Not a lot! Well maybe the pitots.

I spent a lot of time on this in the 80s, but really one has to assume that Sir Lancelot put the Philosopher's Stone in the Holy Grail and buried it under the (other) end of Finnegan's rainbow and that YOU KNOW WHERE TO DIG!

When I left it the project looked a lot like this photograph that Christiaan found and posted on another site:
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/...identified.jpg


About 200 PAX, area ruled fuselage, new wing planform, flaps maybe, canard/foreplane, new shorter/lighter intake design,separate nacelles, new materials (probably not composites), digital avionics etc. but most of all a revolutionary new engine concept that nobody has invented yet. This engine has to produce lots of quiet thrust for airfield operation (low specific thrust) and lots of thrust with low frontal area for cruise (high specific thrust). Any takers?

Cheers

CL

I so remember the BAe AST images from the 1980s, I always thought what a potentially nice looking aeroplane she was. I guess that vastly improving the L/D & T/W ratios could go quite a long way to improving the operating economics, but the noise issue was always going to be the crippler. (I know that they were looking at a 'leaky' version of the OLY593, ie. a very low bypass ratio, but this of course would still not really cut the mustard as far as noise goes). I guess there are no current takers then :*
Clive, you really surprise me when you say you don't think that composites would be used from a future SST, is there a material reason for this? (I'm curious because being of a simple avionic brain, I always assumed composites would be used. But if anyone knows this stuff, you certainly would Clive :ok:).
To answer Mike-Bracknell's original query, as far as avionics goes we can really go to town. For her age Concorde had some truly amazing aircraft systems, for instance the flying controls. To enable mechanical control (both FBW channels failed) there was a highly complex and heavy mixing unit under the rear floor. (To mix pitch and roll pilot mechanical demands into differential elevon demand inputs). This of couse would have to be done away with, as well as the relay jacks and replaced with a pair of side-sticks. (See posts on previous page). A 2 crew operation would obviously be the way to go, but neither desirable or possible in my view when Concorde was designed. :E A triplex or quadruplex flying control system (possibly even integrating autoflight) would replace the Concorde collection of several analog boxes with a very small handful of lightweight digital units.. The powerplant control will have major weight savings, just take a look at this lot. 8 Engine Control Units, 4 Bucket Control Units, 2 Nozzle Angle Scheduling Units, 4 Reheat Amplifiers, 8 AICUs, 4 Air Intake Sensor Units and a single Air Intake Test Unit could potentially be replaced by just 4 multi-channel EEC type units. (On subsonic aircraft the EECs are mounted on the engine itself, not sure if that's a good idea for an SST, given the operating environment. Air Data and Navigation systems take a major simplification and weight saving, the 3 INUs and 2 ADCs (All of them straight from the 'rent a hernia' store as far as weight goes), could be replaced by a single ADIRU and a SAARU. The fuel indication/management side of things (2 FQI packs, 2 level switching packs and 3 CG computers) would probably be replaced by a single Fuel Processing unit. Ahhhh perchance to dream :)

Best regards
Dude :O

Now you didn't really mean that pun did you?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

My reticence on using composites springs from the fact that, although it is little known, there are doubts about the life of the resins that bind the carbon fibres together when the material is exposed to a combination of high temperature and low atmospheric pressure over a long period. I know the Americans were worried about it for their 'supercruise' fighter designs and were experimenting with various exotic, expensive and obnoxious materials. Since all this was over 20 years ago and they now have their supercruise I expect they have a solution by now, but it is probably secret (I don't know that for sure however, it may well be in the public domain, I just haven't been following it). But even if they have a solution for military aircraft there is a world of difference between something that is OK for military designs with a supersonic 'life' of say 5000 hrs with a safety factor of what? 1.5? and a commercial transport with a life requirement of 50,000 hrs with a factor of 3.

