Jump to content

An alternative climb mode


Ray Proudfoot

Recommended Posts

Ray Proudfoot

Today’s flight from EGLL to TBPB was very testing. At FL500 winds were still 256/58.

I noticed a slight porpoising with the climb rate varying from +130 to -150. I know the climb rate varied in the real aircraft but I wanted to try and get a consistent climb rate to help with fuel.

I switched to Pitch Hold and used the button assigned to adjust it. I ended up with a climb rate of 60-70fpm. I monitored the Mach speed using a lua program and it stayed around 2.010 - 2.015. I didn’t want to sacrifice speed for climb rate. Even a single click of that pitch control button made a significant difference to climb rate. Getting it to climb at a consistent rate is a skill in itself.

I got as high as 59600ft before lack of fuel in 1-4 forced me to initially level off and later engage a gentle descent of 50fpm before reaching the decel point.

Fuel in 1-4 dropped as low as 350Kg but with headwinds so strong it was a miracle I managed it across. With a 09L departure out of EGLL in foul weather it’s a flight that will linger long in the memory.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Today’s flight from EGLL to TBPB was very testing. At FL500 winds were still 256/58.

I noticed a slight porpoising with the climb rate varying from +130 to -150. I know the climb rate varied in the real aircraft but I wanted to try and get a consistent climb rate to help with fuel.

I switched to Pitch Hold and used the button assigned to adjust it. I ended up with a climb rate of 60-70fpm. I monitored the Mach speed using a lua program and it stayed around 2.010 - 2.015. I didn’t want to sacrifice speed for climb rate. Even a single click of that pitch control button made a significant difference to climb rate. Getting it to climb at a consistent rate is a skill in itself.

I got as high as 59600ft before lack of fuel in 1-4 forced me to initially level off and later engage a gentle descent of 50fpm before reaching the decel point.

Fuel in 1-4 dropped as low as 350Kg but with headwinds so strong it was a miracle I managed it across. With a 09L departure out of EGLL in foul weather it’s a flight that will linger long in the memory.

 

You still like to try to break the pumps in the collector tanks don't you...!  

You would have burnt more fuel with this method not less because she wasn't at her optimum altitude at all times like she would have been on a cruise climb. 

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

No Frazz, I don’t. But I don’t see how it’s possible to arrive at the decel point with nearly 15T of fuel remaining.

That would comprise 10.5T in tank 11 - the maximum the sim allows, plus 1T in each of the four collector tanks.

When did you last fly this route and arrive at the decel point with that amount of fuel remaining? I don’t believe it’s possible unless the weather conditions are very favourable.

But this time of year was peak time for the weekly flight to Barbados so how was it achieved with a load of 60-ish passengers? I could only load 14 today.

I respect your knowledge of Concorde but the difference in altitude and fuel consumed would not be that significant between the method I used today and engaging MAX CLB in P3D. Maybe a couple of hundred feet and less than one Tonne of fuel maybe. Who’s to say. It could have been better, it could have worse.

Another deviation from real world procedures I used today was to pump fuel from 11 into 9 to bring the CG forward to 54. If I’d burnt it waiting at the hold point I’d have even less fuel later on.

Please let me know the date you last flew this route and had 1T in 1-4 at the decel point. I’ll download the weather for that date and fly it. As things stand I don’t see how it’s possible except in very favourable conditions.

Incidentally, I tried the flight in PFPX and despite trying each model was unable to complete the process even with a handful of pax. No criticism, just saying.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Ray, the route was marginal even in good conditions as has been discussed many times before, some days it wasn't possible without a fuel stop in either Shannon or the Azores and it sounds like today was one of those days. That will be why PFPX wouldn't work for you.......

I can't remember the exact date I flew the route and the tech log is up the loft with the sim so I'm not going looking now, it was before Christmas anyway.

I've never said you have to arrive with 15T at the decel point, the only rule is to arrive with 6500kg at destination. Perhaps your ZFCG was too far aft and as I've said before it would have been as forward as possible for the BGI route so that the burn off from T11 would be limited. In order to arrive with suitable reserves on this route, everything must be flown exactly, not precisely, exactly. The exact theta 2 without adjustment, the exact bank angles for turns, as few turns as possible, the exact acceleration etc. I obviously am not saying you don't do this as I haven't seen your flying skills which I'm sure are excellent, but for BGI everything has to be right. It sounds like today should have been a tech stop for fuel down route. 

As the drag coefficients of the ogival delta are rather complex and the pressure and thermal recovery of the air intakes are a black art, I won't go into the details of why cruise climb burns less fuel, but it's linked to angle of incidence, temperature, local Mach number and weight.  Essentially by not doing a cruise climb these are not always at the optimum hence the fuel burn over a long stage length (the maximum on this route) is increased substantially.  The same happens when level cruise is used. 

This is why the crews were trained on "supersonics" on the first day of the ground school course, because all the rules change above Mach 1 and they had to be educated in order that some "clever" pilot who thought they knew better didn't go trying it his/her way only to find out it didn't work the hard way! 

Pone pilot did try a stunt by trying to say that leaving the reheats on until Mach 2 (a zoom climb) would save them fuel by getting them up to cruise quicker. They got up to 50189ft and Mach 2 and cancelled the reheats. Of course the aircraft was too heavy for this, and down, down, down she went, having to do half the accel all over again.  There is only one flight profile that works for Concorde. 

Frazz

Link to post
AdrianSmith

I think the big problem with Ray's flight is the upper wind.

I have yet to find a program which realistically simulates the wind above the tropopause, AS16 does the best job I have found but, and this is from RW BA Concorde pilots, above the tropopause there is a fairly world wide westerly at about five to ten knots.

With that wind Barbados is within limits the majority of the time.

I have a friend who used to fly that route (as a passenger) a number of times, I will ask him how often they had to fuel stop.

Ady

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz,

Extensive reply, thanks. But the first para tells me everything I need to know. I was never aware of the refuel stops when weather conditions were unfavourable. That would obviously make a huge difference.

I landed with 6.9T of fuel so was within the rules despite the high winds. Have a look at the attached flight log. 250kts below 10,000ft. Thereafter MAX CLB to FL280 and supersonic climb started at UPGAS. The fuel remaining figures are slightly lower than the actuals.

How did the crew decide if a refuelling stop was required? Was there a simple limit I could use in AS16 with upper winds and temps?

CG was well forward. CPS-X allows me to see the ZFCG point as I move pax and baggage around. I try to get it as close to the forward limit as possible.

I'm no expert but I consider myself reasonably proficient in flying her in P3D. I certainly wouldn't have tried that Mach 2 with reheats trick one pilot did.

 

EGLL_TBPB_201801211438.pdf

Link to post
Fraser Gale
7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz,

Extensive reply, thanks. But the first para tells me everything I need to know. I was never aware of the refuel stops when weather conditions were unfavourable. That would obviously make a huge difference.

I landed with 6.9T of fuel so was within the rules despite the high winds. Have a look at the attached flight log. 250kts below 10,000ft. Thereafter MAX CLB to FL280 and supersonic climb started at UPGAS. The fuel remaining figures are slightly lower than the actuals.

How did the crew decide if a refuelling stop was required? Was there a simple limit I could use in AS16 with upper winds and temps?

CG was well forward. CPS-X allows me to see the ZFCG point as I move pax and baggage around. I try to get it as close to the forward limit as possible.

I'm no expert but I consider myself reasonably proficient in flying her in P3D. I certainly wouldn't have tried that Mach 2 with reheats trick one pilot did.

 

EGLL_TBPB_201801211438.pdf

Well something that might have helped you - normally out of London the 250kt rule below FL100 was not enforced and the clearance from London control would have been "no speed restriction" allowing Concorde to accelerate to VMO as soon as possible, saving quite a bit of fuel. In the USA this was always enforced however.  

Mostly it would have been decided at the planning stage that a tech stop was needed, although graphs drawn by Ian Kirby (SEO) were used en route at all fuel checks to ensure they would land with the right fuel.  If it was found they wouldn't, they would divert, complete a "nil change of load" certificate and refuel before continuing on. 

For your purposes, if PFPX spits it back out and can't plan it, you should plan it as two legs. 

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks. I did consider exceeding 250kts but decided to stick to it as I’d checked that option in CPS-X.

So it sounds as though they made the decision enroute. I suppose the amount of weather data they may have had access to was limited especially in the early years.

I’ll use PFPX as a tester for future flights, thanks.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
8 hours ago, AdrianSmith said:

I think the big problem with Ray's flight is the upper wind.

I have yet to find a program which realistically simulates the wind above the tropopause, AS16 does the best job I have found but, and this is from RW BA Concorde pilots, above the tropopause there is a fairly world wide westerly at about five to ten knots.

With that wind Barbados is within limits the majority of the time.

I have a friend who used to fly that route (as a passenger) a number of times, I will ask him how often they had to fuel stop.

Ady

Upper wind can be up around the 40kt mark depending on the height of the tropopause and any jet stream activity.  It was normally quite light wind but the main reason the winds had little effect on Concorde was the minimal change in ground speed - 1135kts minus 40 is still  1095kts.  1135kt = 18.9nm/min  1095kt = 18.3nm/min.   201min versus 207min for 3800nm.  An extra 6 mins cruise at Mach 2 in which you might burn another 1700kgs or so. 

