photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows

On 2015-09-23 08:22, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 17:11:44 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-22 11:49, Whisky-dave wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-museum.html




Excellent! Really like the over water shots - including the shadows on
water.

yes it's not something you see very often.


There is a group in England who have raised some $120 (or £ - not
sure which)

which ever 120 is not a lo, but a few 0s on the end then I'l believe
it.

Sorry.
120M. Not insignificant.


in order to buy or lease an Air France Concorde which would be used
for air shows and perhaps charter flights[1]. A 2nd one would be
put on static display - perhaps alongside the 'eye' in London.

not much space there.

The Concorde is not a big airplane. 25 m (±) wingspan. Alongside would
be on a platform over the Thames.


A friend of mine went up in a spitfire a few weeks ago, apparently
you can apply to go up, he wouldn;t say how much it cost but rumours
seem to indicate between 2,000 & 5,000 quid.

I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised
how small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a
supersonic jet.

Yep.

My father flew Paris/Kennedy once. Helo to LGA, thence home.



Among the group's leaders are former BA pilots. BA itself is on
the sidelines as all its Concordes have been consigned to museum
type roles (leased or lent out).

[1] The fateful crash happened to be a charter flight.

On 2015-09-24 11:01, Mort wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised how
small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a supersonic
jet.

I spoke with a man who flew the Concorde several times. He was not very
tall, and said that he could not stand up straight in that airplane, as
it was small inside. His best memory of his flights: getting a manicure
in his seat.

Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely
situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at
supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to

Fuel is used as a coolant in main rocket engine cones.

Fuel is used as a coolant in your car engine (run rich)

Fuel has great cooling properties.

Fuel does not burn or explode absent oxidant. And the wings on most
large aircraft are wet in any case.


heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium
ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane.

It was smart to use Li-ion. It was the height of stupidity to select a
non Aerospace battery maker in Japan as putting "business" in Japan was
part of winning ANA/JAL contracts.

(The wings, wingbox and forward plug are made there too - at least by
qualified aerospace co's).

On 2015-09-24 11:31, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-24 15:01:26 +0000, Mort said:

Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely
situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at
supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to
heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium
ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane.

Not as looney as the all titanium SR71 which leaked fuel on the ground
and until the fuselage skin had heated up in supersonic flight and
expanded to seal the tanks. Then it would top up the tanks with mid-air
refueling and complete the mission.

The fuel used by the SR-71 is very high flashpoint. It's pre-heated
before the nozzles inside the engine get it.

On 2015-09-24 16:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:01:26 -0400, Mort wrote:

Whisky-dave wrote:
I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised how small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a supersonic jet.

I spoke with a man who flew the Concorde several times. He was not very
tall, and said that he could not stand up straight in that airplane, as
it was small inside. His best memory of his flights: getting a manicure
in his seat.

Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely
situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at
supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to
heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium
ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane.

The heat of supersonic flight would have cooked the passengers and
crew if there wasn't something to absorb the heat. Using the fuel made
sense as the absorbed heat ended up being dumped in the engines and
contributing to the thrust.

The fuel was used not only to help keep people cool but to maintain
the fore and aft trim of the aircraft. The centre of lift changed
considerably as the speed increased and literally tons of fuel were
pumped backwards and forwards to keep the aircraft in balance.


Fuel is also pumped from the center tank into the vertical stabilizer on
the 747-400 (and probably other later versions) in cruise in order to
move the COG back.

This reduces the necessary downforce on the horizontal stabilizer and
therefore less drag and fuel consumption. This also reduces the
longitudinal stability and rudder effectiveness but the former is not so
much an issue in cruise and the later hardly used in cruise at all.

On descent that fuel is moved back to the center tank.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:17:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mort
wrote:

Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely
situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at
supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to
heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium
ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane.

neither is stupid.

also, concorde had 11 fuel tanks and 2 auxiliary tanks, with the fuel
moved between them during flight to shift the cog.

Irrelevant obfuscation does not change the facts.The thin skin tore from
a small metal fragment on the runway, and the exposed fuel tank caught
fire, killing everyone on board. I do not care if it had 2 tanks or 22;
the stupid design killed people.

that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally
brought up.

furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it
punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a
stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact.

It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear
which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the
usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run
over the metal debris on the runway.

the crash was due to a combination of events, including human error. it
was also the *only* crash in concorde's history.

http://www.askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/
The plane went down not because of any fire, directly, but because
1., it was flying too slowly; 2., it was several tons overweight and
beyond its aft center of gravity limit; 3., two of its four engines
were damaged or erroneously shut down.