BTW, if you thought the underfloor mixing unit was complex, you should have seen it in the original BAC project that didn't have electric signalling so the mechanical mixing was non-linear to try to account for varying flight condition demands:D

CL

Dude

Now, not so touchy, as if you had quoted all of what I said you can see that I did agree we came to the hanger for info as well as for a good chat

Perhaps I should have said

" before some clever line F/E informed me of my error"

CliveL
Thank you for your reply, what you describe is absolutely fascinating; It seems that composites may not be the panacea for all aircraft structural problems after all. I confess. I'm afraid that I did intentially use that awful pun (sorry:}).
Regarding strucural materials, I remember reading what Ted Talbot wrote in the manuscript for his brilliant work 'Mach 2 and Bit' (not sure if he ever did get it published) when he spoke about the Bristol 188. He said something like 'the never to be repeated experiment of making an aircraft structure out of stainless steel'. One can only imagine the manufaturing problems that Brisol must have had with that one. (I seem to remember that the strucure was welded and not rivetted together :().
Yes the US now has a supercruise aircraft (the F-22 Raptor) but not of course for up to 3 hours of up to 400°K either. (Although a truly superb aircraft nonetheless). And as you say, military structural material airworthiness standards in no way apply to a civil project.
I can only imagine what the original Bristol (for the Type 223?) mixing unit you described must have looked like. The Concorde unit certainly dominated the whole underfloor picture in quite a sizeable area down the back; here's a diagram of the beasty:
For all it's complexity however I can never recollect any problems occuring there.
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...MixingUnit.jpg
It looked far more intimidating in the flesh under the floor however.

Best regards
Dude :O

Shame on you ;)

Yes, the 188 was welded stainless and as you said, manufacturing was a pain. I didn't work on that aircraft myself, but one reported episode in the flight test programme is worth a digression off topic. Dialogue (maybe that should be monologue) between aircraft and FT control:

t = 0
Godfrey Auty (test pilot): "Mach ... port engine flamed out"
Silence from ground
t = 10secs
G.A.: "Mach .... starboard engine flamed out"
Silence from ground
t= 15 secs
G.A. "Well for Chrissake say something, even if it's only goodbye!"

Luckily the restart drills worked http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/shiner.gif

After those AICU problems the boss came to see me (I was running the S&C section at the time) and said "Your blokes are doing dynamic simulation of aircraft response (on ANALOGUE computers!), do you think they could simulate the 188 intake control system?". To which of course there is only one answer possible, but that is how the two aerodynamicists who did most of the pioneering work on the Concorde AICU came to work together - Derek Morriss from the 188 project and Terry Brown from the S&C group. And boy were we lucky to have that combination http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

For the record, if my memory serves, the simulation showed that the 188 problem was hysteresis in the mechanical part of the 188 AICU.

Cheers

Clive

That is amazing Clive, these guys were indeed legend as far as the AICS development went. (And they were doing all that simulation work using analog computers too :D. Here is the one of the 'forward' pages from 'The Concorde Air Intake Control System' publication: (Issue 3 Feb' 2001). There just might be a name or two there that rings a bell.
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...orde/ITeam.jpg
So much was achieved by such a very small team of people. An achievement that was absolutely pivotal to the successful development of Concorde.

With total respect
Dude :O

Yes there are a few bells ringing, although one or two names are phonetically spelthttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/nerd.gif Etienne would appreciate being called 'Wise' rather than Fage I'm sure!

Never before heard of that publication - how can I get to read copies?

Best regards

CliveL

The book
 

Poor old Etienne, yes he's a sage here rather than Fage, :) I never noticed that one before. I do remember that the late Terry Brown, who was part of your S & C department was a bit of a boat builder as well as being a brilliant aerodynamicist. But all these people were absolute masters of their craft, bad spelling and all, the result being something so very special and unique.:D
As far as the AICS book goes, there are quite a few copies (methinks a few hundred) that are dotted around; I'll see what I can find and PM you. There were so many of these 'lesser' Concorde works out there that are full of useful information about what made Concorde tick.

Best regards
Dude :O.

