Discussion
My YouTube recommendations have come up trumps again with a nice little piece on the Concorde 101 prototype at Duxford with one of the test engineers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh3ty6wp6qQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh3ty6wp6qQ
Concorde has recently been released on Microsoft Flight Simulator, so it's kind of rekindled my interest in the plane. Such a shame that it was grounded in 2000 after the Paris incident, caused by another plane shedding a razor sharp engine casing on the runway before Concorde took off.
The 101 prototype at Duxford is really interesting to go and see. Amazing that the nose can still be lifted 40ish years later.
The 101 prototype at Duxford is really interesting to go and see. Amazing that the nose can still be lifted 40ish years later.
Edited by FatboyKim on Wednesday 4th May 10:55
FatboyKim said:
Concorde has recently been released on Microsoft Flight Simulator, so it's kind of rekindled my interest in the plane. Such a shame that it was grounded in 2000 after the Paris incident, caused by another plane shedding a razor sharp engine casing on the runway before Concorde took off.
It was back in service for a year or two after that. But that incident certainly brought forward the final grounding.As is usual with air disasters it was an unfortunate chain of events which led to the crash, it is likely that a single issue such as the metal on the runway would not have caused the disaster but combined with other factors they sealed it's fate.
As has been mentioned, there had been 57 instances of tyres bursting, 5 or 6 of which ruptured fuel tanks but non had led to an accident.
Air France had not made the recommended modification to strengthen the tank or wing, BA had.
There was an improved tyre but Air France did not use it. BA did.
The plane was overweight at take-off, it was chartered for a group of (mostly German) tourists embarking on a luxurious world cruise. There was a lot of luggage onboard. This caused the aircraft to travel further down the runway before takeoff. It then ran over the metal strip.
It was a downwind takeoff - so travelled further down the runway (running over the metal strip)
The flight was over an hour late for departure so did not taxi to the other end of the runway to take off into the wind
The fuel tanks were overfilled, probably on purpose due to the extra weight or because of fuel transfer during taxi overfilled the wing tank, either way, this meant that the shockwave caused by the debris had nowhere to go resulting in the rupture.
The tyre debris did not puncture the fuel tank. It was ruptured by the shockwave
5 minutes before the flight took off, a Continental airlines DC10 took off and lost a titanium strip due to improper maintenance procedures
In preparation for a Concorde take off, a runway inspection is normal. French authorities acknowledge that this did not take place
During recent maintenance a wheel spacer had not been re-fitted to the left landing gear on re-assembly. This caused the aircraft to veer to the left as the left gear skewed.
Despite all of the above, a French court ruled that Continental were responsible for the accident.
As has been mentioned, there had been 57 instances of tyres bursting, 5 or 6 of which ruptured fuel tanks but non had led to an accident.
Air France had not made the recommended modification to strengthen the tank or wing, BA had.
There was an improved tyre but Air France did not use it. BA did.
The plane was overweight at take-off, it was chartered for a group of (mostly German) tourists embarking on a luxurious world cruise. There was a lot of luggage onboard. This caused the aircraft to travel further down the runway before takeoff. It then ran over the metal strip.
It was a downwind takeoff - so travelled further down the runway (running over the metal strip)
The flight was over an hour late for departure so did not taxi to the other end of the runway to take off into the wind
The fuel tanks were overfilled, probably on purpose due to the extra weight or because of fuel transfer during taxi overfilled the wing tank, either way, this meant that the shockwave caused by the debris had nowhere to go resulting in the rupture.
The tyre debris did not puncture the fuel tank. It was ruptured by the shockwave
5 minutes before the flight took off, a Continental airlines DC10 took off and lost a titanium strip due to improper maintenance procedures
In preparation for a Concorde take off, a runway inspection is normal. French authorities acknowledge that this did not take place
During recent maintenance a wheel spacer had not been re-fitted to the left landing gear on re-assembly. This caused the aircraft to veer to the left as the left gear skewed.
Despite all of the above, a French court ruled that Continental were responsible for the accident.
Fox has it right, it was not just the strip on the run way, the plane was full of fuel meaning it went further down the strip, etc etc, it was just a horrible series of events.
But being honest, they got the best out of her that they could, it was hampered from the start with the sonic boom stuff meaning it could not do what it was initially envisioned to do, meaning also it was hard to sell it to anyone.
That legacy is STILL with us if you recall the garbage printed in the media every time a Typhoon intercepts something and breaks a few windows, annoying yes, but all part of a very good and proper air defence unit,
And also I might add sometimes due to gormless, drunk cretins on planes acting so stupidly they should never be allowed on a plane again.
But being honest, they got the best out of her that they could, it was hampered from the start with the sonic boom stuff meaning it could not do what it was initially envisioned to do, meaning also it was hard to sell it to anyone.
That legacy is STILL with us if you recall the garbage printed in the media every time a Typhoon intercepts something and breaks a few windows, annoying yes, but all part of a very good and proper air defence unit,
And also I might add sometimes due to gormless, drunk cretins on planes acting so stupidly they should never be allowed on a plane again.
I have this video in my YouTube favorites, not sure why but find it quite emotive.
https://youtu.be/v9bVFkDhGPE
https://youtu.be/v9bVFkDhGPE
The always interesting Concorde Captain John Hutchinson explaining the Air France crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqOcYhzWUZY
None of the American airframe manufacturers were really keen on building a supersonic airliner. They were very doubtful that there was a demand from the major airlines for such an aeroplane. They all stated that they would only go ahead if there was government support in the form of up front cash. The Kennedy administration was keen that the US did not fall behind in airliner technology so, like the race to the moon, they decided to make the project a national priority and fund the development of a supersonic airliner.
A number of companies put in a bid for the contract and Boeing won PRECISELY because their design was (on paper) much more advanced than Concorde - and bigger. However, there were no launch orders from potential customer airlines. And don't forget, the only launch orders received for Concorde were from the two state airlines, Air France and BOAC.
In the end, Boeing's proposal proved too ambitions and they had to revise the design a number of times. By 1971 the Nixon administration was far less keen on supporting such projects and pulled the plug. With government support gone, Boeing had no appetite for continuing and cancelled the project.
A number of companies put in a bid for the contract and Boeing won PRECISELY because their design was (on paper) much more advanced than Concorde - and bigger. However, there were no launch orders from potential customer airlines. And don't forget, the only launch orders received for Concorde were from the two state airlines, Air France and BOAC.
In the end, Boeing's proposal proved too ambitions and they had to revise the design a number of times. By 1971 the Nixon administration was far less keen on supporting such projects and pulled the plug. With government support gone, Boeing had no appetite for continuing and cancelled the project.
Thing is, they (big powers Euro,Russia nd US) all tried it, and the Euro bid only really got over the line due to the nature of the contract written, in that if either side baled they had to take the financial hit, so it was a very clever, or ruthless contract in the first place.
And the Konkordski as with most Russian stuff back then flew first but was very rough around the edges, oddly enough later to be flown by NASA for many years!
And let's also be clear the Americans started scores of projects and bailed on them, Hustler, Valkyrie, even the initial B1 project.
And the Konkordski as with most Russian stuff back then flew first but was very rough around the edges, oddly enough later to be flown by NASA for many years!
And let's also be clear the Americans started scores of projects and bailed on them, Hustler, Valkyrie, even the initial B1 project.
Eric Mc said:
None of the American airframe manufacturers were really keen on building a supersonic airliner. They were very doubtful that there was a demand from the major airlines for such an aeroplane. They all stated that they would only go ahead if there was government support in the form of up front cash. The Kennedy administration was keen that the US did not fall behind in airliner technology so, like the race to the moon, they decided to make the project a national priority and fund the development of a supersonic airliner.
A number of companies put in a bid for the contract and Boeing won PRECISELY because their design was (on paper) much more advanced than Concorde - and bigger. However, there were no launch orders from potential customer airlines. And don't forget, the only launch orders received for Concorde were from the two state airlines, Air France and BOAC.
In the end, Boeing's proposal proved too ambitions and they had to revise the design a number of times. By 1971 the Nixon administration was far less keen on supporting such projects and pulled the plug. With government support gone, Boeing had no appetite for continuing and cancelled the project.
I'm pretty sure Pepsi ran one as a private executive runabout for a while too. A number of companies put in a bid for the contract and Boeing won PRECISELY because their design was (on paper) much more advanced than Concorde - and bigger. However, there were no launch orders from potential customer airlines. And don't forget, the only launch orders received for Concorde were from the two state airlines, Air France and BOAC.
In the end, Boeing's proposal proved too ambitions and they had to revise the design a number of times. By 1971 the Nixon administration was far less keen on supporting such projects and pulled the plug. With government support gone, Boeing had no appetite for continuing and cancelled the project.
Later in its service life there were a few "special" operations involving the 15 only production aircraft. Air France painted one Concorde in a special sponsored "Pepsi" livery (which restricted the airspeed due to thermal load limitations - Concorde was all over white for a reason).
BA did a deal with Braniff Airlines in the US although they remained in BA colours. These Braniff flights were restricted to subsonic speeds over the Continental US.
One BA aircraft was painted on one side in Singapore Airlines colours - and it looked quite nice.
A Braniff operated BA Concorde - note the American registration
The Pepsi liveried Concorde -
BA did a deal with Braniff Airlines in the US although they remained in BA colours. These Braniff flights were restricted to subsonic speeds over the Continental US.
One BA aircraft was painted on one side in Singapore Airlines colours - and it looked quite nice.
A Braniff operated BA Concorde - note the American registration
The Pepsi liveried Concorde -
bad company said:
I went to 4 lectures on a Cunard cruise presented by a former BA Concord Captain. When it all went wrong he took some delight in blaming the French. He may have had a point though.
He did.An old acquaintance, now since departed, worked for BA on the Concorde fleet for nearly 20 years, and although he retired just prior to the Paris crash, had always said that AF had wanted to stop operating it years before, and had never done any of the ongoing mods that BA had done, and AF treated Concorde ops with distain. BA had for years dreaded a AF Concorde crash, as it knew that such an event, would spell the end of Concorde ops for them as well, especially after BAe withdrew from the civil aviation sector, and thereby handing over full DA support to Airbus, who also really wanted nothing to do with it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff