Concorde.

[stuart]

Concorde goes into the new hangar at Filton today.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/concorde-o ... story.html

[stuart]

............

[stuart]

More pics.

[Boac]

It really was eye-wateringly beautiful.

[Cacophonix]

Hurrah! Good to hear.

Cue to pull Christopher Orlebar's beautiful The Concorde Story off my bookshelf again.

Caco

[Capetonian]

There's 'Delta Golf' at Brooklands, with a range of Concorde Experiences available on the beautifully preserved aircraft, including a simulated flight with Captain Mike Bannister in the driver's seat.

[stuart]

At last in the hangar.

[Capetonian]

This video/interview about the crash should of interest to many of you. I haven't watched it fully yet ....... have 7 hours on a train tomorrow to do so!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY

[Boac]

Yes, a re-telling of an incredible sequence of cock-ups. They would have 'got away with it' on the performance issues if it had not been for the tyre damage although the c of g would have required some nifty card-shuffling en-route.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Friend and colleague who flew Conc's. was always wary of tyres made by one of the two tyre manufacturers used - names witheld to protect the innocent, me! - always made a personal external inspection of the tyres fitted. One night, prior to a JFK night departure noticed that one of his suspect makes was fitted to the left bogey. On take off evidence of possible (?) tyre failure but too late to stop, and no other problems noticed, so continued the flight. Advised LHR to prepare for possible landing problems, LHR confirmed tyre debris left behind, apparently identified as one of the right hand tyres - they said, despite the crew's opinion otherwise.

No difficulty with the landing, and left hand failure confirmed, but .... debris from the tyre had left evidence of contact with the wing root - within 2 inches of where all three hydraulic services passed, nearly suffered a total hydraulic failure, which would have preceeded the Air France disaster by a few years, mightn't have done lower Manhattan much good, either ! He is still not convinced that the initial failure on Air France was due solely to the metal strip.

Another colleague also suffered tyre failure ex-JFK, but at a speed which allowed a successful stop.

[Cacophonix]

was always wary of tyres made by one of the two tyre manufacturers used

Not Dunlop (BA) or Goodyear (Air France) surely? They originally provided the tyre on the nose wheel and the carbon fibre brakes. Ah you must mean Michelin!

Seriously though I do remember reading that one could expect a tyre failure on the Concorde approximately once every 4000 hours and that altogether there were 57 such events in the two fleets over the bird's flying life (thus encompassing all tyre manufacturers). To put that number into perspective it represents a +- 60 times greater likelihood of a tyre failure on the Concorde than an A340 (for example) over the same number of hours. Tyre wear and potential failure was an issue with the aircraft type or the operation thereof more than just any tyre fault methinks although undoubtedly the primary cause of the chain of events that caused the final accident was the Michelin tyre coming unglued after encountering FOD on the runway!

https://www.thinkreliability.com/case_s ... -concorde/

The cause and effect diagram in the article above is interesting but avoids the questions about the spacer and the other flying factors alluded to by Boac above. Fascinating subject and a sad end to probably one of the most iconic aircraft of all time.

Caco

[ExSp33db1rd]

Caco - no, see PM. My lips are publicly sealed. Paranoid ? Moi ?

[Cacophonix]

Thanks for that ExSp33db1rd.

Some tyre manufacturers even used Concorde in adverts to show what high pressures, speeds etc. their tyres had to endure ...

Tyre.JPG (121.29 KiB) Viewed 622 times

Caco

[Cacophonix]

Seriously though I do remember reading that one could expect a tyre failure on the Concorde approximately once every 4000 hours and that altogether there were 57 such events in the two fleets over the bird's flying life (thus encompassing all tyre manufacturers). To put that number into perspective it represents a +- 60 times greater likelihood of a tyre failure on the Concorde than an A340 (for example) over the same number of hours. Tyre wear and potential failure was an issue with the aircraft type or the operation thereof more than just any tyre fault methinks although undoubtedly the primary cause of the chain of events that caused the final accident was the Michelin tyre coming unglued after encountering FOD on the runway!

Should read Goodyear! And no that was not the tyre manufacturer that ExSp33b!rd was talking about!

Michelin has unveiled tyres for the Concorde supersonic jet that the French manufacturer says are more resistant to damage.