Happy Anniversery Concorde
 

Would you all believe 35 years today Concorde entered airline service (BA LHR -BAH and AF CDG-GIG). I remember as if it were yesterday.....Gosh I'm getting old :{

Best regards
Dude :O

I remember watching the take-offs live on TV Dude, if my memory serves one of the teachers at school felt that it was a momentous event and we all trooped out of the classroom so we could watch it. Something I shall never forget.

Old ? You, me and the rest of us Dude :-) Maybe we should just say 'Wiser' ?? lol. Ah yes...what I always find fascinating is watching footage of Concorde and the automobiles of that era. Talk about night and day. Even today she turns heads so I can only imagine the sheer awe folk experienced when they first set their eyeballs on Concorde....truly way beyond her time in every possible way.

cheers,
d

She's always looked good, but probably didn't look any better in 1969 than she does now.

Cars are 'styled' and are therefore subject to fashion whims. So a car of 1969 looks awfully old fashioned by 2011 standards.

Concorde wasn't styled. She is the shape she is because that's the shape she needs to be to enable her to do what no other aeroplane could do - carry 100 shirt-sleeve comfort passengers at Mach 2 and 60,000' for up to 4.5 hours.

Concorde was form following function. Her beutiful lines did not come from a stylists drawing board, but from those of the aerodynamicist and other engineers involved in her design. So she hasn't dated!

Shaggy Sheep Driver
 

A good thought Shaggy and probably spot on. :)

We read posts in this thread from people, all over the world, who saw Concorde once, maybe a couple of times in their lives and will never forget the occasion. Not surprising in many ways. Those of you who worked with her don't find that surprising, because you never tired of looking.

I have been an aeroplane geek since I was eight, have lived under the 'funnel' for 28L for fifty-five of my years and I pretty much know what's overhead by the sound. Much as I like and admire the stately 747, I can pretty much take or leave them, if distracted or busy. I saw Concorde almost every day, sometimes twice, in all the years she was flying and I always stopped and stared upwards. Always.

Roger.

I saw her only once, around '73 - '75 (?) when she did a low-level tour around the UK. I was driving down a Devon lane in an open car when she went over at around 3000' completely unexpectedly. In Devon, you see a few helis and the odd military jet. The rest is just contrails with dots on the front. I shall never, ever, forget it.

Worthy of note is that the very last time I walked up to it in order to operate a service I still found it breathtakingly impressive.

And I still have to stare wistfully at OAB whenever I drive past the engineering base en-route to Cranebank.

So many vivid memories from so many people.
I suppose personally I'll always remember the first time that I ever saw Concorde flying as well as the LAST time:
The very first, as I posted here many months ago, was in 1970 when I, as a young grotty little RAF erk, was in Swindon and heard this loud roar in the sky over what was then Bon Marché (Now Debenhams). Looking up I saw this amazing sight of 002 complete with her attending Canberra chase plane flying over. (And trailing a sizable black exhaust plume to boot).
The very LAST time I saw her flying was in November 2003 at the side of LHR 27R as G-BOAF, the last Concorde ever built and the last one ever to fly, made her final departure out of a very dismal Heathrow bound for Filton. For me, the weather at LHR that day perfectly matched to gloom of the occasion I'm afraid.
A really lasting memory I wil always treasure is while my now VERY grown up children were still young, they were (almost) as big Concorde 'nuts' as their dad. Concorde would fly over our house daily and they would run to the window every time they heard the sound of an aeroplane. The general disappointed chant they would come out with was 'it's not Concorde dad, it's just a plane'. For the life of me I don't know why they would develop THAT kind of prejudice and from whom they would get it from :rolleyes:. (I used this particular ditty in a 2003 Concorde BBC TV documentary we did, but my cover is blown here anyway, so what the hell:p.

EXWOK
I went over base for a meeting last week and saw OAB parked at the side of the apron. I had several lumps in my throat as I drove past too I have to admit. To think that the last time OAB flew was in August 2000. when Les and the boys brought her back empty from JFK after the CAA pulled the Concorde C of A.
Hopefully she will get a fitting 'home' soon so that more people can marvel at our absolutely beautiful and truly timeless aviation icon

Best regards
Dude :O

Thinking back and forth I came to the conclusion that I probably also have seen it flying only once, or at least only on one day. It was several low passes over the Champs Elysee in formation with the Patrouille de France in 1989. Training Flights on July 13th for the parade next day. What an impressive bird. On ground I have seen it on several occasions on airports and in museums. And of course from time to time I heard it taking of from the airport nearby, which did not happen very often but when it happened, there was no chance to miss it.

Stupid question probably, but is she now back at the same spot across the road from the Jury Inn hotel, where she was before (and where I last saw her) ?

CJ

Not a stupid question at all my friend. Yes, that's where she now sits. (She's been moved around so many times since 2003, but this is the first time I've personally seen here here as I don't get over to that side of the airport much these days). Incidently she now sits right next to where the old Concorde hangar TBB used to stand).

Best regards
Dude :O

Thanks, Dude,

I've seen her only a few times.... first when she was parked close to the "crossing", then at the location where she's now back again.

What's struck me every time was seeing the elevons "up", rather than drooping.... makes her look as if she's ready to taxy.....

CJ

A snippet of information from Concorde's past, from an unlikely source.

I recently read a book entitled "The Somerset & Dorset Railway, Then and Now" by Mac Hawkins. An interesting comment is made regarding Winsor Hill Tunnel (Near Shepton Mallet), which was used, in 1968, after the line was closed and lines lifted, by Rolls Royce for destructive tests on the Olympus engine destined for Concorde.

To quote the book, "Up to the late 1980's the tunnel's portals were obscured by massive steel doors, built a little in front of the stonework and supported by a frame. These where constructed as an anti-blast measure by Rolls Royce in 1968, who used the tunnel for destructive tests on the Olympus engine for Concorde. They ran an engine without oil, expecting it to blow up within 20 minutes or so, but in the event it laster for well over two hours !. The tunnel's use for this purpose was only over a few days, planning permission having been sought from Shepton Mallet RDC as a matter of course, in case an explosion caused a change in the local topography"

I originally posted the above in the Qantas A380 thread, as that seems to be all about RR trent engines & lubricating oil matters. Perhaps it's better here as a testiment to the technical savvy of RR many years ago. Anyone remember these tests ?.

Quite a good thread this. Sadly I've never flown Concorde, but have visited her at Manchester, Duxford & Yeovilton. The one at Yeovilton had the engine access door open, allowing one to gaze up into the technical wizardry of the engine. The access door itself amazed me, doubles as some sort of oil tank, complete with heavy, precision made piano type hinges !!

A model of Concorde graces the family mantelpiece.

Edited to add link regarding above story

Windsor Hill Tunnel

Lid

SLFConcordeBore
 

Please please please let me be a SLFConcordeBore - 1 post, then I’ll shut up.

2 items that I had on my “Do before I die” list were “Sail into New York on QE2” (sadly, didn’t happen, now obviously won’t), and “Fly on Concorde”.

Part of the enthusiasm for Concorde came from a friend in the Middle East, who worked for Airwork, who did contract maintenance for your air force. He was based in Saudi Arabia IIRC, working on Lightnings. As an expat in Saudi (good pay + no tax = high disposable), when he had some leave available at one point he took Concorde from Bahrein - London - Bahrein. Loved every moment.

He told the lovely story of his first day back after his hols, when a Lightning pilot came in in his G-suit, saying “I’ve just done Mach 2” (you know where this is going...) to which Slim was able to reply “I did that yesterday - and I was drinking champagne at the time”. What an astonishing aeroplane Concorde was.

I got to fly Concorde courtesy of BA - they called one day and asked if I’d like to fly Concorde LHR - JFK - LHR, out one day, back the next, put up overnight at the Waldorf Astoria - all courtesy of BA. After the “is this a practical joke?”, and “what’s the catch?”, it transpired that they did invite people from time to time for this type of trip, and somehow my name came out of the hat.

A truly memorable trip - the acceleration, the hot windows, the fantastic service (and excellent food & wine), trip to cockpit, and the “Concorde grin”. Memorable guests on the way out were Paul & Linda McCartney, with children and minder. I seem to recall that the takeoff from JFK was even more spectacular than the one from LHR. It just seemed to jump out of the blocks and keep going.

Also notable were how much of a private club it was - the crew were welcoming passengers to New York, and saying to various passengers things like “I didn’t see you last week”, with the passenger replying ‘Oh no, I couldn’t make it last week, but I’ll see you again next week” etc.

Thanks to everyone, ChristiaanJ, M2dude, Bellerophon, EXWOK, Brit123, landlady and stilton and all the others for a wonderful thread about a wonderful plane.

I don't know if this was mentioned before but I just read an article here about Concorde having an engine failure during certification testing for ice buildup. Perhaps someone here in pprune can shed some more light into what happened and what was done to fix the problem?

flying lid
What a fascinating story. I'd not heard about these tests before I have to admit, but the results would be quite typical of the tough old lump that was the OLY593.
As far as the engine bay doors go, well they were tough as old boots and weighed a ton (literally :E) but had no integral oil tanks or anything. (Although in airline service the Olympus being a leaky old girl you could happily have an oil bath IN the doors once you opened them for access. (It was messy stuff too and it just LOVED to decorate white shirts :O). The engine bay doors you mention in Yeovilton of course belong to prototype 002 and may well have some flight test gear attached. (Popping down there to take some photos in a few weeks, so I'll have another look too).

artee
You are most welcome here, and your story is anything BUT a bore. Passenger reactions to flying on our lady are always great to read. The likes of Bellerophon, EXWOK, NW1 and of course landlady would always go out of their way to make every passenger feel special. (And as you found out in the pre 9-11 days passengers were also invited up for flight deck visits after the meal service was finished).

Best regards
Dude :O

It seems to have gone a bit quiet on here, so here's another question from an ignorant bystander. Having just got hold of the ITVV DVD, I noticed reference during the FE's walk-round to areas of unpainted aluminium below the front door referred to as Static Ports. What are these?

Static ports are by no means unique to Concorde; all aeroplanes have them. They measure the air pressure around the aeroplane, and this value is used in various aspects of aircraft instrumentation. In particular, it is used (together with the dynamic pressure value) to display indicated air speed.

Dynamic pressure is what the pitot heads produce - those forward-pointing tubes either under the wings or (as in the case of Concorde) alongside and on the nose which simply measure the pressure of the air generated by the aircraft's forward movement through the air.

By the way - engine bay doors; we open one on OAC for our Technical Tours (not the shorter, 'Classic', tours where there wouldn't be time) so we can show the 593 Olympus and tell our visitors about it. Those doors certainly are heavy!

To complement SSD's answer, those 'static ports' are located on the fuselage at the location where the local pressure is as near as possibile to the actual outside pressure, which in turn is equivalent to the 'pressure altitude', or, near enough, to the altitude the aircraft is flying at, so it it used to display altitude, and its rate of change is used to calculate and display vertical speed.

When passing Mach 1, the nose shock wave moves rearwards, and passes over the static ports.
As a result, there is a "twitch" on both the altimeter (barely visible) and on the VSI (verical speed indicator, very visible) when exceeding Mach 1.

Any pics, SSD?
People on another (French) forum were asking about the engines on G-BOAC...
Are they still all in place? Or were any dropped for display outside the aircraft?

CJ

All 4 engines (and indeed everything else that BA left untouched on de-commission) are still in the airframe. She is pretty much as she was when she flew in on 31st October 2003.

Here is the only OAC engine bay pic I have. Must remember to take my camera next time I do a tour!

G-BOAC engine no. 1.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...K/Image038.jpg

I don't normally frequent this part of PPRune but it has been suggested to me that I should post this image of mine of Concorde G-AXDN in AirSpace at Duxford - 08Jan11
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y20...202011/12a.jpg

Brian

Just visited F-BVFA at the Udvar-Hazy Museum near Dulles airport. In nice condition, indoors but sadly, no interior viewing. The Conc at Boeing's Museum in Seattle allows interior tour, but sadly again, didn't look in very good shape.

GF

To further complement the answer, Concorde's static ports are mounted on much bigger plates than usually seen. This is because in supersonic flight the static pressure is peculiarly sensitive to the actual angle of the skin around the 'hole' relative to freestream. Consequently the ports are set in plates that have been machined flat. These plates were then jig-set to accurate angles relative to body datum.

CL

Static Ports
 

CliveL
It was found that the relatively miniscule differences in plate alignment produced errors in true Ps measurement and so individual corrections had to be applied to each aircraft. No big deal with a digital ADC of course but not so clever when you are dealing with steam driven analog as we were. (Bearing in mind that any analog ADC is an electro-mechanical device). To give identical Mach 2 cruise readings between ADC 1 & 2 a plug in resistor/diode module was hooked into the respective ADC circuit, and this module stayed with the aircraft always. If we'd ever had to replace a static plate in service (and at BA we never did) we'd have had to have done an in-flight pressure survey in order to calculate the required resistors and altered the module accordingly.
The air intake system, although it used Ps from THREE sources (the side static ports and the static ports built into the nose probe; this being a pressure head and not just a pitot as were the side probes) did not apply any individual aircraft corrections, it just made different corrections between side and nose pressure sources (Ps and Pt). Having a digital processor at it's heart, these corrections were signalled by using 'program pins' at the rear of the AICU rack.
As steam driven as the Concorde ADC was, when it came to RVSM implementation in the late 1990s we found that the air data system was in fact superbly accurate, and no modifications to the computers themselves were required. Such a testament to the original superb design.

Best regards
Dude :O

Engine Bay
 

Pen Pusher
That really is a superb photo and shows just what a large but cramped affair the Concorde engine bay was. Although a pre-producion example, the picture generally shows what the production aircraft looked like inside the chasm. In the picture you can see the titanium roof of the engine bay that did such a good job in protecting the wing above (as was the case with the OAF engine failure in 1980 mentioned previously in this thread). What is missing from the 101s engine bay shown here are the air conditioning primary and secondary heat exchangers that were fitted above the engines. (The large trunking you can see coming forward from the jet pipes are the exhausts for the ram air from the exchangers). On a blunty, the heat exhangers are mounted in the belly of the aircraft, in what is generally known as a pack. But there was no room in Concorde for such lumpy bits, and so the only alternative was to mount them above the engine. The remainder of the equipment, the Cold Air Unit (or Air Cycle Machine as the blunties call them) as well as the, unique to Concorde, Fuel heat exchanger were mounted in the wings. With everything so sprawled about it could not really be called a 'pack' and so in Concorde we refered to an air conditioning GROUP. :ok:
The wiring you can see on the lower parts of the engine doors is generally Graviner fire wire, used for engine fire and nacelle overheat detection. At the forward part of the 2 doors (shown most clearly on the #4 engine) are two orange 'boxes. These are the engine bay ventilation 'ground running flap' electrical actuators (the flaps themselves being shown shut). Normally these spring loaded flaps would be open on the ground, being progreesively closed with increasing speed as engine bay pressure increased. The actuator would only run when the engine fire handle was pulled, to help seal off the bay. All the other orange stuff you can see is FTD, or flight teast wiring and equiment. (We used to not very kindly refer to it as 'orange s--t' :eek:).

With regard to aircraft 204, G-BOAC I think you will find that all the engines are still installed. I took this photo (oops sorry, my wife did :\) when we had a function in Manchester about 18 months ago. You can see what a wonderful job the folk up there are doing taking care of her, and as for dining under the wing.. it was truly a memorable experience indeed.
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...ncorde/165.jpg


Best regards
Dude :O

M2Dude.
 

Ahah! Got you! Reference my original question about calibrating so many vital analogue systems. :)

I knew there would have to be something somewhere. :) However, I have to agree that it only goes to demonstrate yet again, just how good were the original systems and the engineers who designed them. :ok:

Nice picture from you too Dude, which raises a couple of questions for me. Why the blind window nearest your wife's camera? And I'm not sure why I've never been aware of it before, but this view shows up some sort of tube mounted atop the fuselage, just in front of the fin. What is that please?

Oh and something that your photograph put in mind. It must be very seldom that even a parked aircraft is actually quiet. Being under AC like that must have been a bit un-nerving for someone so used to being next to Concorde, because she must be virtually silent?

Roger.

Landroger - the 'tube' houses various nav antennae - can't remember offhand which - it's less obvious than it appears in this pic which is at just the right angle to accentuate it.

It was always impressive how similar the ADCs' outputs were compared to the 747 of the same era, and M2Dude has mentioned how the RVSM trials showed their accuracy.

Of course there was always the infamous OAF 'glitch' which threw up false ADS warnings accelerating through M1 which happened regularly during my time on the fleet and was subject to a tech log supplement. It never seemed to affect the machine in any other way. I dunno if she did this from new or it was a result of her nosejob.

Concorde Lecture

Tuesday 8th March 2011
18:00 - 19:30
Royal Aeronautical Society


No charge to attend. Non-members welcome.
Booking is not essential (you can just turn up) but the RAeS would appreciate an rsvp if possible.
Email (without the spaces): conferences @ aerosociety .com
More info about the lecture and the speakers here: LECTURE: Training Aircrew for Concorde

The RAeS is next door to the InterContinental Hotel. http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/images/a...s/hamilton.jpg

Nearest tube stations -
Hyde Park Corner 3 mins.
Green Park 5-6 mins.

Perhaps a good opportunity for the Concorde enthusiasts here to meet?
The RAF Club is only a minute away from the RAeS - a very pleasant and interesting venue for a post-lecture drink and chat, and much cheaper than the Mayfair hostelries. There's a good chance of meeting a member of the Club who will be able to sign in guests. (If I'm able to attend the lecture I'd be happy to do so.)


Tudor Owen

Olympus Picture
 

SSD wrote:
is there something missing dead centre of the picture ?? to the Left of what I presume is a an FCU on the Gearbox? Looks to be a V-Band clamp still there hanging on the pad ??

Also I heard of a similar test on the RB199; ran it up on a test bed to full power and let it stabilise for a few minutes, drain the Lube Oil Tank and stand back to see what happens - 24 hours later they gave up as it was still running !!:ok:
Possibly a standard RR development test ?:D

regards
Howie

The 'blind' window is where the wardrobes are - no seats there. Also just about visible in that picture is the 'area ruling' of the rear fuselage where the fin starts - the fuselage is noticeably 'waisted' there.

Glad you enjoyed the event at 204, Dude. I have a lovely painting on my wall of G-BOAC on the roll-out on her last ever landing at EGCC 31st October 2003. It was signed all around the border by all the Concorde crews present that evening that I could cajole into signing, then I got it framed!

The 'tubes' (there are two, side by side) are the fairings for the ADF (automatic direction finder) aerials. And IIRC, the magnetic compass sensors ('flux-valves') are under there as well.

Oh, and.. Landroger, the blank window you mentioned is that of the forward wardrobe.

I'd heard about that 'glitch'... Having seen the amplitude of the VSI 'twitch' on video, I can well imagine that if port and starboard weren't totally synchronous, you would get a ADS warning.
Did that knock out the A/P and A/S as well?

BTW, the VSI 'twitch' is now implemented on the Brooklands simulator, but not the OAF 'glitch'....

CJ