FYI

[+Dave 2,322]

Here is something I do a CombatAce when I can find the pilots, anyone that is interested in flying should check out the latest one.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/topic/53332-an-interview-with-capt-robert-ward/

[OvS 8]

Here is something I do a CombatAce when I can find the pilots, anyone that is interested in flying should check out the latest one.

 

http://forum.combata...pt-robert-ward/

 

Sweet! Thanks for posting. I enjoyed it. It's always best to hear it from the mouth of the real pilot....

 

Hey... if you ever want to do an interview with a Mechanic... put me on the list... my 'short list' with BA... 747-100/200/400, 767-300ER, 757, Scarebus 340... and.... yes... the Concorde!!

 

OvS

[+Dave 2,322]

OVS I would love to hear about the Concord. I love that plane dearly.

[OvS 8]

OVS I would love to hear about the Concord. I love that plane dearly.

 

It's meant to fly... on the ground.. it's an f'n mess... you HAVE to wear a 'slicker' when you're under it.

 

Fueling it... a nightmare... fill each tank, one by one and make sure they're balanced... all on analogue gauges... slow and tedious.

 

Ask the questions... and I'll answer the best I can.

 

OvS

[Slartibartfast 153]

As to the lady that is concorde she was designed back in the 60's... when she was cutting edge technology...

[OvS 8]

As to the lady that is concorde she was designed back in the 60's... when she was cutting edge technology...

 

Ever sit in the cockpit? You wouldn't say that if you did... my Dad's reaction will never leave my mind... "It looks like a B-17... what the hell? This is the Concorde? You gotta be kiddin' me!"

 

She was a pilot's plane... a fighter jet that carried passengers. BA considered her for a EICAS/EFIS glass cockpit work-over, but structural questions and Air France ditching out of the pooling agreement after their incident killed her.

 

OvS

[Olham 164]

A bit like a bomber indeed - very crammed!

 

Perhaps she was a bit like that Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbirs" there?

On the ground a nightmare, but high up at service ceiling a super aircraft?

 

 

Edited February 22, 2010 by Olham

[Flyby PC 23]

Been on board the Concorde at East Fortune air museum, and it was not surpisingly a little cramped, but the cockpit did look very dated. If I remember correctly, there weren't many digital guages, but lots of switches that went click etc. As I understand it, Concorde flight crew had quite an esprit de corps, and by common consent, enjoyed their time on Concorde. One ex pilot told us that every time Concorde went supersonic, the passengers always cheered.

 

The also said despite her thirsty engines, her speed meant journey times were shorter, and in terms of efficiency, the cost in fuel useage per passenger was comparable to other jets.

 

Shame to see Concorde mothballed, especially in such tragic circumstances.

 

When I was in London, you could always tell when Concorde was coming in to land, because it was significantly louder, but everybody was proud of Concorde, rather than hostile to the noise.

 

Regarding the fuel tanks, I believe a maths teacher at school was on the design team for the fuel tanks. I'd be lying to say he was my teacher, but sister got him.

 

Back on topic, - had a quick browse USAFMTL, and look forward to reading it when I've got more time. More of the same definitely gets my vote.

[Bullethead 12]

You can easily see why the Concorde went so fast--it was those motorcycle-style handlebars that did it

 

 

[Schnitzel von Krumm 0]

You can easily see why the Concorde went so fast--it was those motorcycle-style handlebars that did it

 

 

 

They're called "ape hangers" aren't they?

 

Born to be wild, baby!

[OvS 8]

Been on board the Concorde at East Fortune air museum, and it was not surpisingly a little cramped, but the cockpit did look very dated. If I remember correctly, there weren't many digital guages, but lots of switches that went click etc. As I understand it, Concorde flight crew had quite an esprit de corps, and by common consent, enjoyed their time on Concorde. One ex pilot told us that every time Concorde went supersonic, the passengers always cheered.