Temperature had a bigger effect than wind.

Frazz

Link to post
Fraser Gale
4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thanks. I did consider exceeding 250kts but decided to stick to it as I’d checked that option in CPS-X.

So it sounds as though they made the decision enroute. I suppose the amount of weather data they may have had access to was limited especially in the early years.

I’ll use PFPX as a tester for future flights, thanks.

They had plenty data, but it wasn't always accurate as they were the only ones who gave weather reports from above FL470!

In the early days they always went via Shannon, until Ian Kirby figured out how to calculate the fuel remaining more accurately - he was rather clever. 

The temperatures were more key than wind (see post above).

Frazz

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

It sound as though Ian Kirby had the brain the size of a planet! :D I was keeping an eye on the ISA Dev temp and it stayed quite high. I certainly didn’t get -20 as I have in previous flights. Perhaps no lower than -12 or so.

Can you confirm what the max tank 11 could take? It’s 10500 in the sim but by switching the overrides on you can get 11020. I wonder if that matches the r/w value.

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

It sound as though Ian Kirby had the brain the size of a planet! :D I was keeping an eye on the ISA Dev temp and it stayed quite high. I certainly didn’t get -20 as I have in previous flights. Perhaps no lower than -12 or so.

Can you confirm what the max tank 11 could take? It’s 10500 in the sim but by switching the overrides on you can get 11020. I wonder if that matches the r/w value.

I'm afraid I haven't got my manuals to hand at the moment but you could calculate it - the normal cutoff occurred at about 92% of total volume if I remember correctly, so if you work out what the remaining 8% is in kgs you'll know... 

However Ray, the fact remains that I've flown that route over 100 times in the sim and I've never had my fuel down so low in the collector tanks. You may just have been unlucky with the weather but until I have time to download the historicals and fly it I can't comment on that. If you get down to 1000kgs in any collector tank the first action is to transfer fuel forward from T11 into the collector tanks via 5 & 7 (for cooling remember) until the CG reaches the forward limit (just before the MWS).  When the collector tanks again drop to 1000kg you must slow down and go down regardless of where you are on the route. You might have found had you done this, you may have arrived with about the same fuel if indeed it was the upper winds that were causing difficulties. 

The only other thing I can think of is a small bug I've noticed - when you manually transfer using the pumps and valves (not the trim transfer auto master) for T11 into 5 & 7 sometimes the inlet valves to 5 & 7 don't open but the quantity in T11 decreases, essentially a fuel leak. 

Im sure I've flown with similar headwinds and made it without issue and I certainly have on the JFK run without a drastic effect on fuel.

Frazz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Seth Goodwin

I feel like we had this discussion almost a year ago...

 

Per the BEA AF 4590 accident report, tank 11's volumetric capacity is 13,150 litres "without exceeding the uper level sensors, corresponding to real fill of around 95%." That would imply a 100% capacity of approximately 13,842 litres. 10,500 kg in the sim with a 13,150 litre tank implies a fuel density of approximately 0.795. Multiplying the 0.795 by the 13,842 litre full tank capacity would yield 11,052 kg as the theoretical maximum (at our sim locked in density of course), not too far off from the 11,020 in the sim Ray.

The 11,020 kg divided by 13,842 litres yields an assumed fuel density of 0.796. We are basically talking about rounding errors at this point.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Steve Prowse

Ah well here's a reminder:

On ‎29‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:37 AM, Fraser Gale said:

 

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

 

 

 

On ‎01‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 7:16 PM, Steve Prowse said:

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

 

 

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 7:19 PM, Steve Prowse said:

Concorde X is indeed very accurate; what we should remember here is that she is a 'study sim' not just - a sim.  I think we can all agree that one cannot just simply load Concorde  into your preferred platform and simply takeoff ,  fly across the pond and land in KJFK some 3 hours later.  It simply does not happen with Concorde X.  I like some on this form tend to fly her by the book (actually many books), if not I never feel that I have has a successful flight.  How can you?  

So with this recent attempt to fly from Caracas to Paris it is important to get the fuel management correct, particularly the CG.  In my opinion one cannot simply abandon the SOP.  What follows taken from a BA flying manual:

   

Concorde

Flying Manual Vol. 2 (b)

 

When any collector tank contents fall to 1000kg

 

Set tank5 and7 INLET VALVE sels to OPEN.

Observe tank5 and tank7 INLET VALVE Mls show inline.

Set tank 11 Electric Pumps ON.

 

When tank5 and tank 7 contents are greater than 100kg

Set tank5 and tank7 PUMPS sws and sels to ON

 

NOTE

100kg In each tank 6 and 7 Is the minimum quantity at which both pumps In

each tank are sure to be submerged. Waiting for this quantity ensures that the

pumps do not start dry.

 

Transferring cool fuel from tank 11 through tanks 5 and 7 to the collector tanks

ensures adequate pump performance In the event of loss of tank pressurlsatlon.

 

 

Normal supersonic cruise operetion can be continued provided the fuel tank

pressure Is greater then 1.2 and the minimum quantity In eny collector tank Is

1000kgs.

When CG reaches 57.5%

 

Set tank 11 Electric Pumps to AUTO.

 

Set tank5 and7 INLET VALVE SWS and sels to AUTO.

 

Observe tank5 and7 INLET VALVE Mls show crossllne.

 

There is also many references to as to the importance of correct CG in each stage of the flight given in the L&B manual.  In particular a table called: 

Minimum Fuel for Continued Supersonic Cruise

Moreover we should at the very least remember what Captain Dudal said "I therefore took the decision to ban direct flight, supported by Air France's management".  (please read my previous post on the AF flight)

Please note that Frazer produced an excellent Fuel management guide available in the download section.  I hope this helps any new pilots to Concorde.

Steve

If you are new to Concorde please note there is no 'Alternative climb mode'.  You will find that Concorde will climb and descend during 'cruise climb',  it will, however,  have an overall tendency to climb.      

Hope this helps

all the best

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Fraser Gale

We are beginning to go round in circles about the same thing and considering how complex all of the systems are it is amazing we seem to spend all our time on the fuel system.

Ray, do you have a copy of the up-to-date flying manual from 2003?  If not I highly recommend buying a copy - there are CDs available on eBay with multiple manuals at extremely reasonable prices.  The original manufacturer/BA one from the 1970s is no use because it wasn't as detailed as the later versions. All the information you need to fly this bird is in there, including fuel management. 

Frazz

Link to post
Fraser Gale
8 hours ago, Seth Goodwin said:

I feel like we had this discussion almost a year ago...

 

Per the BEA AF 4590 accident report, tank 11's volumetric capacity is 13,150 litres "without exceeding the uper level sensors, corresponding to real fill of around 95%." That would imply a 100% capacity of approximately 13,842 litres. 10,500 kg in the sim with a 13,150 litre tank implies a fuel density of approximately 0.795. Multiplying the 0.795 by the 13,842 litre full tank capacity would yield 11,052 kg as the theoretical maximum (at our sim locked in density of course), not too far off from the 11,020 in the sim Ray.

The 11,020 kg divided by 13,842 litres yields an assumed fuel density of 0.796. We are basically talking about rounding errors at this point.

 

 

I was hoping Ray would do the maths himself so that he fully understood it (a teacher thing...) but thanks for helping out with the figures - I'm beginning to confuse myself with all these numbers because we've been over them so many times.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
13 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

 If you get down to 1000kgs in any collector tank the first action is to transfer fuel forward from T11 into the collector tanks via 5 & 7 (for cooling remember) until the CG reaches the forward limit (just before the MWS).  When the collector tanks again drop to 1000kg you must slow down and go down regardless of where you are on the route. You might have found had you done this, you may have arrived with about the same fuel if indeed it was the upper winds that were causing difficulties.

But if I transfer fuel forward the CG bug will move ahead of the forward limit. So I can't do that. And that also happens when I've had CG at 59.3 which gives me maximum flexibility. If I slow down and go down that means it will take longer to reach my destination so I don't understand why that would work. How much altitude would I need to lose for the CG limits to move forward by an appreciable amount? 5,000ft? 10,000ft?

I'm convinced the problems on Sunday were down to excessive headwinds and high temps. I'll use CPS-X and AS16 and set different dates so I can check the average ISA Dev and wind for more favourable conditions.

On the other hand I could just leave fuel to the VFE and watch how to do it properly. :)

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

We are beginning to go round in circles about the same thing and considering how complex all of the systems are it is amazing we seem to spend all our time on the fuel system.

Ray, do you have a copy of the up-to-date flying manual from 2003?  If not I highly recommend buying a copy - there are CDs available on eBay with multiple manuals at extremely reasonable prices.  The original manufacturer/BA one from the 1970s is no use because it wasn't as detailed as the later versions. All the information you need to fly this bird is in there, including fuel management. 

Frazz

I'm sorry if I'm forgetting I asked the same question nearly a year ago. I'll just search the forum for all the answers.  No Frazz, I don't and I know the rules about tank limits so I'll just divert or choose a more suitable date for the flight.