The Radial NZG, which stands for "near zero growth," is Michelin's response to last July's crash of an Air France Concorde, which went down shortly after taking off from Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, killing 113 people -- 100 passengers, nine crew and four on the ground.

An ongoing investigation reveals the accident was probably caused when one of the jet's Goodyear tyres burst, sending debris into the fuselage and fuel tank, which led to a fire and then engine failure.

From CNN

MICHELIN NZG TYRES
At EADS' request, Michelin was developed a new tire technology for Concorde and other new aircraft such as the Airbus A340-600 and A380 'Super-Jumbo', the tyre had been in development at the time of last years crash(since 1999), but work was subsequently speeded up.

In the weeks that followed the tragic Concorde accident, EADS contacted tyre manufacturers across the world, including Michelin, to find out if any research was under way to improve the resistance of tires to damage by foreign objects. Michelin unveiled its last innovation of radial technology: the radial NZG.

This new aircraft tire technology, christened NZG for "Near Zero Growth", uses a high-modulus reinforcement material. This offers higher damage resistance and substantial weight gains, two key qualities in the field of aviation.

" We think that this new tire will be a significant element for the process of re-certification of Concorde ", declared Pierre Desmarets, general manager of aviation activity at Michelin.

These tires were tested on an Air France Concorde (F-BTSD), again at Istres the military test base in the Rhone delta region of France, during a series of ground and flight tests that took place in May

http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/mods.html


I should also point out that the statistic I "remembered" above appears highly skewed (probably due to incorrect factoring for differing fleet sizes) but, the statistical accuracy aside, the number of tyre related incidents, including 7 incidents that damaged fuel tanks, was high for the Concorde.

Caco

[probes]

Thanks for the links, Caco!
From the interview - the Captain must have had a reason to want max fuel?

[Boac]

the Captain must have had a reason to want max fuel?

- it's called 'operating Concorde'. Several instances of extremely tight arrival fuels in its history in BA. Thus the desire to squeeze on as much as possible. Mind you, not restricted to Concorde I once washed Paphos apron with fuel spilt from the overflows on a 737. Needs must!

[Cacophonix]

From the interview - the Captain must have had a reason to want max fuel?

Given the fact that the aircraft took off with an 8 knot tailwind it appears it was 6 tons above the maximum take off weight. One assumes that the pilot took on extra fuel assuming a headwind and a burn off of fuel while taxying. As a result of the wind direction change the aircraft was overweight at take off. The extra weight created a CG issue as Boac has said due to the load of baggage at the rear of the aircraft and the additional fuel which went into the rear tanks. Add to that the fact the missing spacer may have impeded acceleration and might have even resulted in early rotation in order to prevent departure from the edge of the runway (one of the edge landing lights was broken) and one is left looking at the fact that aircraft was low on energy notwithstanding the tyre failure and engine issue. Low on energy, with the CG out of the envelope, on fire with the engine loss it only required one more issue to make further flight untenable and this probably came as the fuel from the forward tanks gushed out and burned exacerbating the aft CG.

What an awful situation. Nose high, high alpha, induced drag and the inexorable mush towards terra firma!

Caco

[Boac]

a burn off of fuel while taxying

- increasing taxy fuel is a 'known' scam for getting more fuel on the ramp than max take-off weight allows. It is dangerous when taken to these lengths.

Apart from many other factors, the flight was doomed when No 2 was shut down. I once saw a figure for the 3 engine safety speed for Concorde and they had no chance of making it.

[Cacophonix]

a burn off of fuel while taxying

- increasing taxy fuel is a 'known' scam for getting more fuel on the ramp than max take-off weight allows. It is dangerous when taken to these lengths.

One wonders if the "scam" almost became an unwritten operational norm given the very tight fuel margins the aircraft had?

Caco

[ExSp33db1rd]

Our 747 F flight manual had a ....quote .. Max. Wt at start of Taxy, ie. a ramp weight in excess of max take off weight. Loading extra fuel for long anticipated taxy resulted in us slightly exceeding even that. The Capt. ordered the crew bags removed to achieve the max. wt. We objected, he said "Trust me." Bags unloaded, loadsheet amended and legally signed, engines started, aircraft pushed back, moved forward under own power about 3 feet, stopped, crew bags re-loaded. WTF ? It says max weight at start of taxy, said the Capt. nowhere does the flight manual say that the weight can't increase during the taxy. QED. He held a law degree.