Many thanks CliveL!

Cable runs & Expansion
 

Concorde grows as she gets warmer. How does the mechanical cable connection of the controls cope with the growth ?
I assume the electrical cabling has nice loops to allow growth but a mechanical cable connection needs to be pretty taut all the time.
One theory today was that the cables expand as they warm up at the same rate as the structure but surely they aren't as warm ?

johnjosh43,
You're quite right about the cable 'problem'.
It's not even typical to Concorde.... airframes are aluminium, while the control cables are steel, so the expansion factor is not the same, and the same problems exist even in subsonic aircraft.

The problem is solved with 'cable tensioners'.

Unfortunately I have no drawing instantly to hand. Maybe some other reader here does, and can post it.... if not I'll try and do a sketch from memory and post it.

As said, the problem is/was much older than Concorde, and we just 'borrowed' from existing technology.

And of course, the expansion differential, and the length and flexibility of the airframe, were some of the reasons why Concorde went for 'fly-by-wire', or - as we called it at the time - 'electrical signalling'.

CJ

PS And yes, there was deliberate 'slack' in the electrical wiring, and also various arrangments of expansion joints in the fuel and hydraulic systems.

Hello
 

This is one of the most incredible and informative threads on Concorde that I have found!

An introduction: I'm an artist currently living in NYC, and I've been in love with aviation since I was very little. Concorde has a very special place in my heart ever since I saw a very bad VHS copy of Airport '79 when I was 3.

The reason why I bumped into this thread was soon after her retirement, I wanted to understand how she worked, and why she was shaped and built the way she is.

I had a lot of questions, for example how was she built to allow for thermal expansion? what are those small canards behind the nose for? How do the landing gears shorten, etc. Although I am an artist, I have an above average understanding of mechanics, physics, and aviation -- at least compared to the general public.

Since I also build 3D models for animation, I decided that the best way to learn about the aircraft was to actually build one in 3D. This is a very very ambitious project, but it's the same way famous painters learnt to paint by copying the masters before them.

So, my question is, where did some of you get all those detailed diagrams of internal structures from? They're unlike any of the other line drawings I see on the internet. I'm looking for them because I want to accurately model the internal structure as a way to learn on how the plane dealt with thermal expansion / contraction and the stresses that resulted from it.

At some point I plan to release the 3D model for the public to use in CFD simulations, and to "peel back the skin" and look inside. An interactive model is better than a flat 2D drawing!

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to let you guys know where I'm coming from.

Thank you!

I think you might find you're conversing on this thread with some of the people who actually had a hand in creating the diagrams in the first place, etc.

Someone's done the same sort of thing, albeit on a smaller scale, for the Bugatti Type 35. Is this the sort of thing you're contemplating?

1924 Bugatti Type 35

Yes! That's exactly what I am contemplating.

One of the best things about this thread and what makes it very informative.

I think I'll try modeling the nose cone w/cutouts and the visor operations when I get some time next week. It's very simple, and a good place to begin animating the mechanics of lowering/raising the nose cone/visor.

I'm not sure to what extent you intend to model the mechanism... but I wouldn't call it simple.

It's not Rube Goldberg, but it's still a pretty complex mechanism, with rails, hydraulic cylinders, uplocks (both hydraulic and manual), intermediate stops for the 5° and 12.5° positions, etc.
And you'll discover that (even on the production aircraft) the nose can still be lowered to 17.5° by removing a set of mechanical stops (IIRC the reason for that is already mentioned earlier in the thread).

Wishing you luck and courage with your venture, and I will be curious to see the final result!

CJ

If you succeed, it will be the most fantastic resource, but I don't envy you the task. The Bugatti took 4000 hours to complete and has around 3000 components. Anyone care to hazard a guess at how many components Concorde contained?

Shanewhite, define "components"....
If you count every rivet, every bolt, every resistor in the electronics... you'l easily get to a few million....
I don't think YearoftheTiger is going to quite that level of detail.

CJ

One would hope not! I suppose you just have to make a decision about what sort of level of detail to co to. Brilliant idea though, if it's feasible.

Concorde modelling
 

Year of the Tiger

I don't envy you your self imposed task, you will I'm afraid find it quite difficult to get any detailed drawings as they were long ago buried in the archives of two now non-existent companies - Sud Aviation and British Aircraft Corporation.

The best source of overall structure drawings I have seen is that on the HeritageConcorde.com site. which also gives some explanations of the structural concepts. The Haynes Concorde Owners Workshop Manual also has some interesting data. One problem is that the loading conditions on the various bits of the wing varied so much and the whole thing was so finely optimised for weight saving that there are many different structural concepts used.

You (and others here) may find a 1999 lecture given by Dudley Collard (a much respected Concorde design engineer) of interest. You can find it at www.svfw.ch/Archiv/ConcordeDev.pdf

Felicitations!

I agree with all of you. It's a very very difficult challenge, but I figured I might merge two things I enjoy very much: studying airplanes and being creative.

The modeling in it self isn't difficult, I've been doing it for many years. To me, proportions and correct dimensions are more important than detail, so the real challenge is finding drawings that show major structural components accurately.

As for the detail, ideally I'd love to capture it all, but that is impossible. In my experience helping friends who were studying Industrial Design in college, once you have the correct proportions down for the main components, you can continue adding smaller and smaller parts / details later on with relative ease as information on them become available. Whereas building the smallest detail and working up is a very bad way to start.

Thank you all for your support. I'll keep reporting back as I make progress. Hopefully I haven't come across too crazy (but a little bit is OK and probably a given).

Not crazy at all. If it's in any way feasible, it's a brilliant project. Best of luck, and keep us posted!

YearoftheTiger,
Good sources of detailed drawings are the 'IPC' (illustrated Parts Catalogue) and the 'SRM' (Structural Repair Manual).
Originals (paper) are rarer than the proverbial rocking horse poo.... but they also exist on CDs. Those occasionally pop up on the well-known auction site, but maybe some of the readers here have them and would be willing to make you a copy.

Also see my PM.
CJ

Someone I know said he flew Miami to Washington and then on to London on Concorde. He said the turn around time at Washington was only 30 mins. The leg from Miami to Washington was partially supersonic. This seems to be hard to believe, as I know it takes the best part of an hour to refuel a 747. Surely topping off the tanks on Concorde would take more than 30 mins????

This says 20 minutes. I can't verify it.

Concorde Refueling Operations « Heritage Concorde

There's a lot of info on Heritage Concorde that would be useful to Year Of The Tiger as well, come to that.

Heritage Concorde

MIA-IAD is less than a 1000 nm hop, so the question is really "was the fuel cheaper in Miami, so they tanked up there and only topped up in Washington?" (unlikely, flying fuel around is a waste of money in most cases).

Otherwise, the max fuel on Concorde is listed as 26,400 gallons (Imp), so if you feel like it, you can do the sums with the figures quoted on the Heritage Concorde site.

Christiaan
 

I don't remember it being stated that Concorde was designed to have a 'rapid pit stop' capability, but those refuelling speeds seem to bear it out.

Do you know of anything to support this?

Differences between ordered Airframes
 

I had a guy on a tour at MAN last week who asked a question - what were the differences between the BA Concordes and the French ones ?

Broadening it out a bit this was touched on earlier in the thread with the APU for Iran discussion and a bit about AF & AG being slightly different.

Is there a definitive list anywhere of what each of the airlines wanted ?

Just thought I'd drop by and see what was happening on this thread........

My best personal experience of a quick t/round was a tech stop at SMA which we turned around in 45mins. Fuelling was taking place for about 30 of that. AF used to tech stop SMA on the way to GIG, I believe, so the station had some Conc experience.

As for the differences between AF and BA a/c I think most have been dealt with before. AG stood out in BA as a partly 'French' hull; the stuff noticed by pilots was generally:

NiCd main batts, with slight differences to the DC system (no SSB I recall).
No ability for flt crew to 'steal' pax O2.
Perspex flip up visual level on the glareshield instead of open metal construction. Sounds trivial, but I hated it!
No annunciation of DTG to next INS WPT on HSI unless in NAV mode (or was it TRUE?)
Undercarriage monitor not fitted.
Different audio select panels - get this: 6 a/c in the fleet you pushed for TX and pulled for intercom.....AG.......the other way round. Genius.
Probably a lot of other stuff under the skin that I've forgotten.

Allegedly this was representative of the AF fit (certainly as far as the batts/DC) but I can't say for sure. Obviously the cabin fits were very different and over the years the two airlines will have carried out different non-mandatory mods (e.g. the infamous 'cowcatcher' mod).

OAF was a standard BA machine, except that being younger it (like OAG) didn't have the 'crown area' mods done.

All from memory, usual health warnings apply......

Just watched the documentary on the life and demise of the Concorde. The pride of everyone who was involved is clearly evident.

It's brought me to tears.

The rear tank on Concorde needed to be full at take off for trim purposes.
As speed increased fuel was transfered forward to the main tanks as fuel was burnt. If you are interested in the complete fuel management for trim I will be happy to oblige.

doxeee

...The rear tank on Concorde needed to be full at take off for trim purposes....

No, it didn't, and it wasn't.


...As speed increased fuel was transfered forward to the main tanks...

No, it wasn't. As speed increased fuel was in fact moved rearwards into tank 11.


...if you are interested in the complete fuel management for trim...

I am, but, with respect, either your source of information is incorrect or you have misunderstood it.

Vmo
 

Last time I logged in someone was asking why the Vmo/Mmo was the way it was, but it seems to have disappeared along with Bellerophon's suggestion that someone else might be able to throw some light on it. This might help.

SORRY - senior moment - this should have been posted on another thread! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/embarass.gif
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/...ductionVmo.jpg

To be honest I can't remember exactly why 530 kts was chosen for the supersonic Vmo, but it was probably the best climb speed.
Mmo/Tmo was limited by a combination of intake and structural temperature.
The 'cut-off' in the sloping/530 kts boundary was, if I remember correctly, to avoid a minor aeroelastic problem at the Vd/Md condition one arrived at from that corner.
The variation of Vmo with weight was a device which, when associated with the CG corridor, allowed the aircraft to meet the manoeuvre requirements when flying on half hydraulics.
400 kts CAS gave 0.93M at around 28000 ft if I recall correctly, which was just below drag rise and gave optimum subsonic cruise performance

Not sure on which thread to post this :), but great thanks to both Bellerophon and CliveL on sharing their knowlegoe of the Concorde :ok:

(D)FDR on Concorde
 

Hi Guys,
first, thank you for this wonderful thread!!!

AFAIK, the FDR of Concorde hasn't been discussed here yet.
What are it's capabilities, i.e. parameters logged, speed, capacity, etc. ?
Where is it located?
Did it survive the Paris crash? If so, did the investigators get useful data from it?

Thanks much in advance.

The FDR is Located in Racks at the Rear of Concorde"s Rear cabin near the emergancy doors.

Which also contain other Boxes such as the Radio Tran-ceivers, ADF receivers and Intake Computers among them which are all coverd over and out of site!

They did survive the Paris Crash from memmory.

RE: FDR
 

Is there a list of parameters captured by the FDR?

RE: Debow
 

In the ITVV documentary, the SFE Roger Bricknell mentioned the selection of debow of #3 engine upon startup on the JFK to LHR leg, due to the downtime of the engine. This essentially delays the heat-up of the turbine shaft in favor of a more evenly temperature distribution.

Why wasn't the debow selected for all the other engine? (Roger explicitly mentioned to not needing to select the other engines for debow)

Forgive me, I'm probably missing something that was mentioned earlier in this great thread.

Checklists & flight control inverters
 

Since I am a fan of checklist, can anybody make a copy of the checklists available?

SFO Les calls out "Flight Control Inverters On" in his C/L. What are these?

Thanks much in advance.

OAF was indeed a true BA aircraft, it title was bought for £1000 and 10,000FF, but significant sums ( million+) were then spent to deliver it to the BA spec. BA did fund and purchase it as their 6th Concorde, albeit at a greatly reduced price.

OAG sort of fell into BA's use. They had "bought" it for under £100,000k, with a must sell back clause , before OAF was delivered to give their services resilience while OAC whet back to Filton for repair. During its use it suffered contamination of its hyd systems, so was grounded, before this was repaired the Concrde programme all but shut down and BA held onto the aircraft fully registering it as OAG, initially it had been G-BFKW.

OAG flew for a short while but was eventually grounded, as I understand it mainly for spares recovery, but as it was a million miles aware spec with from the other BA ( cabin was even different) it was a easy choice to make.

When BA acquired all the spares and full access to G-BBDG a decision was made to bring OAG as close to BA spec as possible and be the first to have a new interior on the fleet. OAG was then then launch Concorde in the land our livery and a lot OAF was a standard BA machine, except that being younger it (like OAG) didn't have the 'crown area' mods done the air to air shots from this time are of it in 1985.


Crown area mods...were these not mandated and embodied fleet wide at the 12,000 major?

The flight control inverters were the 26v AC power supplies for the flying controls working (from memory) at 1500hz rather than the normal 400hz.

There are people on here far more qualified, but i believe using the much higher frequency all but ruled out interference from any other aircraft system for the control signalling to the flight control surfaces

Gordon is right: the flight control inverters converted the 28V DC aircraft supply to the 26V AC 1800Hz that supplied the flying controls.
And the 1800Hz was chosen because it's halfway between the 4th and 5th harmonic of 400Hz, so yes, it minimised interference of the 400Hz main AC supply in the flying control system.

Thanks Gordon and CJ,

Is this 26V @ 1.8kHz system used anywhere else in the industry?
How many Inverters and with what redundancy where on Concorde?

This has info on the FDR and Accident!

It is Gordons website!

CONCORDE SST : Accident Report

Several times I've seen mention of the cockpit crown mods. What were these, and what was the reason for them? Were they applied to all the airframes?

Many thanks for this thread. Thank heavens Concorde didn't have an APU otherwise I wouldnt have had the pleasure of reading it.
I was at school in Basingstoke when Concorde first attended the Farnborough air show. Maths lessons were constantly interrupted by the third floor windows filling up with a very noisy aeroplane flying over at high alpha and wheels down. After the third circuit, the teacher (an Australian,) shouted at us that we'd seen your BXXXdy aeroplane now get back to work. Phillistine!
I never saw one flying without looking up in reverent awe and I cannot recall a time when anybody else wasn't doing so.
Came the day that I woke up to hear the sad news on the morning radio of the retirement. I emailed my comment and it was read out on the Today programme. Looking on the 'net at work at the other comments there was a small window telling me that BA were offering celebration flights. 1,000 tickets at £2,000 a go.
I'd just bought a house and my meagre savings were needed for a bathroom, hot water and some further essentials. I held out until tea break and dialled There were three tickets left. Make that two, please. I booked the first flight I could get in case something went wrong and the project was canned early.
Paying was another matter. All my money was in France and the BA desk at Southampton wouldn't take my cheque so I transferred money to my British account and tried it again. "There must be some mistake" said the nice lady at the desk. "This booking ref is coming up very expensive. I'm going to see if I can get it cheaper."
"Please don't." I replied.
"But you don't understand, This flight is VERY expensive. "I know." The people behind me were becoming disgruntled.
"I just don't get it. What class are you travelling?"
"Concorde."
The people behind me suddenly backed off.
I had a good trip out, my first trip on a 747. Ask for a Whiskey and get a nice little bottle of Johnny Walker.
I had a better trip back. Ask for a Whiskey and get enough eighteen year old Glenfiddich to drown a small child.
The experience changed my life. The only thrill that could get anywhere near it would be to pilot an aircraft myself. I now have about eight hours solo. It doesn't compare. Being SLF on Alpha Golf was the thrill of a lifetime and I have never regretted a penny of it.
To those contributors who worked on the programme in any capacity, Thank you for the enormous priviledge of being able to experience such a fine and beautiful thing.
Having rambled on for far too long already, I'll just recall a line from Radio 4's Week Ending: "Following a question in the House, the minister admitted that Concorde made more noise than the Bay City Rollers but pointed out that it was of far better quality."

There's a question (OK, 2) I wonder if those on here can answer.

1) I undertsnd that skin temperature is calculated from OAT and Mach number. Why wasn't it simply measured directly by sensors on the nose skin?

2) The Air Data Computer calculates Mach (so skin temp is a calculation on a calculation!). Presumably one parameter it uses is IAS. What else is used in the calculation of Mach?