up to November 2003) there was an absolutely yawning chasm left for me personally. (The world of the blunties is just not the same.. just a whole lot slower :sad:).
What is gratifying though, is the enormous amount of interest that there still is for Concorde; both in this thread and in the world at large. I guess she lives on after all. :ok:

These pictures of 101 etc are absolutely marvellous; I really like the 'sexy' wing shape photo's. One little unique point about 102; she flew with a different intake control system to any other Concorde, being an 'improved' Ultra Electronics analog system. (Although the intake itself was aerodynamically the same as the later aircraft). Never really understood why our French friends chose this particular path with this aircraft. (Perhaps CliveL can shed some light on this??).
Very best regards to all.

Dude :O

I don't think I agree with you Dude. We 'did' the performance calculations at Filton, and I honestly don't remember any performance shortfall. If you are just talking system reliability then OK, I wouldn't know.

One of the things I like about this thread is the way in which it reminds me of things I had forgotten about the design phase - or in this case informs me of things I maybe never knew! I just do not remember any improved Ultra AICU design. So far as the French 'choice' on the matter, they probably weren't given one. Like the rear fuselage alterations referred to in another posting , it was all a matter of timing. 102 came after 101 so 102 got the lengthened rear fuselage (which was done to improve the 'area rule' distribution and gave about 2.5% drag reduction). We (BAC) were going to do the AICU development so it made sense for 101 to get the early hybrid units. [If you were cynical you might equally say that there was no way we were going to let AS have them first!].

CliveL

CliveL, You wrote:
"We (BAC) were going to do the AICU development so it made sense for 101 to get the early hybrid units. [If you were cynical you might equally say that there was no way we were going to let AS have them first!]."
Is that a typo and did you mean "it made sense for 102 to get the early hybrid units."?

I think M2dude had more fun with the air intakes at the time than I had with the AFCS, although getting MAX CLIMB and MAX CRUISE to work was, to say the least, "interesting".

Christian

ChristiaanJ, you wrote:Is that a typo and did you mean "it made sense for 102 to get the early hybrid units."?

No. it wsn't a typo, but you may have been misled by my use of 'hybrid' by which I meant the final AICU version which most people describe as digital.It had digital law generation but analogue servo control loops. We were responsible for development of the AICU 'laws' and with Fairford being less than an hours drive from Filton it was far more convenient to do the flight testing out of Faiford so that results could be evaluated rapidly and the next day's flight test sequence planned.

CliveL

The thar intakes
 

Clive & Christian
Gentlemen, I think you will find that 102 did indeed have a totally 'unique' analog intake control system. Not only were the RDCUs (not AICUs in this case chaps) totally different, there were major architectural changes over the prototype system too. Also, although the basic intake structure was the same as 101 and all subsequent aircraft, there was still the prototype approach to local pressure sensing adapted, ie. Intake face total pressure P∞ sensed directly via the infamous 'magic holes' rather than using digitally synthesised values based on mainline aircraft manometric probe, total (pitot)pressure. As 101's intakes only went 'live' in mid-march 1973, I assumed that maybe they (AS) wanted an operative intake system from the outset on 102 when it first flew in January of that year. What puzzled me was why they went for this seemingly enhanced (and expensive) analog system on 102 and not the original system. (As 102 used a production type intake, I guess that they would have to have at least made some changes to the control system ; there was no exotic double hinged 'Dump Door', but the far simpler and elegant 'Spill Door' with integral Aux' Inlet Vane that was known and loved by us all). Rumour had it that AS still wanted to pursue the 'magic holes' solution and were dead against the decision to go digital. (This particular decision was taken in October 1970, which makes the 102 AICS route seem all the more strange).

And ChristiaanJ; what you guys achieved with the MAX CLIMB/MAX CRUISE was nothing short of remarkable. Just about the most exotic (and complex) autopilot mode that I've ever seen, that solved so MANY problems. :D (Still the only A/P mode I've ever seen where the Autothrottle is engaged in a speed mode at the same time as the AUTOPILOT :ok:).
Best regards

Dude :O

Just wondering was that the maximum speed "in" the design ? I understand that "the higher & the colder = the faster" was the key to the performance and that the Mach +/- 2.0 cruise was implied by limiting altitude to FL 600 in order to mitigate cabin depressurization consequences. I guess there where also thermal issues but was, say, Mach 2.2 @ FL700 "warmer" than Mach 2.0 @ FL600 ?

Also wondering what was the max altitude ? Was high altitude stall (for the lack of a better word) ever experimented during tests or training ?