 

The also said despite her thirsty engines, her speed meant journey times were shorter, and in terms of efficiency, the cost in fuel useage per passenger was comparable to other jets.

 

Shame to see Concorde mothballed, especially in such tragic circumstances.

 

When I was in London, you could always tell when Concorde was coming in to land, because it was significantly louder, but everybody was proud of Concorde, rather than hostile to the noise.

 

Regarding the fuel tanks, I believe a maths teacher at school was on the design team for the fuel tanks. I'd be lying to say he was my teacher, but sister got him.

 

Back on topic, - had a quick browse USAFMTL, and look forward to reading it when I've got more time. More of the same definitely gets my vote.

 

Loosing the Concorde was taking a huge step back in aviation... all we have now are bigger planes that carry more people and save fuel... but they are the same fuselage as a plane built in 1965.

 

OvS

[Flyby PC 23]

Loosing the Concorde was taking a huge step back in aviation... all we have now are bigger planes that carry more people and save fuel... but they are the same fuselage as a plane built in 1965.

 

OvS

 

 

I agree. It's very odd for Concorde to be 'obsolete' when there's nothing capable of replacing it. It is a step backwards.

[+Polovski 459]

If we heard Concorde was due to fly past at work we used to go outside to watch and hope to get some of the boom noise too - not many other passenger airplanes you'd do that for ;)

At least you got to work on it James close up, great stuff you are part of history :)

 

 

Thanks for the links and doing the interviews USAFMTL great stuff.

[OvS 8]

If we heard Concorde was due to fly past at work we used to go outside to watch and hope to get some of the boom noise too - not many other passenger airplanes you'd do that for ;)

At least you got to work on it James close up, great stuff you are part of history :)

 

 

Thanks for the links and doing the interviews USAFMTL great stuff.

 

 

I taxiied her a few times as well... but I never flew in her... I wish I did. Never really thought she'd ever be phased out. The last few flights she made were for BA staff only. They were all promo flights and positioning flights, where she would be 'laid to rest'. The flights were not super-sonic, all sub-sonic and across the US.

 

Why bother.

 

I remember so many cold mornings standing outside on the ladder to disconnect the GPU (Ground Power Unit) after she would air-start. The sound of the ASU's (Air start units) howling up and down like sirens, ramming the air in the start units, one engine at time. She'd come to life. Everything about that plane was loud and physically challenging as a mechanic, start to shut down. I guess you could compare it to working on an F-105, B-58, F-101... type fighter/bomber, as the technology was virtually the same.

 

The IDG's (Integrated Drive Generators... much like a car's alternators) were 60 lbs each... you had to stand under the engine, and lift it over your head... or use the 'jack', but as a 24yr old young buck... I WAS the jack, as the old-timers put it.

 

Thankfully, as a token for working on her for, I was given a piece of her history. The only known drawing of the complete fuel distribution system, hand drawn and signed by one of our local techs. It was certified by BA/Concorde/BAE back in the early 80's and used to hang on the wall of the tech library here at JFK. Somthing I'll pass on to my Grandkids, along with a few of the freebies they gave away aboard the flight.

 

OvS

[Von Paulus 8]

I remember well the day the first time she flew to Lisbon. I was a kid, and at the time it was announced that it would pass over Lisbon we went all to the windows to see her.

[JimAttrill 24]

I was lucky enough to be at Filton on a Pegasus course in 1969 and saw the Concordes being built. They took us to the engine test bed and the engineers there wound the engine up in full reheat to show us what it looked like. The whole jetpipe went white hot which made us realise why the pipes were made of such advanced alloys. Truly an amazing sight, and noisy even through double armoured glass. We were told that the engine gave off a lot of low-frequency vibrations which were felt in Bristol, even though they could not hear the silenced test bed running at that distance. The full-power runs were published in the local newspapers as some people suffered from extreme irritability without knowing why. For this reason the ground crew wore kidney belts when on start-up duties.

 

The guys at Filton were a bit p1ssed off at being force-merged with Rolls-Royce. To this day I insist that the Pegasus and Olympus are Bristol engines. Bristol was for many years the only manufacturer who made the whole aeroplane. The only other I can think of is some De Havilland early jet fighters, and some Junkers between the wars.

[OvS 8]

I was lucky enough to be at Filton on a Pegasus course in 1969 and saw the Concordes being built. They took us to the engine test bed and the engineers there wound the engine up in full reheat to show us what it looked like. The whole jetpipe went white hot which made us realise why the pipes were made of such advanced alloys. Truly an amazing sight, and noisy even through double armoured glass. We were told that the engine gave off a lot of low-frequency vibrations which were felt in Bristol, even though they could not hear the silenced test bed running at that distance. The full-power runs were published in the local newspapers as some people suffered from extreme irritability without knowing why. For this reason the ground crew wore kidney belts when on start-up duties.

 

The guys at Filton were a bit p1ssed off at being force-merged with Rolls-Royce. To this day I insist that the Pegasus and Olympus are Bristol engines. Bristol was for many years the only manufacturer who made the whole aeroplane. The only other I can think of is some De Havilland early jet fighters, and some Junkers between the wars.

 

The Concorde was a conglomerate joint operation between the BAE and other European companies. Walking around the plane you could see the technology that would become Airbus and Lockheed designs, especially in the landing gear. The RR/SNECMA Olympus 593 was a caged animal. It was rated at 40K lbs of thrust at full reheat during takeoff. So 160K kicking you in the ass was quite a feat for a passenger plane so small.

 

The engine itself, like you said, was aquired from BAE who slated it for the Vulcan bomber. No doubt this plane was meant to fly very fast.

 

Here is a nice breakdown of how the AIC (Air Intake Control) system worked during take-off, cruise, sub and super sonic... as well as failure. By the mid-90's The AICU's, which were the contol units for the doors, were costing BA/AF close to a million each when repaired or replaced. It was just not cost effect to keep this bird flying.

 

http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

 

OvS

[+Polovski 459]

Yes sad end really, they should have took you mechs up too James I think that would benefit everyone getting more of a feel of it. Working on it is pretty cool so well worth the story telling to the Grandkids.

[Bullethead 12]

I was lucky enough to be at Filton on a Pegasus course in 1969 and saw the Concordes being built.

 

I saw it fly twice. Once when I lived in the Los Angeles area, and once when I lived in Midland, Texas, both times when one of them was doing a demo hop outside its usual routes. But the only time I came closer than 5 miles to it was seeing one in a museum in the UK.

 

Very cool plane. Not particularly practical then or now, but no airliner has ever come close to its style points.

[Olham 164]

James, that must be a great memory - taxying the Concorde! Wow!

My memory of it is rather small, but nevertheless did I see he live.

She visited Berlin Tegel airport (only once), and it was said, that the Tegel runway was too short

for this aircraft, but they made an exception, and she could come over here.

 

I was just underway on my racing bike, when I saw an unfamiliar long stretched triangle "UFO",

approaching and descending in a wide turn. Then it lowered the nose, and I knew it was Concorde.

Later I saw it in the news. Here are two "memorial pics". The BW pic shows her landing in Tegel.

The colour pic shows her last flight, escorted by the "Red Arrows", a great British air show team.

 

 

 

[OvS 8]

... Not particularly practical then or now, but no airliner has ever come close to its style points.

 

That's a tough one to debate... with the advent of video conferencing, you could eliminate business travel all together. It really is not a neccessity anymore... unless you like to be personal.

 

But... in today's day and age, we should be going faster than MACH for pleasure travel. Think of the time saved... 2 hours to NYC over 7. Big difference You take off and arrive ealier than you left.

 

Presently, other than military expansion with the F-22, and the Ospery... aviation is at a total design stand still. The planes are self-reliant, and require little attention other than major failures. They require little pilot input, and can be flown by auto everything at this point... practically eliminating ATC as well other than bad weather conditions, and congestion.

 

The 777 is a slightly sleeker and more efficient design than the 767, which was initially designed back in the late 60's. Yes, more aero-dynamic, redundent... all that, I know, but I am talking about basic shape. The Concorde was a Delta wing... nothing like it since. The planes all look the same, other than their size, winglets, and capacity... imagine if an Airbus A380 crashes... 800+ dead in one shot. The amount of people we fly now is reaching an unhealthy state... so who knows if even these beheamouth size planes will last long.

 

Problem is aviaition has become a daily routine, so it lost it's 'experimental' stage whereas, we wanted to push the limits, get there faster, fly higher.. etc.. all those neat spices that makes the 'meat' taste so good. Now we've settled for slower, safer, and more efficient, which at this point, will never change unless we move into the anti-gravity stage. The fun days of aviation are gone, we're simply left with an industry that is much like riding a bus.... except you have the 'thrill' of dying because some over-the-top jackass has a vendetta against the world and shoves a wad of C-4 up his arse to make his point noteworthy.

 

Richard Branson is the only pioneer left in aviation, but his ideas will simply never be mainstream as the average Joe can't afford them... and they are not particularly practical anyway.

 

OvS

[Olham 164]

Times are a-changing so fast these days, that no one really knows, what comes next.

It may well be, that with a shrinking world economy and all the savings, civil aviation

may develop back to less passengers and higher prices again.

And then, Airbus may have bet on the wrong horse.

May even be, a new Concorde will be seen some day...

Edited February 24, 2010 by Olham

[Flyby PC 23]

Sounds a bit abstract, but I blame TV. Mass anaesthesia which reduces life to mere existence - and we are even forced to pay for it.

 

If you think about flying, the actual thrill of it, the speed , the height, the excitement, and compare that 'rush' to what you actually experience in a typical flight, - the whole business seems such a missed opportunity. I want to see everything. I want to see what countries and cities look like from the air. I want to watch the ground approaching as we come in to land. We fly, but have no perception of what it's actually like.

 

What has happened to peoples' curiosity?

 

Why do we collectively settle for such grey lives? We have more opportunites now than at any period in history, but we withdraw ourselves away from anything exciting or stimulating. We eat processed rubbish, we build crap houses, we drive cars which all look the same.

 

Where will it all end? When we achieve a state of absolute indifference?

 

 

 

 

[+Dave 2,322]

OVS

 

Do you have any pictures, of when you were there? I really want to put something together about your Concord experiences.

[Flyby PC 23]

You'll probably kick yourself USAFMTL, but prior to it's big crash, the Sim Outhouse boasted some stories from a Canadian WW2 veteran who flew as a tail gunner in a Lancaster. His Web name was Grandguy.

 

In one mission, we was engaged by Me262's, and the neighbouring aircraft to his own was shot down. He engaged one of the fighters but found his guns jammed, had to re-cock them manually, and by the time he was ready to fire, there was only time for a very short burst.

 

A second story he related was during one take off, the aircraft seemed to take a long time to take off, and when it did, it seemed to be flying over airstrip facilities. He thought little of it, but the pilot told him after the mission that in addition to braking, the take off could be kept straight by the engine revs. The pilot had been testing the theory, and had come dangerously close to colliding with the control tower and killing them all.

 

A third story I remember was during his gunnery training in Canada, flying in Fairey Battles. They were taken up in threes to practice their gunnery, but the Battle had a space in the floor where the recruits could stick their heads out the floor and look out at the scenery. When it was Grandguy's turn to have a look out through the floor, he held on to some rods to stop himself falling out. At once, the aircraft started to buck violently, and the pilot began swearing. That's how Grandguy learned where the control rods were in a Fairey Battle.

 

Sadly I heard Grandguy past away last year, and his stories were amongst the mass of data which was lost. I'm sure you'd have enjoyed a conversation with him, he was quite a gentleman.