Jump to content

Pushing Concorde's limit - PHNL-NZAA


Ray Proudfoot

Recommended Posts

Ray Proudfoot

Always keen to push Concorde to the limit I flew my longest route today. PHNL-NZAA - Honolulu to Auckland. In the real world this route was probably never flown but in a simulation anything goes.

It's 175nm further than EGLL-TBPB (Heathrow-Barbados) at 3837nm but has three advantages over that route.

1) After take-off and turning south you're immediately over the ocean so no 250kt below 10,000ft limit.

2) No levelling out for the subsonic leg. Continuous climb all the way to the decel point. And at the other end a standard decel and descent but still adhering to the 250kt/10,000ft rule.

3) Very cold troposphere where I recorded ISA deviations of -25C. You'll hardly ever get that in the North Atlantic.

Loaded with 95T of fuel and a take-off CG of 54% this is a challenging flight. I handled fuel myself and towards the end of cruise/climb had to pump fuel out of 11 into 5 and 8 for the 4 feeder tanks but had to leave it as late as possible otherwise CG would have gone too far forward. I have no idea how well the VFE will handle this. Fuel in the main feeder tanks dropped to around 300Kg. I don't see how to avoid this.

I landed with around 8.5T remaining which was pretty close to the estimate by CPS-X. If you want the ultimate challenge then try it. Here's the plan. I departed PHNL around 8.30am local with very low visibility. AS16 in Historical Wx mode was used for planning and the flight.

OPIHI DCT DATBE DCT 15N161W 10N163W 06N165W 02N167W 00N168W 05S170W 10S172W 14S174W 17S175W 20S176W DCT POPIR DCT MALNI DCT TARIB DCT OKTUB DCT EXOPI

Your decel point is TARIB assuming you reach FL590.

One final point. If you use CPS-X then the holding flight level needs changing to 120 and holding time reducing to 35m. This avoids an error being generated. You are limited to around 57 pax.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Kyprianos Biris
10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

feeder tanks dropped to around 300Kg. I don't see how to avoid this.

You could start up right at the runway holding point and gain an extra ton of fuel!

I suppose the INSs alignment was quite off by the time you got in range of WP/AA VORs but same happens also in the Barbados route anyway.

When I was planning the route network of the VA I fly for I considered this route for the Honolulu hub but in the end I did not add it in the schedule as I considered it too stretched to the limits for public transport category LOL!

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Hi Kyp,

The taxi to 26R wasn't too long. Maybe if it was 08L I was have considered it.

I've never had a problem with the INSs going out of alignment. Don't know why. I can monitor things on EFB and the aircraft stayed on course.

I'm curious about the minimum amount of fuel in tanks 1-4 before rules are broken. There's no way of keeping them above 1T without pumping fuel but if you do that you have to descend which in turn eats more fuel.

Give it a go. Choose an early morning departure so temps are as low as poss.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Being the glutton for punishment that I am I'm now flying the return leg. Winds are more favourable this time.

One glitch so far. Activating AT1 at M1.7 eventually resulted in an overspeed warning because the aircraft was descending but with engines throttled back to around 95 N2. Odd. Switched AT1 off, engaged Pitch Hold and adjusted pitch to get back into a gentle climb. One stabilised MACH HOLD was engaged but with AT1 off. Seems to be fine.

Here's the route for anyone interested...

TARIB G347 MALNI DCT KADEN DCT POPIR DCT UBRAX DCT DAKAM DCT 10S172W 05S170W 00N168W 05N166W 10N164W 15N161W DCT CARRP DCT OPACA

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Indeed it is James but it's about to start getting serious. 920nm to run and 22.1T of fuel remaining. All in 1-4 and 10.5T in 11. Trying to keep 1-4 levels high whilst keeping the CG within limits is about as hard as it gets.

These Airbus and Boeing pilots have it easy with their elevator trim and poncy glass cockpits! :D PS, no offence, I see you're a 320 pilot too. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Hi Ray,

the minimum in the collector tanks (1 - 4) is 1000kg because below that you get a fuel gauge error.  There is a table in the cruise manual that states the minimum fuel required for supersonic cruise, I might have posted it before but as a general rule when you get to 1500kg in the collector tanks you have to pump fuel from T11 forward into 5 & 7, until you reach the forward CG limit in the cruise. That fuel can then be pumped from 5 & 7 into the collector tanks 1 - 4 for use.  When you get back down to near 1000kg and you are already at the forward CG limit then you must slow down. 