.... and by the time that it took off a change in wind direction meant
that it was taking off down wind. And yes, in the stress of the
moment, the copilot shut down engines when he intended to open them
up.
...

An investigation by The Observer suggests the truth is much more
complicated. In the words of John Hutchinson, a Concorde captain for
15 years, the fire on its own should have been ³eminently survivable;
the pilot should have been able to fly his way out of trouble.² The
reason why he failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal
combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have
been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which
were avoidable.

...

Shocking evidence now emerging suggests that the Air France Concorde
F-BTSC had not been properly maintained. The airline¹s ground staff
had failed to replace a ³spacer² ‹ a vital component of the landing
gear which keeps the wheels in proper alignment. Although the BEA
disputes it, there is compelling evidence that it was the missing
spacer which may have caused the plane to skew to the left, so
forcing Marty to leave the ground too early.

At the same time, the plane was operating outside its legally
certified limits. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to
roll, it was more than six tonnes over its approved maximum takeoff
weight for the given conditions, with its centre of gravity pushed
dangerously far to the rear. Even before the blowout, Marty was
already pushing the envelope.

...

The BEA¹s critics say that once the tyre burst, the load on the three
remaining tyres became uneven, and even if the wheels had been more
or less straight before, they now twisted disastrously to the side.
The smoking gun is a remarkable series of photographs in the BEA¹s
own preliminary report. They show unmistakably the skid marks of four
tyres, heading off the runway on to its concrete shoulder, almost
reaching the rough grass beyond.

...

A plane¹s centre of gravity is expressed as a percentage: so many per
cent fore or aft. Brian Trubshaw and John Cochrane, Concorde¹s two
test pilots when the aircraft was being developed in the early 1970s,
set the aft operating limit at 54 per cent ‹ beyond that, they found,
it risked becoming uncontrollable, likely to rear up backwards and
crash, exactly as Flight 4590 did in its final moments over Gonesse.

The doomed plane¹s centre of gravity went beyond 54 per cent. The BEA
states a figure of 54.2 per cent. A senior industry source, who
cannot be named for contractual reasons, says the true figure may
have been worse: with the extra fuel and bags, it may have been up to
54.6 per cent. And as the fuel gushed from the hole in the forward
tank, the centre of gravity moved still further back.

When the plane was just 25 feet off the ground, Gilles Jardinaud, the
flight engineer, shut down the ailing number two engine. Both French
and British pilots say it was another disastrous mistake, which
breached all set procedures. The engine itself was not on fire, and
as the tank emptied and the fire burnt itself out, it would probably
have recovered. The fixed drill for shutting down an engine requires
the crew to wait until the flight is stable at 400 feet, and to do so
then only on a set of commands from the captain.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally
brought up.

furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it
punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a
stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact.

It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear
which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the
usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run
over the metal debris on the runway.

the metal debris could have been anywhere.

it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it
could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over
by a tire had the plane stayed on track.

it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk
when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:13:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally
brought up.

furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it
punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a
stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact.

It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear
which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the
usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run
over the metal debris on the runway.

the metal debris could have been anywhere.

Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just
'anywhere'.

it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it
could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over
by a tire had the plane stayed on track.

It could have, but it didn't.

it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk
when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit.

True, but he was and he was.

I'm not going to take this further.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally
brought up.

furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it
punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a
stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact.

It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear
which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the
usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run
over the metal debris on the runway.

the metal debris could have been anywhere.

Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just
'anywhere'.

the debris could have landed anywhere.

there is no 'debris goes here when falling off a plane' spot on a
runway.

it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it
could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over
by a tire had the plane stayed on track.

It could have, but it didn't.

and?

it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk
when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit.

True, but he was and he was.

he got hit because the driver ****ed up, not because he was standing on
the sidewalk.

I'm not going to take this further.

good, because you're talking nonsense.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:06:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally
brought up.

furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it
punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a
stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact.

It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear
which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the
usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run
over the metal debris on the runway.

the metal debris could have been anywhere.

Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just
'anywhere'.

the debris could have landed anywhere.

there is no 'debris goes here when falling off a plane' spot on a
runway.

it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it
could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over
by a tire had the plane stayed on track.

It could have, but it didn't.

and?

it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk
when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit.

True, but he was and he was.

he got hit because the driver ****ed up, not because he was standing on
the sidewalk.

I'm not going to take this further.

good, because you're talking nonsense.

Ignoramus
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens