Hi Exwok, am interested in the fact that Concorde proudced very little lift before rotation. As am SLF I may be mistaken but I can understand that on landing she was pitched up about 10 degrees and obviously on take off this was not the case so there would be little lift. So I presume the high angle of attack is how lift was maintained at slow speed. Therefore on rotation how were the forces that lifted the nose wheel generated?
Regards
Nick

Another IPhone answer, so apologies for rubbish post. On rotation the process was about as subtle as a coffee grinder. As the elevons were raised the downforce against them caused the aircraft to rotate about the mainwheels, raising the nose, increasing angle of attack and finally allowing the wing to generate some lift. Apologies again to all :\

Dude :O

Nick Thomas,
I think M2dude has already answered your question.

Anyway, herewith a few very crude scribbles to further illustrate your question and his answers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...J/Illusto1.gif

Simplistically, an "old-fashioned" airplane has an asymmetric wing profile (at take-off even more so because of the flaps). Such a profile will start producing lift as soon as you start moving, and if you had enough take-off space, the aircraft would fly off the ground even without rotating it - in practice you rotate to get a more optimum angle of attack, more lift and a better climb speed to "get over the fence".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../Illusto2w.gif

The Concorde wing, in the same circumstances, is little better than a big flat plank, and will not produce any lift at all, or at least far too little to carry the aircraft.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...J/Illusto3.gif

As M2dude already said, raising the elevons produces enough of a downforce at the trailing edge to lift the nose, and from there on the wing does start producing lift.
Not quite conventional lift, but "vortex lift" (a different subject), but lift just the same.

CJ

And just to round this off.......you will see from the above that the final insult to a Concorde tyre comes at rotate when (owing to the download caused by the up-elevon input) the download on it is actually increased until the rotation passes 7 degrees or so, and vortex lift starts properly.

Re the Concorde disaster and bizdev's question, I've opened a separate thread on the subject.

Concorde Paris crash, questions, facts, opinions

Can we post any specific questions and discussions on that specific subject over there, please ???

CJ

Well, the deHavilland Dash 7 has one, and I will take exception to anyone denying it airliner status. :E A small handpump is used to ensure downlock after freefall extension. (The Dash 8 and Fokker 50 have - much larger and draggier - backwards retracting main gear, assisted by handpump and springloading respectively for downlock after emergency freefall extension.)

Thanks to all Concorde experts for this truly wonderful thread. The ingenuity of design and the complexity of design that enabled the technological marvel that is Concorde never cease to amaze this humble airline driver. Having missed the opportunity to fly on Concorde is high on my list of aviatic regrets as well, and I'll have to make do with the memories of watching Air France Concordes taking off from CDG during our turnarounds there.

I could (and actually have) spent hours following this thread.

Is it true that Concorde was always flown by the highest seniority BA captains, copilots and flight engineers? Would Concorde usually be the last rung on the ladder before retirement for Captains/FEs or was it usual to return to slower equipment after a stint on Concorde?

And, sorry if I missed this, would Concorde thrust levers move during autothrottle operation?

Lastly, Concorde was originally to have had a large moving map system. Any insights into why and how that got scrapped along the way?

Thanks!

Thank you Exwok and M2Dude for your continuing information.


The Concorde tyres were obviously under enormous stress. The only other Aircraft that I can think off whose Tyres have such a hard life (on landing only of course!) are those installed on the Space Shuttle.


I would imagine, however these are replaced after each flight. How long would the Concorde Tyres last in normal service ?

SR-71 tires had a hard life
 

Not sure how the landing and takeoff speeds compare, but the SR-71 tires had the additional disadvantage of a prolonged heat soak to far higher temperature than any large Concorde component, I think. Sources say the tires were good for 15 cycles, other say 6, and attribute two early hull losses (64-17950 and 64-17954 in 1967 and 1969) to tire failures progressing to magnesium wheel fires propagating into the rest of the airframe.

Alpine Flyer
And a darned good airplane too :ok:
One for my 'winged' friends really, but with BA it was an issue of seniority, with a long waiting list for selection. As far as I recall there were only ever a couple of cases when a captain left the fleet for another aircraft, most would very happily fly Concorde until retirement at 55. The senior first officers generally had to (reluctantly) change fleets when they got their commands, however there was as far as I remember two exceptions here, where an SFO was able to 'jump seats' to captain. SEOs would stay on Concorde until retirement. (In all the years that I can remember there was only one case of an SEO switching fleets from Concorde). A pilot friend once put it to me that if your passion in life was as a flyer of aeroplanes, then there was really nowhere to go after Concorde.
Oh yes, Concorde had a 'real' full flight flight regime autothrottle. The autothrottle actuator would drive all four levers together via individual isolation clutches and the computer used the sum of all four lever angles. In the unlikely event of an engine being shut down in flight, the A/T could still be used. There was an isolation switch on the roof panel that would enable the affected engine's thrust lever to be isolated and closed to idle, the computer using the sigmals from the other three engines, demanding a now higher lever angle to compensate for the failed engine.
The prototypes I recall had a DECCA moving map, but with the availability of INS (and the decline and finally shutting down of the DECCA chains) made the system a waste of time (not to mention space).

Dude :O

stilton and archae86
I seem to remember that the average tyre life prior to the NZG tyre was roughly between 12 and 20 landings. One of the main concerns of prolonged high altitude flight was the deterioration of the tyre rubber by atmospheric ozone (above 50,000'). For this reason a small amount of cabin air was bled into the undercarriage bays and expelled through vents in the doors. And archae86, my friend you will find nothing but respect for the SR71A and her crews from the Concorde 'family'. :ok:

Dude :O

What a fascinating read, thanks to all guys contributing to it.

The fact that the Conc still fascinates so many people after so many years is the best prove of its uniqueness. Never flown on one, but having brought clients to it I remember a time where we parked right under the nose of an AF example at CDG with our tiny Cheyenne. The Pax was lead from our airplane up the stairs and off they went. (1989ish, I was a wet as a fish F/O then) Queing in Heathrow a few years later I couldn't hear my KingAirs engines for quite a while when the guys opened up and fired the cans. Fond memories and still the most graceful airplane I saw in my life.
I still use the opportunity to see the 2 examples at the museum at Le Bourget when there. Having seen a documentary on the first flights in Toulouse and Filton I had a trip to Filton a few days later and sitting in the air field ops Landrover was sort of a time travel. :p

We had the pleasure to have ex FE´s and an ex Capt. as trainers at FlightSafety in Farnborough. Very nice blokes and I should add, very capable and knowledgable guys. One can see why they were on the sharp end.

Sorry that I cant ask a good question right now, just had to get my thanks off my chest! :D :D :D

Shuttle Tires/Tyres
 

I don't know whether the shuttle tyres are actually reused or not, but if a remember right, the side wall printing says good for 12 uses.

Here's a link to michelin's description of loading and lightweighting:
Michelin Air: The very best in aviation tires.

ALPINE FLYER

Is it true that Concorde was always flown by the highest seniority BA captains, copilots and flight engineers? Would Concorde usually be the last rung on the ladder before retirement for Captains/FEs or was it usual to return to slower equipment after a stint on Concorde?



To answer your question fully the fleets history has to be broken into two halves, that is the first 10 years and then all the time after that

The first ten years

When the fleet was very new 1976 and crews were bidding for it you have to remember that it was a BOAC aircraft and only BOAC crews could bid onto it. Very few people saw a long future for the aircraft and so were reluctant to go through the long training if it was only going to last for a few years

Also because it always had a limited route net work then there was far more money to be made on say the B747 with it's large route network

Anyway this all opened up the fleet to the younger members of the flight crew fraternity, and indeed the youngest Captain on Concorde at that time was only 32 years old with the youngest F/E being 29 years old. Indeed most of the crews on joining the fleet were in their 30's or early 40's and nowhere near being the most senior. With the exception of the F/Os most of these crews stayed with the aircraft until retirement so in the end it became a senior fleet. Indeed 20 years and even up to 24 years was the term that some stayed on the fleet for.

After 1985 when cross bidding was allowed between the old BEA and BOAC
and Concorde started recruiting crews again then people had to be fairly senior to get onto the fleet as people could see a future for the aircraft and realized it looked exciting.

It was never really a fleet for the most senior as you could as a Captain or F/E only bid for the fleet if you had at least 7 years to go to retirement and the F/Os had to be willing to forgo their oppurtunity for cammand for at least 5 years although this was sometimes ignored

F/O had to leave the fleet to get their command, but many came back as soon as their new Captains seniority allowed them to

Some Captains and 2 F/Es did leave the fleet for another aircraft prior to retirement

Therefore you can see with crew numbers hovering around 20 sets and this was reduced near the end it was no wonder that Concorde was known as the Boys club and Barbara was one of the boys too

On Circuit training tyres were always our problem, especially when we could not have the spare hubs /tyres made up locally by a man from the tyre workshop. Instead we had to bring ready made up wheels with us and the rest delivered by truck. This was no real problem when we did our circuit training in the UK ,but when we moved it to France then the logistics became more difficult.
If I remember correctly you would be lucky to get more than 20 landings out of a tyre, with the rear mains taking the biggest hammering and often being changed quite a bit before 20 landings. With up to 6 details a day and each detail consisting of up to 10 landings you can see that tyre usage on training was heavy

Fingers tired now

The Trident did it sideways ;)

"Wheel Meet Again" - More on the rotating stuff
 

More on wheels and brakes
Concorde was without doubt the first ever aircraft to have a fully automatic, active braking system, with NO mechanical linkages to the brakes whatsoever: Firstly there was the 'normal' anti-skid, but the Concorde system was far from normal. Instead of the universally used anti-skid concept that monitors main wheel deceleration, we of course did it differently. Main wheel rotational velocity was compared with (un-braked of course) nose wheel rotational velocity. With zero skid the RELATIVE velocities would of course be the same, any difference would relate to the % skid value. That was the the real advantage of 'our' system; the percentage of main wheel skid could be calculated by the SNECMA (Hispano) SPAD Box, maximum runway 'stopping power' being achieved at around 20% skid. (I always thought that it was strange, the maximum runway adhesion being achieved while the wheel was skidding, but that's what it said on the tin). When the aircraft initially touched down, and the braking/anti-skid system was enabled, a fixed nose wheel speed Vo was used until the nose wheel touched down. (Can't quite remember what equivilant ground speed this related to though).
As well as anti-skid there was also torque modulation also, due to the use of carbon fibre brakes and the enormous amount of rotational torque involved. (A maximum figure of 8.5 MILLION ft./lbs. of torque springs to mind!!!). When a brake demand was input into the BRAKE ADAPTOR BOX (this also manufactured by SNECMA /Hispano) it was compared with a reference torque. As this brake demand input was applied to the 'box', the torque feedback from a torque link connected at one end to the brake would feedback the actual applied torque, where it was compared to reference torque, and the demand was modulated to suit.
The beauty of it all was that the anti-skid, basic brake demand as well as brake torque limits could all be superimposed on one another, giving a wonderfully flexible system that the pilots could have and did had an enormous amount of faith in.

Dude :O

And more.....
 

Just to round up the braking issuue....
A fully laden Concorde had a V1 significantly higher than a fully laden 747. (A figure of about 50 MPH springs to mind; perhaps one of the 'flyers' will confirm this). Although the Jumbo is twice the take-off weight, the amount of kinetic energy present in Concorde was significantly higher, due to energy = Mass x the SQUARE of the velocity. Added to this, Concorde had only eight braked wheels compared to the Jumbo's SIXTEEN. This really is further testament to the Concorde braking system, that had to have an enormous amount of stopping power, particularly in the case of a near V1 RTO. And all of this achieved with just eight compact, extremely reliable and relatively light brake units.

Dude :O

Thanks For The Memories
 

I have spent the early afternoon reading this wonderful thread. Thank you to all you guys, it has brought back so much that I had forgotten.

I was a stewardess on The Beautiful Bird for a few years, and I know first-hand the love that we all had for our beloved 'Connie'.

I started my flying carreer with Freddie Laker in the early 70's, and was on the inaugral SkyTrain to JFK on July 4th 1976.

I am still flying for BA,and over the years I have been honoured to fly with some amazing crew, and like others on here, I count myself truely lucky to have been part of the Concorde Family.

Thank you again for sharing your amazing knowledge. :D

LL

Given the frequency of Shuttle sorties 12 landings would mean a lifetime longer than most airline tires, at least if expressed in years. ;)

M2Dude.....
 

In response to your query: V1 was typically about 160kts on a transatlantic sector, with a Vr of about 190 and a V2 approx 220.

It wasn't in the flight manual but I seem to recall that the standing signal prior to nosewheel spinup was 100m/s. Presumably this also prevented brake application until the nose was down, being much higher than touchdown speed.

Anyone who travelled in the beast will know that we didn't use the brakes gently - they worked far better if you stood on them firmly and also seemed to wear less; certainly there seemed to be a lot more dust on the wheels if you used them gently.

Taxying out one had to be careful, it was easy to get a brake temp light on (was it 200degs? 220?) which meant waiting ages for it to cool. The watchword was minimum number of brake applications and make them firm, not feathery. And be careful on the lightweight departures as you needed them more.

EXWOK
Mate I know the Concorde V Speeds, my query relates to the comparison with the 744. ;)
Yeah that figure sounds familier, and you are correct on the presumption also. (That's why you got the eight 'R' lights illuminated on the anti-skid panel with the gear down on approach). With the fixed Vo signal and no output from the main wheel tacho's, the system sensed full skid and gave a FULL anti-skid release. The brakes were electronically held off by this, nomatter what, prior to landing.
Regards as ever EXWOK

Dude :D

M2D

A B747-400 at max take off weight (398tonnes) ex LHR would typically have a V1 ~ 155 kts, a Vr of about 170 and a V2 of 182 kts, so not dissimilar V1 speeds, but very different Vr and V2.

[I should add that this figures are for using reduced thrust and about 1.6 EPR on the RB211-524G engines where max thrust is about 1.72 EPR. Full thrust may result in an increased V1, I would guess].

This would suggest similar braking capabilities bearing in mind the differing TOWs involved. As to the relative brake unit weights I couldn't comment, nor therefore on the relative design pros and cons.

Numbers offered purely in response to your request.

Were there ever any female pilots / FEs? Or did any women pilots ever fly Concorde?

TopBunk
Thanks very much for the info; totally blows my argument out of the water as far as a near V1 reject. (The Vr figure does not really matter so much; we aint going to be much braking there ;)).
I was repeating what we were told at the training school at Filton in the early '80s. OK, no 744s alive then but certainly 'Classics' around aplenty. (I'm sure the Classic's V1 figures are not going to be a mile away from the '400's). Perhaps more relevent is going to be the brake energy required for landing (average Concorde landing speed was around 160 KTS, how does that compare to the 744?).
Thank you again for the info TopBunk, and sorry for coming out with such bilge previously :confused:

Dude :O

Two names...

Barbara Harmer at British Airways.
The first female Concorde airline pilot.
She became F/O on Concorde in 1993.
After the end-of-service, she continued to fly 777s with BA.
.
Béatrice Valle at Air France.
After a long career as a pilot, she finally was selected for Concorde... and then the Paris crash happened.
But she persisted, and in the end she did 35 return flights CDG-JFK before the final end-of-service.
She then became captain on 747s.

Apart from Jacqueline Auriol, well-known French 'aviatrice' and test pilot, who flew once on the Concorde prototype, I do not know of anybody else.

And no, there is no record of any female F/Es.

CJ

Shaft109
The world has only ever had one Concorde female flight crew member, a really wonderful lady who is known as Barbara Harmer. Barbara was an SFO on the BA Concode fleet, joining us in 1993. You can read all about her here:
Barbara Harmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After she eventually left the Concorde fleet, Barbara became Captain Harmer, flying the Boeing 777 for BA.

Oops ChristiaanJ, never knew about Béatrice Valle, salutations to her also. :ok:

Dude :O

landlady
landlady you are so welcome here, I'm sure the great people reading and contributing to this wonderful thread would love to hear any anecdotes or recollections that you might have about your experiences on our wonderful aeroplane.
Again, I'm sure I speak for all our 'family' members when I say 'welcome landlady' :ok:

Dude :O

landlady,

I've only been on a Concorde flight once, and since that was the last-but-one Air France "round-the-bay", it's fairly obvious the very special party atmosphere on that flight was not quite the same a on a regular flight.

But from what I've read from other "trip reports", even a regular Concorde flight was never quite like a flight on any other aircraft.

So, welcome, and if you have any CC stories to relate... yes, please !

CJ

PS -- Can you imagine anybody doing a "trip report" about the usual eight boring hours on a 777 flight from CDG to JFK ??
And I'm sure you've often have seen the "Concorde grin" during your flights ....

Not sure that the landing brake energy is more relevant, the RTO case must involve much more energy - a high speed, greater mass and less room to stop.

Anyway, at Max LW of 285 tonnes, the Vref25 is about 159 and Vref30 is 153, add 5 for the increment and you have the threshold speeds. At a more usual landing weight of 245 tonnes, they reduce to 148/142 +5 respectively.

Agreed TopBunk, it's just as the Concorde and 744 V1s are so close it shows that the 744 has FAR more kinetic energy to dissipate in a near V1 RTO.
Many thanks for the landing speed info :ok:

Dude :O

Thank you for allowing me, a non-techy, to participate in your lovely thread!

Just a short story about the adorable, charming and all-round fantastic bloke, Capt. John Cook.

During an exceptionally busy flight (MPs, press with cameras and sound booms on board - cc trying to negotiate the aisle with mayhem abounding) - John came out of the F/D and was standing in the forward galley looking bewildered.

"What can I do for you, skip?" I asked as I rushed in to replenish a drinks tray.

"Oh Landlady, thank goodness.... I'd love a coffee but I can't work the boiler............"

This from a training captain par excellence, with a twinkle in his eye who knew every inch of that machine - (and in the days before bev makers), who just wanted to save me a job!

I hope the angels are making your coffee now, John.:)

But that's what everyone was like....we certainly were a team which, I'm sorry to say, isn't always the case these days.

Now boys, I will leave you to get back to your sprockets and widgets. ;)

landlady, your recollections of JC are so typical of what most people that knew him had. He was an astonishing character, an extremely talented flyer with a wicked wit to match. I remember many years ago, while travelling as 'passenger' with him on a charter flight, I was in the rear cabin during taxi, when there was a minor problem on the flight deck. Over the PA came these dulcet tones 'OY, AC/DC (due to me having an avionics 'bent', this was John’s nickname for me), GET YOURSELF UP HERE NOW'. With my street cred' totally blown away, a (then) young and highly embarrassed me slunk his way up to the flight deck, trying not to look at the 100 or so faces looking at me in total mirth.
I think everyone that ever came into contact with John misses him enormously, like all of his friends I know I do.
Please keep posting landlady, your memories are priceless to us all.

Dude :O

Concorde nose gear collapse
 

My one abiding fear (apart from obesity) about buying a ticket on Concorde was 'what the hell happens' in event of a nose gear collapse, or landing after failure of the nose gear to extend?? The very tall nose gear with the relatively short wheelbase geometry would suggest such an event would be carastrophic.

Can any of the learned design types on this forum tell about the considerations involved - was there a procedure to handle it, or would it just do a pole vault and compress into an accordion? Were special design features incorporated to make such an event unlikely, or was it even survivable?

hmmm.. As far as the design goes the failure of a nose gear to downlock was extremely, EXTREMELY remote. There were three ways o lowering the nose leg (Normal, Stanby,as well as free-fall). As a matter of interest the main gear sort of had four ways, where the free fall could be assisted by bleeding engine P3 air into the equation also.
Being rearward lowering, the airstream of course helps matters a lot with respect to the nose leg lowering
One of the wing'd chappies I'm sure can come up with the flight procedure for such an event. (Never happened in the 35 years of Concorde flight testing and airline operation).

Dude :O

Panel machining.
 

One of my Scout Leaders, back in the sixties, was involved in (I think) programming the milling machines that milled Concorde wing panels from solid alloy billets. Dural I assume, I didn't think there was much Titanium in Concorde?

How much of the Lady's structure was machined from the solid like this? In one sense, it seems extremely wasteful, but in another it is the most perfect way of "knocking off everything that doesn't look like a wing panel." To paraphrase someone. :)

Roger.

Landlady, you are yet another priceless asset to this thread. It may have been mentioned previously that much technical "stuff" about Her can be Googled but it is the personal stories that are added, make this thread so great and informative.

As said, your contributions will be most welcome as I am sure you have some excellent tales to tell about your adventures at Mach 2. So please post away and drag some of your colleagues in here as well. :ok:

As M2dude says, there were about three separate ways of extending the nose gear, making the event extremely unlikely, and indeed it never happened in service.
It's a halfway interesting "what if" question...
Bearing in mind the c.g. is already almost over the main wheels... could it have been done by moving the c.g. as far back as possible, keeping the droop nose at 0°, and after touchdown keeping the nose off the ground for as long as possible?
The radome would have shattered, but the droop nose structure would have acted like a skid.
Just as well nobody ever needed to try it.

There is only one well-known case of a landing gear problem.

Visualise a moment the main landing gear. The main leg 'l' is held down in the vertical position by a large hydraulic "stay" '\' .
___
\l

(I know that, to most people, it looks at first like the retraction cylinder, but it isn't. The retraction cylinder is much shorter, and inside the wheel bay.)

Now the story... It happened during what was going to be the last-but-one flight of the British prototype, 002, during a demonstration flight at Weston-super-Mare.
After a slow pass with the gear down, the co-pilot flying the aircraft put it into a steep turn, retracting the gear at the same time.

The next moment, there was a very loud bang, and one of the main gear lights did not go "green".

Somebody from the crew went to the back cabin, where there is a small porthole to look into the wheel well. When asked what he could see, the answer was "nothing..." ; both the main stay and the retraction cylinder had parted company with the aircraft, and the gear leg was dangling free.

The pilot, John Cochrane, took over the controls, and brought the aircraft back to Fairford. With his guardian angel doing overtime, he managed to put down the aircraft and keep it straight during the roll-out, without the gear collapsing.

I didn't see the landing, but I saw 002 in the hangar the next day. By that time a steel bar had been fitted to keep the leg upright, but the damage was still impressive.
Later on, a spare stay was fitted, but 002s flight test career was over. She stayed in storage at Fairford for some time, and was then flown to the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton, where she still can be seen to this day.
Wisely, for the few minutes flight, they did not retract the gear....

CJ

There was some titanium, such as in the engine nacelles, but only in critical locations.
The first production Concorde (204, G-BOAC) was about a ton heavier than the last on (216, G-BOAF). IIRC most of that was achieved by judicious use of titanium in certain locations.
The aluminium alloy was not Dural, but a special alloy called RR58, AU2GN or hiduminium which was used because of its superior 'creep' properties ('creep' = slow permanent deformation under a combination of mechanical stress and high temperatures).

Nearly all of the primary load-bearing structures and a non-negliable amount of the secondary ones.
(As an example of the latter, ever looked at a photo of the top of the wing of a Concorde with all those oval-shaped access panels? They were all machined.
It may look wasteful at first sight, but the resulting panels were lighter than a conventional 'sheet and ribs' structure, and that weight gain remained a gain during the life of the aircraft.
It also made for greater precision and repeatablity, more consistent quality, etc.
And the scrap from the milling operation was recovered and recycled....

CJ

As a humble, subsonic, low altitude and single engine pilot- I miss Concorde for all she represented. A magnificent testament to not only the human mind, but the human spirit. To human achievement!

A stunningly elegant and powerful symbol of national pride for the British and French, a globe spanning display of engineering genius that we all marveled at.

I can only imagine the excitement and fulfillment that those posting here must have felt for the time that they knew her. Those who flew her truly did solo under lucky stars. Those who maintained her, engineered her, looked after her must have enjoyed immense satisfaction by doing something that MATTERED in life. What more can one ask for?

The world is truly a much duller place without Concorde..alas.

Christiaan,


Since you were discussing the scenario of a nosewheel not lowering and that the CG was over the main wheels may I suggest a rather (amusing at least)
possibility ?!!



With a nose gear jammed up but all other gear lowered normally could the Flight Engineer pump fuel rearward adjusting the CG aft sufficiently to allow the Concorde to settle back on her 'Tailwheel'



I realise there would be some damage, especially in light of what has been said about the occasional tailwheel contacts but I imagine it would be less than lowering the unprotected forward fuselage onto the runway.





Of course some pax might have to move to the back of the cabin too !



If the CG was adjusted this far aft would there be controllability issues ?




There could finally be a use for the 'full down position of the visor' landing in this attitude !

Why not?
Let's admit that being faced with that nasty situation in reality would not have been amusing....
But kicking the idea around a moment, why not? It's what I did seeing the question at first.

Obviously depends a bit on the fuel remaining, but yes, I think one could have move the CG sufficiently rearward.

LOL, don't you think they'd all would have moved as far back as possible anyway?

Possibly, but not enough that an experienced pilot couldn't handle it, I would think.

I don't quite follow you there... :8

One thing that promptly occurred to me for this 'no nose wheel' scenario is braking, since both engine reverse and main gear wheel braking act below the CG, so they'd both act to pull the nose down.
At some point, stick fully back, hence elevons fully up, will no longer be enough to fully counteract that, so you'll have to cancel reverse and braking, and probably commit to an overrun.
Your scenario of doing it as a 'three-pointer' on the tail might wel be the better one !


And while we're at it, what about ditching a Concorde?
It's hinted at in the Safety Cards.
It's been tried lots of times, with models in water tanks.
It wasn't really feasible.......

CJ