Sounds like you had fun which is good.  Not sure that route would be approved for real though...! 

Normal route would use a stop in Fiji.

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Hi Frazz,

Thanks for that info. I suspected 1000Kg was the minimum in 1-4 as the light comes on once below it. I tried pumping forward from 11 earlier and concentrated on 1 and 4 as those had the least amount of fuel.

But alas, it was impossible to keep a minimum of 1000 in all 4 tanks. How much would I slow down? And is slowing down preferable to going down but maintaining Mach 2.0?

It is a lot of fun trying to fly close to the maximum range. If those fuel rules had to be adhered to it makes you wonder how on earth the 1000Kg rule was never broken.

I think the descent table needs tweaking for P3D as I always reach FL360 after the calculated point but thereafter reach lower altitudes too quickly.

Link to comment

To be honest, those rules were followed and hence the table with the minimum fuel for continued supercruise.  So I must confess if I were planning that flight and saw the figures I would be doing a technical stop in Fiji for fuel!  I did a quick plan (mentally) using the planning figures from the cruise control manual and it would be too close for comfort once you factored in the fact you have very few options if technical issues require a descent or the weather goes side-ways on you...

When I ran it through PFPX quickly using my Concorde profiles it basically said I needed more fuel than I could carry, so a no-go situation.

I fully accept you were flying in a test pilot role for fun though, in which case well done for not getting your feet wet!  Commercially, too risky for me.

The only viable route over the Pacific is west coast Canada/USA to Hawaii, then Hawaii to Fiji followed by Fiji to New Zealand or Australia.  

Hawaii to New Zealand or Australia would still be done in a day but with the Fiji technical stop.

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Your logic follows the legs in the 1999 world tour. Vancouver - Hawaii - Tahiti - Sydney.

But that’s boring because it’s not pushing the envelope. :D If the maximum range is around 150nm greater than today’s flight you have to wonder what sort of conditions are needed for a valid flight. My fuel load was 95.4 T. What did PFPX calculate?

The longest commercial flight was Caracas to Paris. They must have had one hell of a tailwind to achieve that.

All good fun. I even had enough fuel for the 10 minute taxi from 26L to the gate. And in the dark! Crickey, that sun doesn’t half go down quickly.

Link to comment

I think PFPX calculated nearly 99T with alternate and current winds. 

I think it would have been very limited by weight and PAX numbers, and yes the wind would have played a part. 

To be honest, with an accurate flight model you might not have made it so easily...

You also have to bear in mind that the maximum fuel load in Concorde X is not the actual maximum that Concorde could carry.  An amount called High Level Increment fuel (HLI) could be added by overriding the refuel cut-offs and using some of the tank space normally left empty as air space.  Normally the tanks show full at around 85% of actual physical capacity.

Another technique was to find and use a heavier density of fuel allowing for more kg.

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Using up the "air space" in the main tanks was a significant contributory to the Paris crash, Captain ordered the tanks filled to capacity so when the piece of rubber hit the tank the shock wave had nowhere to go (no air to compress) and blew out the panel with results we are all aware of.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
10 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

I think PFPX calculated nearly 99T with alternate and current winds. 

I think it would have been very limited by weight and PAX numbers, and yes the wind would have played a part. 

To be honest, with an accurate flight model you might not have made it so easily...

You also have to bear in mind that the maximum fuel load in Concorde X is not the actual maximum that Concorde could carry.  An amount called High Level Increment fuel (HLI) could be added by overriding the refuel cut-offs and using some of the tank space normally left empty as air space.  Normally the tanks show full at around 85% of actual physical capacity.

Another technique was to find and use a heavier density of fuel allowing for more kg.

Frazz

At the start of decel I had around 300Kg in 1-4 and 10.5T in 11. Given 1-4 should not fall below 1T then another 2.8T (4x700Kg) on top of the calculated 95.5T would give me 98.3T. Not far off your 99T. My weather was calculated for 00:05GMT 28/12/17. That was for 69 pax.

Whilst the flight model may not match the real aircraft 100% it's the best available and I have included the fuel tweaks by afterburner. Not sure if anything can be improved in that regard.

And as Adrian has said filling beyond the recommended limit is neither advisable or possible in a sim.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

Using up the "air space" in the main tanks was a significant contributory to the Paris crash, Captain ordered the tanks filled to capacity so when the piece of rubber hit the tank the shock wave had nowhere to go (no air to compress) and blew out the panel with results we are all aware of.

Indeed it was, because they ignored the procedure laid down in the fluid replenishment manual and filled the space up to 100% which was never permitted or carried out by BA. There was an approved and used procedure to overfill by a certain amount but never to 100%. What also didn't help was the fact that the FE had been using the override switches on the fuel panel to move the CG forward quickly before departure by pumping fuel into 5 and 7, and I read that the switches were still in this position post-accident meaning that fuel was continually pumped into the critical tank (5) maintaining it at 100% until the leak ensued. 

It was a factor because the procedures (like many others) were not followed and luck ran out, high level increment fuel when used properly is perfectly safe.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

At the start of decel I had around 300Kg in 1-4 and 10.5T in 11. Given 1-4 should not fall below 1T then another 2.8T (4x700Kg) on top of the calculated 95.5T would give me 98.3T. Not far off your 99T. My weather was calculated for 00:05GMT 28/12/17. That was for 69 pax.

Whilst the flight model may not match the real aircraft 100% it's the best available and I have included the fuel tweaks by afterburner. Not sure if anything can be improved in that regard.

And as Adrian has said filling beyond the recommended limit is neither advisable or possible in a sim.

It is the limitations of P3D that mean the flight model is not perfect rather than Concorde-X.

As I have said in my reply to Adrian, HLI fuel was used and in fact is what allowed the Barbados service to operate within the safety margins, it was the wrong application of this procedure that caused issues, hence if it were possible in the sim, it would be advisable!

Frazz

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
2 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

It is the limitations of P3D that mean the flight model is not perfect rather than Concorde-X.

As I have said in my reply to Adrian, HLI fuel was used and in fact is what allowed the Barbados service to operate within the safety margins, it was the wrong application of this procedure that caused issues, hence if it were possible in the sim, it would be advisable!

Frazz

What a pity. You would have hoped P3D would have improved on FSX.

On the subject of max fuel I see it's 95680Kg using the FS Labs Fuel Loader. That presumably doesn't include this 'extra' fuel that could be loaded in the r/w. And your calculation in PFPX is 99T but how could you load that much with the limit set by FSL?

Maybe adding an additional 4T once airborne and tank capacity allowing would be acceptable to get around the limitation set by FSL? Cheating or manipulating the sim to replicate real world? :)

Link to comment

I couldn't load 99T which is why I wouldn't fly the route without a fuel stop. 

Even with HLI fuel you couldn't get 99T into the tank space safely.  The major benefit of HLI fuel was that it was loaded evenly in such a way that it didn't change the CG and therefore could be loaded at the last minute without having a drastic affect on the loadsheet and causing delays. 

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Maybe I need to have a chat with Pierre about ensuring tanks 1-4 can't fall below 1000Kg when calculating fuel requirements. That would limit Concorde's range of course.

Nothing can be done about HLI fuel unless / until FSL look at the model again.

Link to comment

I think it would be more relevant to incorporate the minimum fuel required for continued supersonic cruise figure, as that tells you at what point you have to slow down due to fuel position, and therefore how long you can cruise for. 

I'm not sure how HLI fuel could be simulated as it would have to remain apart from the standard fuel levels to be of any use.  Plus, there are only a limited number of the real Concorde routes that needed it and many folk stick to those routes so it might be a waste of time and effort.

Frazz

Link to comment

Something else that should be mentioned is that above Mach 1.30 Concorde was certified as a two engine aircraft, because in general terms if a surge occurred in one engine it would also affect the one sitting next to it.  This means that it would be subject to a Concorde variation on ETOPs rules which governed suitable routes due to distances from diversion airfields on four, three and two engines. 

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Fraser Gale said:

I think it would be more relevant to incorporate the minimum fuel required for continued supersonic cruise figure, as that tells you at what point you have to slow down due to fuel position, and therefore how long you can cruise for. 

I'm not sure how HLI fuel could be simulated as it would have to remain apart from the standard fuel levels to be of any use.  Plus, there are only a limited number of the real Concorde routes that needed it and many folk stick to those routes so it might be a waste of time and effort.

Frazz

Food for thought, thanks.

Link to comment

Going back up the thread a bit

Quote

But alas, it was impossible to keep a minimum of 1000 in all 4 tanks. How much would I slow down? And is slowing down preferable to going down but maintaining Mach 2.0?

Descending but maintaining Mach 2.0 would not be an option.

CofG still needs to be in the same place for M2.0 and fuel burn per hour increases with reducing flight levels faster than the ground speed increases (slightly) at lower levels still at M2.0.

The only option to "keep it real" is to start slowing down so CofG limit moves forward, but then, again, fuel burn per mile increases, she uses almost as much fuel per hour subsonic as supersonic, but at a vastly reduced ground speed.

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks Adrian. So to use a technical term we're buggered. Fuel stop in Fiji but that takes away all the fun of pushing her to the limits. If the max range is 3910nm how would such a flight be possible without fuel in 1 and 4 dropping below the 1000Kg mark? NZAA-PHNL is 3854nm - 56nm inside the limit.

I just can't see how it can be done bar having this extra fuel or a higher density fuel neither of which the sim can replicate. Maybe the sim's max range should be reduced with those factors in mind. But what would it be? 3500nm?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thanks Adrian. So to use a technical term we're buggered. Fuel stop in Fiji but that takes away all the fun of pushing her to the limits. If the max range is 3910nm how would such a flight be possible without fuel in 1 and 4 dropping below the 1000Kg mark? NZAA-PHNL is 3854nm - 56nm inside the limit.

I just can't see how it can be done bar having this extra fuel or a higher density fuel neither of which the sim can replicate. Maybe the sim's max range should be reduced with those factors in mind. But what would it be? 3500nm?

With a round the world load of passengers, spares (including a couple of tyres etc) there is no way the max range you have quoted would have been attempted. It would just take a day of bad head winds to scupper your plans which would be damaging to your company PR. It was never just about how long a sector could be flown by range with no payload, company factors, airway rights, PR, diversion airfields, weather, which of the fleet you had (some were preferable to others) all these things played a part.  

In the simulator world we can point, shoot and hope for the best, in the real world you can't or what can go wrong, will go wrong. 

As you have learnt the HLI fuel is not simulated which makes a difference and the fuel burns are not exactly correct which makes a difference.  Another thing to try that was done on Barbados sectors is to load the aircraft with as far forward a zero fuel CG as possible, allowing you to get more fuel in tank 11 for a 54% departure.

Frazz

Link to comment

Correction to the above - what I meant was Concorde X couldn't do the max range with the quoted payload, a real Concorde could on an ideal day with full tanks.

It did go wrong on one RTW tour though and I've heard the story first hand...

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Fraser Gale said:

With a round the world load of passengers, spares (including a couple of tyres etc) there is no way the max range you have quoted would have been attempted. It would just take a day of bad head winds to scupper your plans which would be damaging to your company PR. It was never just about how long a sector could be flown by range with no payload, company factors, airway rights, PR, diversion airfields, weather, which of the fleet you had (some were preferable to others) all these things played a part.  

In the simulator world we can point, shoot and hope for the best, in the real world you can't or what can go wrong, will go wrong. 

As you have learnt the HLI fuel is not simulated which makes a difference and the fuel burns are not exactly correct which makes a difference.  Another thing to try that was done on Barbados sectors is to load the aircraft with as far forward a zero fuel CG as possible, allowing you to get more fuel in tank 11 for a 54% departure.

Frazz

I wouldn't expect the record to be attempted with anything approaching a full load and spares loaded too.  I imagine these distances were tested during trials with a modest number of pax.

Using CPS-X I can reposition pax and cargo to get the CG right at the most forward point. The problem with tank 11 capacity is it's limited to 10,500 but by using the override switches can be increased to 11020. That is the absolute limit but if it's still lower than r/w then perhaps this is something Andrew can look at with any future version or tweak of the existing 32-bit one.

1 hour ago, Fraser Gale said:

Correction to the above - what I meant was Concorde X couldn't do the max range with the quoted payload, a real Concorde could on an ideal day with full tanks.

It did go wrong on one RTW tour though and I've heard the story first hand...

I'm all ears. :D

Link to comment

Tank 11 would have limited HLI fuel put into it because it changed the CG. As I mentioned earlier adding HLI didn't affect the CG so unless the corresponding equivalent (dependant on the moment of the fuel tank) could be put in tank 9 or 10 they would have put HLI in the wing tanks where CG movement was minimal. 

The whole point of having a forward ZFCG is that less fuel needed to be burned off prior to departure to achieve 54% CG, meaning more fuel available to burn in the air.

The story goes on an early RTW trip they got to either Sydney or Guam (can't remember the exact sector) and were meant to go to Hong Kong I think it was, but the head winds turned out to be rather strong and they didn't have enough range. They had to put the PAX and spares onto a 747 and fill Concorde to the brim with (HLI) fuel and only the three crew to get it to destination. The flight engineer that was on the sector told me this story, and here's where the Concorde guys had to know what they were doing - the crew had to plan the new sector, with fuel flight plan, loadsheet, ATC flight plan and performance all being calculated by hand from the manuals, no computer or human dispatcher in sight........!

In his words "beats the object of flying folk round the world on Concorde though!"

Frazz

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz,

On my PHNL-NZAA trip the CG was 54.2 at the gate. I had to pump some from 11 into 9 to get 54.0. Unusual but the proper thing to do.

Yes, I understand the HLI fuel could only go into wing tanks.

I imagine those pax weren’t too amused about the transfer to a 747 but I’m sure the captain dressed it up well enough to explain it was all due to abnormal wx conditions.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz,

On my PHNL-NZAA trip the CG was 54.2 at the gate. I had to pump some from 11 into 9 to get 54.0. Unusual but the proper thing to do.

With a full fuel load and extra carried in T11 it should have been a burn-off with T11 going to T5 & 7 as the fuel was burnt during taxi. There shouldn't be any room in T9 to put the fuel in...

Link to comment

Incidentally I have just found fuel figures for HLI.

At a density of 0.80kg/l the normal tanks full figure is 95580kg but with HLI fuel this becomes 96884kg. 

At a density of 0.83kg/l the normal tanks full is 99184kg and with HLI becomes 100517kg! 

At a density of 0.77kg/l the normal tanks full is 91996kg and with HLI becomes 93251kg.

So you can see that density makes a big difference. 

In the early days of the Washington service and before modifications that improved range by a couple of percent, the flight was passenger and weight limited especially during the winter when the westerly winds made it a little tight on fuel. The BA planning department managed to source a batch of fuel called "Nigerian Heavy" that had a higher density than normal Jet A1 which was stored solely for the use of Concorde. This higher density gave extra kgs but the fuel had different dielectric properties which meant the fuel gauging system showed an under-read of a substantial amount, but fortunately this became more accurate as the levels dropped.  This allowed for more range and less weight limitation on the payload.

After the thinning of the lower lip of the intakes and some AICU adjustments this was no longer necessary.

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot
16 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

With a full fuel load and extra carried in T11 it should have been a burn-off with T11 going to T5 & 7 as the fuel was burnt during taxi. There shouldn't be any room in T9 to put the fuel in...

To clarify are you saying I should move fuel from 11 to 5 and 7 instead of 10? Fair enough, I'll do that on my next really long flight. But 9 did have enough room.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

To clarify are you saying I should move fuel from 11 to 5 and 7 instead of 10? Fair enough, I'll do that on my next really long flight. But 9 did have enough room.

Yes. Fuel should never be transferred from 11 to 9 to achieve departure CG, after all why wouldn't it just be put there during refuelling? 

Does CPS place the fuel in the tanks for you? 

All tanks were filled to their cutoff levels (no HLI) then any extra fuel was placed into T11 which moved the CG rearward, requiring a burn-off from there and the only way to do that was to pump to 5 and 7 as they were keeping the collector tanks filled for departure.

Frazz

Link to comment

Further to my last post where I typed tank 9 instead of 10...

I looked up the refuelling schedule for densities of 0.799 & 0.800kg/l, tank 9 becomes full at fuel loads of 35280kgs and above with contents at 11200kg. Tank 10 becomes full at a total load of 89310kg with contents reaching 12040kg. Above that you can only put fuel in T11. 

If you managed to pump fuel into 9 or 10 above the figures quoted then either there is a wrongly set maximum or HLI fuel space can be used after all...

Could it be that CPS didn't fill tank 10 fully as it should have been? 

Frazz

Link to comment

According to the document tank 9 and tank 10 were full, so unless the values weren't correct by the time they reach P3D then you shouldn't have been able to pump fuel into 10 - unless of course you used the override or standby inlet valves and not the trim transfer auto master, in which case you bypassed the electrical protection and overfilled tank 10. 

Anyway, it was not approved (in BA) to transfer fuel forward for a 54% departure, the rule was transfer aft or burn-off forward. 

Looking at your CPS documents has reminded me of another reason I wrote the PFPX profiles - I was able to create a "fuel policy" which set the "final reserve" fuel at 6500kg and the "contingency" fuel at 2500kg as well as not have a separate "hold" fuel line, as per the real world.

Frazz

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz,

I cheated and switched on the override valves. I shall refrain from doing that in future and transfer to 5 and 7 instead during the taxi.

Interesting that you and Pierre differ on these rules as you are both experts on Concorde. He has a contact who gives him all relevant info but obviously from AF. Might that be the difference in these rules?

Link to comment

Chances are AF did things differently - there was very little cooperation between BA and AF even after BA suggested sharing technical information to help each other out. Sadly the only significant cooperation was after the accident because BA wanted her back in the air.

I too have contact with former crew as well as the last ever edition of the manuals, and in the planning section it states the fuel regulations for Concorde.

Frazz

Link to comment
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz,

As you have so much knowledge of the BA side of Concorde is there any possibility you could share this with Pierre?

I appreciate you don’t use CPS-X but for those of us who do it would be great if it could be tweaked where necessary to make it as accurate as possible for AF and BA operations.

Happy new year to you. :)

Link to comment
Steve Prowse
49 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz,

As you have so much knowledge of the BA side of Concorde is there any possibility you could share this with Pierre?

I appreciate you don’t use CPS-X but for those of us who do it would be great if it could be tweaked where necessary to make it as accurate as possible for AF and BA operations.

Happy new year to you. :)

They already have, https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/11416-is-tank-11-limit-10500kg/&tab=comments#comment-89886

i guess you must have forgotten that thread, oh and you might like this thread too https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/6778-manual-control-of-fuel-management/&  .  So our two experts thankfully do communicate.  If I remember correctly Pierre added BA takeoff CG’s based on information from Frazer....so yeah we have the best of both worlds here.  Must say though I’m very surprised you didn’t know that BA and AF had different SOPs for Concorde....I think there a thread on it...I’ll check

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz,

As you have so much knowledge of the BA side of Concorde is there any possibility you could share this with Pierre?

I appreciate you don’t use CPS-X but for those of us who do it would be great if it could be tweaked where necessary to make it as accurate as possible for AF and BA operations.

Happy new year to you. :)

I think Pierre has done a good job with the information he has and considering how complex planning is for Concorde.  I think I have provided enough information on the forum for him to use should he want to, but in some ways to do it properly would require a separate application rather than selecting which airline. If Pierre wants information then most of it is already available on here, or in the BA manuals, electronic copies of which are readily available on eBay from a reliable source. 

If he wants help then I'm sure he'd ask for it but I could understand why he might wish to leave his hard work alone, after all I don't include the AF way of doing things in my own application that I use (separate from PFPX). 

Frazz

Link to comment

Re Caracas to Paris, I read (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=190337) that is was done non stop from time to time but would generally need a fuel stop at the Azores or Dakar.

GC direct route is 4118 NM but that is on an impossible route, coasting in just North of QPR VOR, to maintain supersonic it would have been necessary to go about 90 miles further north to avoid both Brest and Cherbourg peninsulas.

Even at that there is a chain of islands just shy of 500 miles NE of Caracas which it would be incredibly difficult to avoid entirely by even 25 miles.

I will see if CPS will even contemplate such a distance...

As I thought, message "Concorde's max range is 3910, please modify route."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Well, I managed it, non compliant with numerous procedures but hey ho, it is only a sim.

Despite CPS telling me that it was beyond range and not allowing me to progress any further with that app it had created the AWC files and the text file of the FPL.

So I created another FPL, this time SVMI to LPLA, loaded 60 passengers and fuelled her up to the brim of permitted fuel, the Azores Flight Plan was just in order to get the take off calculations.

I set the aircraft at RW28 threshold at Caracas and went through start up procedures.

My route tried to thread a very fine line between Guadaloupe and Antigua, and it almost made it :) I gave Guadaloupe enough space (slightly too  much) but I was within 20 miles of Antigua VOR and passed way too close to Montserrat; with careful twiddling I might just have missed them all by 25 miles but it would have involved some nasty turns which could, themselves, have eroded the spacing.

I reached FL600 at approximately 47N13.5W by now burning 4.1 Tonnes per hour per engine.

Part way up the English Channel I got fuel critical, down to 250 Kgs of fuel in 1 & 4 and the C of G right on the forward bug so I had to slow down. This actually had a slight advantage in that, as soon as I was subsonic, I made a straight line for final approach to 26L, cutting off a considerable distance that would otherwise have been flown supersonic up the channel towards Le Havre.

Landed with 4.7 Tonnes of fuel.

Tail winds all the way, in the order of 25 knots, FPL available if anyone wants to try to either tweak the plan or fly it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Steve Prowse
19 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

Re Caracas to Paris

 

 

interesting point this, as far as  I know there were four flights that went direct from Caracas to Paris Charles de Gaulle, they were:

1.  F- BTSC  AF 200    29/05/1976
2.  F - BTSC AF 200    10/07/1976

3. F - BTSC AF 356 V 24/09/1979
4. F - BTSC AF 200    23/02/1980

There were of course schedule flights,  again as far as I know they began with F-BVFA  AF7452 12/02/76;  this flight went to Santa Maria then onto Caracas I think AF finished this service in 1982.

With regards to the direct flights in particular No2 above;  the Captain was Pierre Dudal,  the first officer was Jacques Moron, and the FE was Andre Blanc.  Captain Dudal was noted as saying:

Caracas - Paris en direct analysé par le Chef de Division
 
Pierre DUDAL
Pilote d'essais - CDB Concorde
1er Chef de Division Concorde
(Article publié dans le n° 47 de la Revue Mach 2.02)

 

'Ce vol ne devait pas avoir de lendemain. Je ne voulais pas que l'effet d'émulation ne joua et que d'enchère en surenchère, un équipage puisse prendre un risque quelconque. D'autre part, il fallait que tous les éléments soient favorables : sens de décollage, chargement, vents positifs etc. Enfin, le délicat problème du centrage pouvait ne pas apparaître comme majeur pour certains et conduire à des situations à risque. Je prenais donc la décision d'interdire le vol direct, soutenu en ceci par la Direction d'Air France. Ceci fut respecté tant que je restai à la Division Concorde. Depuis, deux membres de l'encadrement l'ont, à nouveau, tenté… et réussi. Mais en dépit de cette réussite, je persiste à croire que les marges sont trop faibles, que ce soit le rayon d'action ou les limites de centrage pour permettre la généralisation de ce vol direct. Air France est une compagnie de transport public et il ne faut pas qu'une naturelle émulation transforme en raid ce qui est un vol commercial de transport public'.
 
'This flight was not to have a tomorrow. I did not want the emulation effect to be played and the bid to outbid, so a crew could take some risk. On the other hand, all the elements had to be favorable: sense of takeoff, loading, positive winds etc. Finally, the delicate problem of centring may not appear as major for some and lead to risky situations. I therefore took the decision to ban direct flight, supported by Air France's management. This was respected as long as I remained at the Concorde Division. Since then, two members of the coaching have, again, tried... and succeeded. But despite this success, I still believe that the margins are too low, whether it is the radius of action or the centring limits to allow the generalization of this direct flight. Air France is a public transport company and it is not necessary that a natural emulation transforms into a raid what is a commercial flight of public transport '.
Edge translation.
 
So clearly the Captain was not happy to have crews fly this route since it pushed the crew too far, and Concorde was really at the limit.  I do hope you all find this as interesting as this Concorde Geek does...
 
All the best
 
Steve.
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...