View Full Version : Bye bye Concorde
ronald146m
17-10-2003, 13:28
Hi
The story from today's Guardian:- concorde (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ronald.brooksbank/temp/concorde.htm)
Ron
:smokin: :smokin:
heard their going to have one in Manchester :)
Jarandco
18-10-2003, 09:46
Its a real shame - it was built so long ago and since then no-one has been able to match it which just doesnbt seem to make any sense, its a real shame that supersonic slight is going to be dying off, i just wish Virgin would be allowed to take them on!
Oh well, ill be watching it go by on its last day! :(
Its a real shame - it was built so long ago and since then no-one has been able to match it which just doesnbt seem to make any sense, its a real shame that supersonic slight is going to be dying off, i just wish Virgin would be allowed to take them on!
Oh well, ill be watching it go by on its last day! :(
I watched a documentry a few years back and they had some yanks using a koncordski that used to be mothballed. They had it rigged out with computers and all that kind of stuff but the end result should be a new supersonic jet that can carry 300 people.
For those that dont know the koncordski is the russian copy of concord,
Download Failed (1)
Its a real shame - it was built so long ago and since then no-one has been able to match it which just doesnbt seem to make any sense, its a real shame that supersonic slight is going to be dying off, i just wish Virgin would be allowed to take them on!
Oh well, ill be watching it go by on its last day! :(
They are scared Mr Branson will make a profit from it that's why he didn't get it. We all know what he can do don't we?? A few years ago didn't he give his staff a bonus from the proceeds of a legal case he won???? A mate of mine his wife works for Virgin and I'm sure he was telling me about it correct me if I'm wrong please.
Just found some more info and hopefully their will be another supersonic jet by 2010.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2003/10/9.jpgConcordski
One of the planes was converted into an airborne laboratory in the 1990s. Known as the Tu-144LL, it began test flights in Russia in 1996 as part of a joint project with a US consortium - including NASA, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas - to create a second generation supersonic airliner, the Tu-244.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1420449.stm
Concorde means different things to different people but for me it represents the the finest piece of civilian air transport that has ever been built, it's demise also represents how little this country values it's past acts of excellence. Just to draw a comparison, the Avro Vulcan Bomber which concorde's delta wing is basically a copy of, and which also served as a tesbed for concorde's engines also has no flying examples left, the ony one capable of restoration to fight may be scrapped because the heritage lottery fund probably won't support it.
face it, this country doesn't blow it's own trumpet enough about what we have acheived in the past.
Jon
ronald146m
19-10-2003, 10:14
Hello
There's a documentary programme on tv tonight about Concorde.
'Timewatch' on BBC2 at 8.00pm.
Ron
:smokin: :smokin:
Atomic22
19-10-2003, 19:26
the demise of concord should never be allowed to happen...
in the words of jeremy clarkson in saturdays sun....
i have a ticket for the final flight and when i walk down the steps afterwards and step off the last step i shall say.....
"thats one small step for man...and one giant step backward for mankind"
cjmillsnun
21-10-2003, 16:18
Concorde means different things to different people but for me it represents the the finest piece of civilian air transport that has ever been built, it's demise also represents how little this country values it's past acts of excellence. Just to draw a comparison, the Avro Vulcan Bomber which concorde's delta wing is basically a copy of, and which also served as a tesbed for concorde's engines also has no flying examples left, the ony one capable of restoration to fight may be scrapped because the heritage lottery fund probably won't support it.
face it, this country doesn't blow it's own trumpet enough about what we have acheived in the past.
Jon
Concorde's wing is NOT a Delta. It is an Ogee If you see a pure delta wing (Vulcan) and a Concorde wing side by side, you will see the difference clearly.
I agree with your other comments though. I suspect we don't blow our own trumpets about this because our great industries that created this are no more. EG British Aerospace is now a shadow of it's former self and couldn't support Concorde, instead British Airways, had to rely on the French contrlled Airbus (part of EADS) who are the direct decendents of Aerospatiale.
We let them die, and people feel ashamed about that (quite rightly).
Concorde is finishing because Air France had lost heart in her, and BA could not support her on their own. Virgin couldn't afford these costs on their own and by giving their fleet to Museums, Air France condemed her to death. This has forced BA to stop on Friday (when their paid up support expires).
timewarrior2001
21-10-2003, 16:41
Concorde is finishing because Air France had lost heart in her, and BA could not support her on their own. Virgin couldn't afford these costs on their own and by giving their fleet to Museums, Air France condemed her to death. This has forced BA to stop on Friday (when their paid up support expires).
Coupled with the Paris Crash people now know Concorde is invunerable, no definate answer was given as to the cause of the crash.
The noise emmitted from concordes afterburning engines is to some poeple horrendous noise (to me you cant beat the sound of a military jet engine). This restricted concordes routes, it could not break the sound barrier overland because of the sonic boom noise pollution, instead it had to slow down hundreds of miles off Ireland.
The astronomical running costs of the aircraft and the lack of spare parts has also played its part. The aircraft has a long and beautiful history, unfortunately I think the lasting memory off this aircraft will be the images of it taking off with flames billowing from the engines/wing area.
Concorde has reached the end of the line, this ground breaking aircraft will never be forgotten, I just doubt anyone will actually bring in another supersonic passenger service for 10 or more years.
Coupled with the Paris Crash people now know Concorde is invunerable, no definate answer was given as to the cause of the crash.
The runway wasn't cleared before concorde took off, the runway concorde was directed to was slightly damaged, a peice of metal shredded a tyre, which blew a hole in the underside of the wing, causing a fuel leak (this should not happen when a plane's tyre blows, which shows there was a design flaw with concorde).
The escaping fuel caught fire, the co-pilot though it was an engine fire, and without getting confirmation from the pilot, shut down the engine, this caused concorde to stall and crash.
The runway wasn't cleared before concorde took off, the runway concorde was directed to was slightly damaged, a peice of metal shredded a tyre, which blew a hole in the underside of the wing, causing a fuel leak (this should not happen when a plane's tyre blows, which shows there was a design flaw with concorde).
The escaping fuel caught fire, the co-pilot though it was an engine fire, and without getting confirmation from the pilot, shut down the engine, this caused concorde to stall and crash.
Protection which the British Concords already had
aliferste
21-10-2003, 17:03
I watched a documentry a few years back and they had some yanks using a koncordski that used to be mothballed. They had it rigged out with computers and all that kind of stuff but the end result should be a new supersonic jet that can carry 300 people.
For those that dont know the koncordski is the russian copy of concord,
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetrAzQ/Tupolev%20144.jpg
Jeepers......they dont exactly look in good nick do they?
Protection which the British Concords already had
I thought they had to have the kevlar lining stuff installed as well?
The concordski was based on early plans of concord (if memory serves) which were flawed.
The Concorde team corrected the problems in development, the russian team didn't, and it caused one to crash at the paris airshow, I think.
I thought they had to have the kevlar lining stuff installed as well?
The concordski was based on early plans of concord (if memory serves) which were flawed.
The Concorde team corrected the problems in development, the russian team didn't, and it caused one to crash at the paris airshow, I think.
When that happened and the news people were trying to get info on what caused it. One of the things I remember them saying is it could have been the fuel tanks under the wing (which it was). They did mention then though that the British Concords already had protection but the French one's didn't.
Also about the Concordski,
Russian Tu144 "Concordski" crashes at 1973 Paris Air Show
The Russian Tu144 is a supersonic transport plane very similar to the Anglo-French Concorde, but slightly larger and faster. With the help of spies who stole the Concorde plans from the French, the Russians were able to fly their plane a few months earlier. However, at the 1973 Paris Air Show the French got their revenge (7983KB). While the Tu144 was preparing for takeoff the French air traffic controllers told the pilot that his display time had been cut in half. Also, they failed to inform him that a French Mirage fighter would be shadowing the Russian plane. This clumsy attempt at reverse industrial espionage was ordered in an attempt to photograph the Tu144's innovative canards, small wing-like structures near the front of the plane. The Russians took off and as part of their display pulled up into a rapid climb. After ascending several thousand feet, the pilot suddenly saw the Mirage in what looked like a collision course. To avoid a crash, he pushed hard on the control column, resulting in a violent reaction of the Concordski which caused the four engines to stall. To restart them he put the plane into a dive, but while pulling out of the dive the plane broke up in the air, killing all on board and others in a village near the airport. Unable to prove French interference, and fearful that the French would blame the accident on mechanical problems, the Russians didn't challenge the official cover-up.
There's a click of it here (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Movies/Aircraft/AirlinerCrashes/Tu144AtParisAirShow/Tu144Crash7983KB.mpg)
Very interesting stuff on the concordski accident, thanks for that :)
timewarrior2001
21-10-2003, 18:19
There was a documentary on Discovery about the concorde crash, it says all about the official explanation, but eye witnesses (airport firecrew) say the plane was on fire approx 400 Metres before the location of the strip of metal.
Now I understand that this could just be a conspiracy theory but it was all calculated and compared to video footage and it was determined ot be correct.
Whatever caused the fule leak and subsequent fuel ignition almost certainly isnt the theory of the piece of metal.
There was a documentary on Discovery about the concorde crash, it says all about the official explanation, but eye witnesses (airport firecrew) say the plane was on fire approx 400 Metres before the location of the strip of metal.
Now I understand that this could just be a conspiracy theory but it was all calculated and compared to video footage and it was determined ot be correct.
Whatever caused the fule leak and subsequent fuel ignition almost certainly isnt the theory of the piece of metal.
That's the one I'm thinking of.
Mentioned that the runway was in need of repair or something, and that it appeared to be going slightly off course down the runway.
SMHarman
21-10-2003, 20:31
I thought they had to have the kevlar lining stuff installed as well?
The concordski was based on early plans of concord (if memory serves) which were flawed.
The Concorde team corrected the problems in development, the russian team didn't, and it caused one to crash at the paris airshow, I think.
The conspiracy thoerists of the world actually say a french mirage jet was in the TU144s controlled airspace spying on it. The front extendable winglets (added to solve the wing problems in the first stolen design) were something they were very interested in and subsequently used on fighter jets.
Tu144 came out of cloud ascending and saw a plane in its path leveled quickly and this caused an engine stall.
The only way to restart was to point at the ground, pulling out of this they put too much stress on the airframe and snapped it. Something that Concorde would possibly not have got out of either.
SMHarman
21-10-2003, 20:34
Protection which the British Concords already had
The british concordes used dunlop not michelin tyres which could have shredded differently.
They also had different sprayguards on the wheels.
However if the puncture had occurred the british ones would also have suffered the same fate.
Somewhere there is a Continental Airlines engineer with blood on his hands for not screwing the titaniam plate back on the MD11 properly.
SMHarman
21-10-2003, 20:38
That's the one I'm thinking of.
Mentioned that the runway was in need of repair or something, and that it appeared to be going slightly off course down the runway.
I was lucky enough to fly on it on April 10th (the day they announced it was going out of service)
We taxied half way to JFK as the 'craft could only use the left runway to take off at the time due to works on the right one. So we waited and took off on the runway everyone else was using for landing. Thats status.
A great experience. Pity my wife was not well enough to enjoy the trip and our travel insurance did not cover mileage tickets, but thats another matter.
SMHarman
21-10-2003, 20:40
Very interesting stuff on the concordski accident, thanks for that :)
A great book "Soviet SST the technopolotics of the Tupolov 144" by Howard Moon ISBN 0-517-56601-X is well worth a read if you are interested in this stuff.
Its out of print but pretty easy to find on the internet second hand book shops.
The conspiracy thoerists of the world actually say a french mirage jet was in the TU144s controlled airspace spying on it. The front extendable winglets (added to solve the wing problems in the first stolen design) were something they were very interested in and subsequently used on fighter jets.
Doesn't the eurofighter have winglets too now ?
PS its very unusual for the French to loose secret's ain't it lol
Doesn't the eurofighter have winglets too now ?
PS its very unusual for the French to loose secret's ain't it lol
They stole the plans for the euro fighter and made the Raphael (I think)
Doesn't the eurofighter have winglets too now ?
Th'engineer's the man for this - poke him somebody!
The idea of putting the elevators at the front has been around for a long time. This style of plane is called a cannard (as in duck). The is an example here (http://members.lycos.co.uk/ctyoung57/Gribovsky/Grib19.htm). The idea is, I think, that when the pilot pulls back too hard on the stick the elevators will stall before the wings.
They stole the plans for the euro fighter and made the Raphael (I think)
Yep read about that. They wanted to be in the eurofighter project and once they knew what they wanted to pulled out and next they introduce a fighter which looks strikingly like the eurofighter
cjmillsnun
22-10-2003, 14:43
The runway wasn't cleared before concorde took off, the runway concorde was directed to was slightly damaged, a peice of metal shredded a tyre, which blew a hole in the underside of the wing, causing a fuel leak (this should not happen when a plane's tyre blows, which shows there was a design flaw with concorde).
The escaping fuel caught fire, the co-pilot though it was an engine fire, and without getting confirmation from the pilot, shut down the engine, this caused concorde to stall and crash.
Add to this BAD maintenance by Air France ground crew (when the undercarriage was serviced they forgot to refit a spacer allowing the wheels to move out of line, making the plane veer to the left thus hitting the strip of metal which would normally have been in an area that would have been missed.(and nearly hitting a 747 which contained Jacques Chirac just back from Japan).
Also the tyre didn't blow the tank. It was actually caused by the shock wave in the fuel itself.
BTW the previous modifications that BA had done to it's Concorde undercarriage (the insertion of a restraining strap on the water deflector would not have stopped this.)
Also the plane was overweight (too much fuel) and the pilot was taking off with the wind behind him (not normally done, planes normally take off into wind which allows take off speed to be slower). Also Concorde doesn't stall in the conventional sense (the ogee wing prevents this.)
Personally I think the French glossed over the fact the Air France was as much to blame as the designers, but as the fuel tanks were part of the British side of the design, they decided to move all the blame onto the Brits.
Concorde could have had a future, but the French had had enough. They didn't want to fly it or support it any more, therefore they killed it, rather than let anyone else get their hands on it.
I for one shall miss her, as (like so many) I have been unable to fulfil my dreams.
cjmillsnun
22-10-2003, 14:53
The british concordes used dunlop not michelin tyres which could have shredded differently.
Wrong,
The French used Goodyear tyres (I also think that Goodyear own the Dunlop name now), however the modifications after the crash required the use of Michelin NZG (Near Zero Growth) tyres.
The NZG tyres were developed to crumble into small pieces so as not to leave large pieces of tyre to be flicked up into jet intakes (not a good thing), however a happy side effect is small pieces that don't penetrate wings (or set up shock waves in fuel tanks)
Ah I remember something about the fuel weight.
Concord can pump the fuel into various tanks to distribute the weight, think they move it forward in supersonic flight.
Wasn't too much fuel in the wrong tanks when it took off?
SMHarman
22-10-2003, 15:00
Wrong,
The French used Goodyear tyres (I also think that Goodyear own the Dunlop name now), however the modifications after the crash required the use of Michelin NZG (Near Zero Growth) tyres.
The NZG tyres were developed to crumble into small pieces so as not to leave large pieces of tyre to be flicked up into jet intakes (not a good thing), however a happy side effect is small pieces that don't penetrate wings (or set up shock waves in fuel tanks)
Am I wrong in thinking that prior to the crash BA and AF used different tyre suppliers. Neither used the Michellin NZG.
SMHarman
22-10-2003, 15:10
Ah I remember something about the fuel weight.
Concord can pump the fuel into various tanks to distribute the weight, think they move it forward in supersonic flight.
Wasn't too much fuel in the wrong tanks when it took off?
Yes there are 13! tanks I think. To maintain centre of Gravity fuel is pumped from rear to front tanks. Tanks should be trimmed prior to takeoff roll, its not something that would (should) be being performed during initial ascent.
It comes back to the ogeee wing design and the lack of flaps and other methods to trim the 'craft.
SMHarman
22-10-2003, 15:18
Add to this BAD maintenance by Air France ground crew (when the undercarriage was serviced they forgot to refit a spacer allowing the wheels to move out of line, making the plane veer to the left thus hitting the strip of metal which would normally have been in an area that would have been missed.(and nearly hitting a 747 which contained Jacques Chirac just back from Japan).
So it nearly came off the runway and didn't get airborne before this happened?
Also the tyre didn't blow the tank. It was actually caused by the shock wave in the fuel itself.
Can you explain this further - Where did the shock wave come from? Air pressure in the tyre?
Also the plane was overweight (too much fuel) and the pilot was taking off with the wind behind him (not normally done, planes normally take off into wind which allows take off speed to be slower). Also Concorde doesn't stall in the conventional sense (the ogee wing prevents this.)
Duh - who was flying this - did (s)he have no regard for their own life?
I've sat on the ground at LCY for 30 mins waiting for the wind to drop enough to commence a roll. Due to the buildings at Canary Wharf you can get a tail wind at both ends of the runway!
Personally I think the French glossed over the fact the Air France was as much to blame as the designers, but as the fuel tanks were part of the British side of the design, they decided to move all the blame onto the Brits.
Concorde could have had a future, but the French had had enough. They didn't want to fly it or support it any more, therefore they killed it, rather than let anyone else get their hands on it.
I for one shall miss her, as (like so many) I have been unable to fulfil my dreams.
Someone who agrees with me that BA are not the bad boys in all this by AF are by distributing (and breaking) thier fleet across the globe rather than selling it to dickie (or Delta) to continue operations.
BA without AF were unable to continue operations.
A quote on the tv show on last sunday. AF asked when they would stop flying it. "The day after BA does" another French lie.
So it nearly came off the runway and didn't get airborne before this happened?
I believe so. I think it nearly went off the runway before leaving the ground.
Duh - who was flying this - did (s)he have no regard for their own life?
Tell me about it!
We had some prat land at southampton airport in the rain with a tail wind, and he overshot and ended up with his nose out on the M27!
Didn't Prince Charles land with a tailwind and nearly ran off the end of the runway up north?
SMHarman
22-10-2003, 15:59
I believe so. I think it nearly went off the runway before leaving the ground.
Things would have been very different if that had happened. Blame pilot error for the plane coming off the runway and move on. Probably still be flying on Saturday.
Tell me about it!
We had some prat land at southampton airport in the rain with a tail wind, and he overshot and ended up with his nose out on the M27!
Didn't Prince Charles land with a tailwind and nearly ran off the end of the runway up north?
Charlie boy did put it off the end of the runway. I think it put the airport out of action for a good while too.
Aaah heres something on it
"When Prince Charles came to visit my distilleryââ ¬â€ÂÂwe have a Royal Warrant by the wayââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â(Tell them about the plane crash!) When he came to endorse my whisky in 1994 he flew the plane himself into Islay; he has a pilotÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s licence. Everyone knows that when you land a plane you should do so into the wind. Our usual air traffic control lady was removed for the day and we had some smart-ass from Glasgow who thought he knew better. He said no, Prince Charles will bring in the plane the wrong way with a thirty-knot tail wind. By the time the Prince had the plane on the ground heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢d lost one third of the runway already! (Could he not have reversed it in?) Donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t get technical with me!
There are three planes in the Royal flight of which one has no reverse thrustÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â‚¬ÂÂthis one of course! So heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s one third of the way down the runway, too fast, no reverse thrust and heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s got to rely on the brakes! He buries the brakes and by the time heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s got to the end of the runway heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s burst all the tyresÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â‚¬ÂÂpop-pop-pop! At the last minute the planeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s real pilot takes over and turns the plane to the left. Had he gone to the right no problems, but to the left it sank into the peat, plus the nose wheel shunted into the radar and virtually destroyed the plane. HRH stands up and tells the crew itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s down to you guys, sort it out, get me another plane.
I didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t even know heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢d crashed the plane. He got to the distillery only twenty minutes late. I gave him a tour and heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s a cool customer; the only comment he made about his adventure was that he thought it a pity that the airport wasnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a bit longer!
Of course some asked if heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢d had a dram but as we all know, if he had he would never have crashed the plane! (Tell us about Camilla!) Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s right, it was the day they broadcast his interview about his crumbling marriage.
The next day, in The Scotsman, the headline screamed PRINCE CHARLES CRASHES PLANE ON ISLAY! But in four columns of text it only said that he had visited a distillery! Not one mention of which distillery, and that the reason why he had come to Islay!
I was at school with the Scotsmanââ‚ ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s editor so I phoned him up and said †œCome on, you didnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t name my distillery, why not?ââ‚ ¬Ã‚ He said †œWhat sells newspapers is events not visits, yours is just another distillery.ââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ I said, never ever say that, you will rue the day you mis-call my distillery.ââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ
Four weeks later, he was fired!
Never, ever mis-call my distillery or you come to a sticky end!
"
http://www.lfw.co.uk/whisky_review/article14-2.html
Looks like Charlie boy was following orders, which is what a pilot should do, so not all the blame is his. His captain could have ordered a go around also, though that might be difficult to execute with such a tail wind.
Things would have been very different if that had happened. Blame pilot error for the plane coming off the runway and move on. Probably still be flying on Saturday.
It was a servicing error, they missed a spacer on the wheel assembly that caused the plane to drag to the side going down the runway, don't know if there was anything the pilot could have done
SMHarman
22-10-2003, 16:28
It was a servicing error, they missed a spacer on the wheel assembly that caused the plane to drag to the side going down the runway, don't know if there was anything the pilot could have done
As I said blamed pilot error. With a plane falling off a runway on take off roll and going up in smoke the blame could easily be placed in the hands of the pilot. Even if it was maintainance. To compare - when a 737 overshoots a runway or falls off it and crashes on take off we don't ground the model, just examine the specific incident.
A plane taking off with flames pouring from the wing obviously has something wrong with it that requires serious further investigation. Kevlar lining etc.
If the former had happened the fleet airworthiness cert. would prob. not have been lost and flying could have been resumed far earlier. Concorde seemed cursed thereafter. Did you know the BA route proving flight to JFK post repairs with 100 BA ees on board only got 1/2 way. It left on Sept 11 2001 and US airspace was closed before it could get there.
Well, we've all just :wavey: it off from Manchester Airport, such a damm shame :cry:
MadGamer
22-10-2003, 19:13
Such a shame that its going because ive always wanted to fly supersonic.
Maybe we'll be lucky and someone will develope a cheap supersonic plane in the future
I watched Concorde land and take off here at Manchester yesterday and I think it is a crying shame and a disgrace BA wouldn't contunue operating it or at least give Branson a chance (and who could say he wouldn't make a success of it ?).
It is testament to British engineering apart from being the most elegant aircraft in the sky. Even 30 years down the line it is still ahead of its time !
The Govt should make a contribution to a full refurb of the whole fleet to give them another 30 years or better, build new ones. Where has pride in British Engineering gone ??
Literally thousands of airport staff lined the runway and taxiways to wish her goodbye as the captain waved out of his window and on the radio he made an emotional thank you and farewell to the ATC. Even I felt a tear come to my eye as she climbed away on full afterburner !
Manchester is among the final 12 hoping to be successful in bids to have a Concorde permanently parked here.
SMHarman
23-10-2003, 09:57
Such a shame that its going because ive always wanted to fly supersonic.
Its quite a letdown in terms of an experience in that it really doesn't feel much different, which I suppose is testimony to how well engineered Concorde is.
Take off is a rush. Most heavies nowadays do rolling starts on the runway as the pull on straighten up and wind up the turbines. Concorde takes off from a standing start. The brakes are applied, the engines powered up and then the brakes released and you really feel a kick in the back. You also see all the seats cradle back as the pressure is applied.
Take off feels like it is quite a steep angle compared to a subsonic jet, but with the reheat there is certainly the power. Noise abatement procedures (did they always exist?) mean that soon after the take off roll starts reheat is cut and a dramatic change in pitch of the 'craft occurs.
You then bumble around in the 20k ft fighting with the subsonics for air space.
Once past Bristol (LHR-JFK) there is an announcement that the captain will be switching on the reheat again to accelerate to Supersonic cruise. I was standing at the time and you feel two kicks as they are switched on first outer then inner (I think). Mrs H was sitting and says she did not notice (she was also not well). This happened around 40+k ft. 38tonnes of fuel are spent to accelerate through the sound barrier.
Then as the 1.2 is reached they are switched off and the engines power on without reheat (one of the true pieces of design genius of the Concorde air intakes/ engines).
It gets very hot inside the plane. The skin lining is warm to touch. You are warm in shirt sleves. It is also very loud. Equivilant to sitting on the Northern Line flat out for 3 + Hours.
As the fuel load lightens she flies higher reaching 60k ft mid cruise. I forgot to look outside as I was looking after a temperamental baby (6 months old and overheated) and a sick wife, so others will tell you about the ink blue...
Dinner / Champagne etc, then that is all cleared the souveneer trolly (duty free) comes round and just as you get a chance to sit back and realise that there is no IFE the captain comes over the PA and announces that we will shortly be making our approach into JFK.
Landing requires a lot of brakes, but I have felt similar in subsonic planes trying to clear the runway early, and your there about 30 minutes before you left, with a sense of wow, thats a quick way across the atlantic. You realised why some families of 4 were on board and another couple of babes in arms, certainly keeps the kids amused, and you only need to do it for 3 hours. Shane Ritchie and his girlie were also on our flight. Didn't recognise anyone else famous, though coincidentally someone on another chat board (who has relatives at BA) was on the flight and tracked me down - spooky.
Service is fantastic, the Concorde lounge prior to takeoff is serving glasses of champagen that take about 1/4 a bottle. The Captain and crew come through to meet and greet and let you get your picture with them. It has big picture windows looking over the plane. Onboard a crew ratio of 1:15 also results in great service.
Its Cosy. Look at a World Traveller Plus seat (behind Business) next time you are on a Long Haul BA or Premium Economy on Virgin, that the size of a concorde seat, however they are very comfortable. Onboard it is also narrow and the isle is lower than the seating areas to give adeqate headroom.
To conclude Clinically efficient flight with efficient service in a party plane. Can't tell you how often you heard champagne corks popping. Just wish Mrs H was well enough to appreciate it - travel insurers - pah.
cjmillsnun
23-10-2003, 12:21
Am I wrong in thinking that prior to the crash BA and AF used different tyre suppliers. Neither used the Michellin NZG.
Correct,
BA used Dunlop (owned by Goodyear but (slighty) different construction) and AF used Goodyear
SMHarman
23-10-2003, 12:25
Correct,
BA used Dunlop (owned by Goodyear but (slighty) different construction) and AF used Goodyear
Thx. Have you had a chance to look at post 33 in this thread.
Do you know / can you recommend any good well researched web sites on the Paris Crash?
cjmillsnun
23-10-2003, 12:26
The shock wave in the fuel tank was caused by pieces of tyre hitting the wing. The tank was ruptured by this shock wave.
cjmillsnun
23-10-2003, 12:28
Thx. Have you had a chance to look at post 33 in this thread.
Do you know / can you recommend any good well researched web sites on the Paris Crash?
Yes, try www.concordesst.com and www.concorde-jet.com
Its a real shame - it was built so long ago and since then no-one has been able to match it which just doesnbt seem to make any sense, its a real shame that supersonic slight is going to be dying off, i just wish Virgin would be allowed to take them on!
Oh well, ill be watching it go by on its last day! :(
I agree. It's a retrograde step to allow a wonderful piece of technology like Concorde to go into a museum.
It's a shame too that Virgin weren't allowed to take over the Concordes because they were prepared to put in the money to maintain them which British Airways clearly would not.
Yet another example of a wasted opportunity.
Given that development costs exceeded £1 billion, I think it's a real pity that Virgin Atlantic were denied use of Concord. Moreover, the real tragedy is that no project for future development of SSTs were laid down. So now we are stuck with subsonic passenger aircraft for sometime to come.
:cool:
Given that development costs exceeded £1 billion, I think it's a real pity that Virgin Atlantic were denied use of Concord. Moreover, the real tragedy is that no project for future development of SSTs were laid down. So now we are stuck with subsonic passenger aircraft for sometime to come.
:cool:
I've posted something before on this thread which confirm's their is something in development. Its going to be Joint US/Russian and should be here around 2010. The plane should carry 300/400 people
SMHarman
23-10-2003, 17:24
I agree. It's a retrograde step to allow a wonderful piece of technology like Concorde to go into a museum.
It's a shame too that Virgin weren't allowed to take over the Concordes because they were prepared to put in the money to maintain them which British Airways clearly would not.
Yet another example of a wasted opportunity.
From what I understand the BA fleet operations were marginal and BA were prepared to carry that as a PR cost of running a supersonic fleet and the kudos it brought.
AF on the other hand were running them at 30% loads. At this level it was haemoraging cash.
WIth AF pulling out Airbus only had one customer using the product and decided it was no longer going to support it (bit like MsFt and Win 98) Airbus consider there to be better more modern alternatives out there (they just go slower).
Without Airbus support nobody can run them.
AF should have sold their fleet to VS. Then with 2 customers Airbus might have carried on supporting the product.
Blame the French not BA for this mess. BA are flying until the last day that Airbus are supporting Pax operations. Support for the rest of the year is around for ferry flights. After this there will be no certificate for it to fly under.
I've posted something before on this thread which confirm's their is something in development. Its going to be Joint US/Russian and should be here around 2010. The plane should carry 300/400 people
NASA pulled the plug on this about a year ago.
Northrup Grumman are testing a modified F-5E to see whether the shape of a supersonic aircraft impacts on the size and shape of the boom, but thats about it.
...snip...
Blame the French not BA for this mess. BA are flying until the last day that Airbus are supporting Pax operations. Support for the rest of the year is around for ferry flights. After this there will be no certificate for it to fly under.
Yes, Concorde was a great Anglo-French achievement. Ok, I'm sure you are well informed, but hold on, there was afterall a dreadful crash of an Air France Concorde and furthermore, the terrorist incidents in the USA, September 11, 2001 had an impact on premium trans Atlantic travel, and the general downturn in travel, I noted from a web site the following:
"Why IS Concorde being retired?
Concorde makes an tidy operating profit for the airlines, but with the aircraft approaching 30 years of age a large investment programme would be required to update many of the systems on board the aircraft. With the premium first class market as it is post September 11th 2001, there is no hope of the airlines being able to fund this investment and keep the aircraft in profit.
Therefore, the airlines decided to write off the current levels of investment in the aircraft, of around £100M, rather than risk having to write off sums that could top £200M in the coming years, if the premium travel market did not improve."
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/retireindex.html
Nothing there about problems of policy with Air France.
:cool:
SMHarman
24-10-2003, 10:21
Yes, Concorde was a great Anglo-French achievement. Ok, I'm sure you are well informed, but hold on, there was afterall a dreadful crash of an Air France Concorde and furthermore, the terrorist incidents in the USA, September 11, 2001 had an impact on premium trans Atlantic travel, and the general downturn in travel, I noted from a web site the following:
"Why IS Concorde being retired?
Concorde makes an tidy operating profit for the airlines, but with the aircraft approaching 30 years of age a large investment programme would be required to update many of the systems on board the aircraft. With the premium first class market as it is post September 11th 2001, there is no hope of the airlines being able to fund this investment and keep the aircraft in profit.
Therefore, the airlines decided to write off the current levels of investment in the aircraft, of around £100M, rather than risk having to write off sums that could top £200M in the coming years, if the premium travel market did not improve."
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/retireindex.html
Nothing there about problems of policy with Air France.
:cool:
But this compares to the statements of not long ago when they brought it back into service that no D checks were needed until 2008, so to keep it flying until then was relatively easy.
In addition to that significant levels of additional maintainance work were performed during the tank lining and this reduced the service requirements over the coming years
Updating the systems - possibly more for AF than BA. I note in the accident report that it was recomended that AF updated their engine management system to monitor each engine every second (like BA) up from the once every 4 seconds at present.
So stories have changed, the frames are low on hours and BA stopped the charters to keep the hours down.
Whats the truth - who knows.
The Diplomat
24-10-2003, 11:48
Call me an anorak... but I shall be watching..... BBC2 1530 today :(
Latest Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3209837.stm)
cjmillsnun
24-10-2003, 14:19
I've posted something before on this thread which confirm's their is something in development. Its going to be Joint US/Russian and should be here around 2010. The plane should carry 300/400 people
Defiant, the USA cancelled the money for this in 1999. This project (unfortunately) is not going ahead ATM
I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that the next gen planes will be using the earths orbit to get to place's faster. Lets hope so. It's a shame the EU does'nt caugh up the cash to get ahead of the competition
SMHarman
24-10-2003, 15:20
I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that the next gen planes will be using the earths orbit to get to place's faster. Lets hope so. It's a shame the EU does'nt caugh up the cash to get ahead of the competition
Er they have - its called the A380.
The A380-900 in shuttle (all economy) configuration will seat 900!!
The A380-800 (standard size) in three class configuration will seat 555 peeps and it uses about as much fuel as a 747-400. 351 peeps.
This takes it ahead of the competition.
As far as I know there is not competition for concorde as it is the only pax carrying Supersonic plane. Boeing and Airbus currently have no replacement on the drawing board.
IMHO the replacement will be supersonic business jets. A dozen 20 seaters and you could make a mint running a supersonic NY shuttle service.
There is no plane that can go into the earths orbit at present even concord can't do that as they all need air. The first plane to fly in orbit will have no air of course which will make it the fastest
Weren't beoing designing a supersonic jet, believing that was a better option to the super jumbos from Airbus?
Not sure if it's still going.
Call me an anorak... but I shall be watching..... BBC2 1530 today :(
Latest Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3209837.stm)
Watching her come in now on TV, she's so beautiful
so that's it, all over. :(
TigaSefi
24-10-2003, 16:16
I saw it fly past my office building in London..... wicked sight.
SMHarman
24-10-2003, 17:53
I saw it fly past my office building in London..... wicked sight.
Saw the three of them circle the Canary Wharf tower - great view from the upper floors.
There are some people making money on this!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2197181723&category=419&sspagename=rvi:1:3
vs
http://www.ba-shoppingtheworld.com/cgi-bin/stw.storefront/3f995664002a58a62745d9cc71e206de/Product/View/3326CBM
A tidy profit.
There's an impressive 360deg virtual tour of the cockpit over on the beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/concorde_retires/virtual_tours/html/default.stm).
Jarandco
24-10-2003, 22:22
I saw it whilst playing tennis!
We all just stopped and watched in silence, its such an amazing site and the last time we will ever see it! :cry:
BA are just so scraed that Virgin would make a lot of money from it, why cant BA just let Virgin try it so at least we can see it again flying the red colours of virgin. I am surprised that the government didnt get involved to keep it, i suppose they dont have much say anymore but they should have let Virgin have a go considering Virgin had everything ready to go.
Such a shame always an aircraft i dreamed of flying on! :cry:
I'm sure Branson said he'd be prepared for BA to keep their paintjob if they both went into keeping concorde flying
Jarandco
24-10-2003, 22:37
I'm sure Branson said he'd be prepared for BA to keep their paintjob if they both went into keeping concorde flying
Well whatever colour it is i still wanna see it in the sky! :( :cry:
homealone
24-10-2003, 23:19
Well whatever colour it is i still wanna see it in the sky! :( :cry:
It might "sound" silly - but I still want to hear it, I grew up on RAF bases & had family in the RAF during the 50's/60's - my cousins lived at a V bomber base, which included the Vulcan - that used the "same" engines as Concorde - it's like the merlin in the spitfire, a totally distinctive sound, that will now be another to bring a tear to my eye.:cry:
You guys are weird. (I just read the entire thread.)
What? We are weird because we are annoyed that one of the best planes in the world is being decommishoned?
The Diplomat
24-10-2003, 23:23
You guys are weird. (I just read the entire thread.)
The Greeks thought that not so long ago too. :)
No ic14, but it is just a plane, and there are far more efficient ones out there. And I wouldn't use the word "annoyed" here... "emotional" is more like it. :p
No ic14, but it is just a plane, and there are far more efficient ones out there. And I wouldn't use the word "annoyed" here... "emotional" is more like it. :p
Just a plane? Just a plane? JUST A PLANE?!?!
A boeing 737 is just a plane, a DC10 is just a plane, Concorde was not just a plane!
Bloody yank :D
What was so special about it, other than being very environmentally unfriendly... (yes I'm disturbing the greenies in here now).
What was so special about it, other than being very environmentally unfriendly... (yes I'm disturbing the greenies in here now).
If you have to ask you'll never get it *walks off with nose in the air*
And what do you mean "was"? It still is special!
:D
homealone
25-10-2003, 00:01
What was so special about it, other than being very environmentally unfriendly... (yes I'm disturbing the greenies in here now).
no more than the blackbird (SR71) - which I heard take off many times when I lived at RAF Mildenhall - Concorde was special because it used military technology to produce a commercial product in the 70's - don't forget some of the design was done in the 50's - it is a truly innovative aircraft.
You mean like the internet? Military technology to produce a commercial product?
homealone
25-10-2003, 00:21
You mean like the internet? Military technology to produce a commercial product?
no - it was the engines
the "olympus" jet engines used in Concorde used afterburners for take off & advanced "cruise control" technology for air intake while supersonic - checkout the F18 Hornet supercruise engine technology for advances on this?
The release of the this technology to the commercial sector was apparently not subject to the usual restrictions of a time delay - at the time?
Jarandco
25-10-2003, 21:21
Just a plane? Just a plane? JUST A PLANE?!?!
A boeing 737 is just a plane, a DC10 is just a plane, Concorde was not just a plane!
Bloody yank :D
I agree Concorde is so much more than a plane - firstly its the fastest the best looking and something Britain and France made together something which the world looked upon in amazment - sure the american space program was great but this was something a few more people could experience ( even if ticket prices were through the roof!)
And what do you mean "was"? It still is special!
Very True It still is and always will be special as its the first and only supersonic aircraft of its type since the 60's!!
Jarandco
25-10-2003, 21:23
It might "sound" silly - but I still want to hear it, I grew up on RAF bases & had family in the RAF during the 50's/60's - my cousins lived at a V bomber base, which included the Vulcan - that used the "same" engines as Concorde - it's like the merlin in the spitfire, a totally distinctive sound, that will now be another to bring a tear to my eye.:cry:
No i know what you mean by the sound although it was very loud it was always a sort of reasuring sound and something that people still looked up into the sky for even if it is 40 years old, i still looked at it everytime i saw it fly by and even more so since i knew i wouldnt see it anymore, such a shame that its the last time ill ever see it fly over again, but something ill remember forever! :)
no more than the blackbird (SR71) - which I heard take off many times when I lived at RAF Mildenhall - Concorde was special because it used military technology to produce a commercial product in the 70's - don't forget some of the design was done in the 50's - it is a truly innovative aircraft.
Most supersonic military aircraft even today can only sustain for short periods the speeds that concorde routinely achieved across the atlantic for hours at a time. It still is a remarkable machine, and as long as it's still in one piece, even in a museum, I won't give up hope of seeing it fly again. After all, there are still plenty of WW2 aircraft in the air, so why not Concorde?
According to a documentary I watched some time back, it hasn't been conclusively proved that the strip of metal was the cause of the accident. There was extra bags on board the plane which off-set the centre of gravity. In addition to this there were strong winds (Not sure which direction) and because of this, fuel was shifted to back of the plane to compensate for this. From these 2 imbalances, the plane is already unstable before it has even taken off.
Also, 3 firefighters', who were positioned closer than anyone else, statements claim that the trouble only started on the aircraft approx 100 yards (If I remember right) after the strip of metal was found. It is also interesting to note that the piece of metal was from the plane that had taken off before Concorde.
Most of this information was omitted from the final report by the BEA, although I'm not sure if this is because of any insignificance of the above or for other reasons.
Whoops, I only read the first page-didnt notice there were 6!!!! :blush:
SMHarman
27-10-2003, 09:23
What was so special about it, other than being very environmentally unfriendly... (yes I'm disturbing the greenies in here now).
Concordes ability to supercruise (fly faster than the speed of sound without the aid of afterburners / reheat) is a tecnological achievement that many jet manufacturers of today still have not achieved.
The number of aircraft that can do this (in service or not) can be counted on one hand.
On the environmental front. When compared to her 1960s/1970s peers she was not a noisy aricraft, in fact the first time she flew into NY she did not trip the noise sensors that were regularly being set off by Boeing 707s.
THe design and size were born of a pre 747 era, one when flying was exclusive and mass air transport did not exist. Perhaps if the design started in the 1970s the design would be for a 200+ seat plane, this would be far more commercially viable IMHO.
She shrank the world, (toward the end the atlantic). Most could not afford it, but the world became a bigger place on Friday, now it takes 7+hours to get to / from the USA.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.