Link to post
Callum McLoughlin
2 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

Ray, do you have a copy of the up-to-date flying manual from 2003?  If not I highly recommend buying a copy - there are CDs available on eBay with multiple manuals at extremely reasonable prices.  The original manufacturer/BA one from the 1970s is no use because it wasn't as detailed as the later versions. All the information you need to fly this bird is in there, including fuel management. 

Frazz

I assume the custody of these manuals hasn't been given to those vendors by BA, hence if they are no longer interested in protecting their intellectual property, could these manuals be uploaded so all of us can see them? I don't fancy paying someone for a disk of bootlegged museum exhibits...

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

I assume the custody of these manuals hasn't been given to those vendors by BA, hence if they are no longer interested in protecting their intellectual property, could these manuals be uploaded so all of us can see them? I don't fancy paying someone for a disk of bootlegged museum exhibits...

If you buy from the vendor that has them on blue CDs then I know for a fact they come "from the horses mouth" because he is former crew...

Also, I have a full set of hard copies of the manuals that I was happy to pay for, knowing it was the only way to get the proper information, I don't think paying less that 1/4 the price of Concorde X to get the information in pdf form is unrealistic. 

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

I'm sorry if I'm forgetting I asked the same question nearly a year ago. I'll just search the forum for all the answers.  No Frazz, I don't and I know the rules about tank limits so I'll just divert or choose a more suitable date for the flight.

I wasn't suggesting buying the manuals for that, it was more to help your understanding of the whole aircraft rather than what the rules were.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But if I transfer fuel forward the CG bug will move ahead of the forward limit. So I can't do that. And that also happens when I've had CG at 59.3 which gives me maximum flexibility. If I slow down and go down that means it will take longer to reach my destination so I don't understand why that would work. How much altitude would I need to lose for the CG limits to move forward by an appreciable amount? 5,000ft? 10,000ft?

I'm convinced the problems on Sunday were down to excessive headwinds and high temps. I'll use CPS-X and AS16 and set different dates so I can check the average ISA Dev and wind for more favourable conditions.

On the other hand I could just leave fuel to the VFE and watch how to do it properly. :)

If you have already reached the forward bug then you haven't enough fuel and need to decel to M0.95 - there is no intermediate altitude, you have to go subsonic.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
56 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

If you have already reached the forward bug then you haven't enough fuel and need to decel to M0.95 - there is no intermediate altitude, you have to go subsonic.

Thanks.

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

I wasn't suggesting buying the manuals for that, it was more to help your understanding of the whole aircraft rather than what the rules were.

I don't have your level of interest. I just enjoy flying her to the best of my ability.

Link to post
Steve Prowse
2 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

If you buy from the vendor that has them on blue CDs then I know for a fact they come "from the horses mouth" because he is former crew...

Also, I have a full set of hard copies of the manuals that I was happy to pay for, knowing it was the only way to get the proper information, I don't think paying less that 1/4 the price of Concorde X to get the information in pdf form is unrealistic. 

Yeah me too Fraser, I’ve not got all the original manuals yet (hard copy) but I’m working on it, I look at them as my own bit of Concorde.  I think I know the vendor you’re referring to, as you say he’s definitely ex crew.  All the things he sells are well worth the money in fact the information is priceless......

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

I don't have your level of interest. I just enjoy flying her to the best of my ability.

In order to fly her best, I would still recommend a copy of the manuals, as judging by the questions you have asked, you do have a high level of interest.  Most of the information I have given in response to your questions is from the manuals, only a limited amount is from conversations with crew members or other sources. 

I have only tried to help you to the best of my abilities.

Frazz

Link to post
Fraser Gale
27 minutes ago, Steve Prowse said:

Yeah me too Fraser, I’ve not got all the original manuals yet (hard copy) but I’m working on it, I look at them as my own bit of Concorde.  I think I know the vendor you’re referring to, as you say he’s definitely ex crew.  All the things he sells are well worth the money in fact the information is priceless......

The gentleman I am referring to is a retired SEO and lives not far from me, he is a great guy.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
11 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

In order to fly her best, I would still recommend a copy of the manuals, as judging by the questions you have asked, you do have a high level of interest.  Most of the information I have given in response to your questions is from the manuals, only a limited amount is from conversations with crew members or other sources. 

I have only tried to help you to the best of my abilities.

Frazz

Your help is appreciated Frazz. I'll chew it over. Can you supply a link to a bona-fide vendor?

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

Your help is appreciated Frazz. I'll chew it over. Can you supply a link to a bona-fide vendor?

No, I can't.  Go on eBay and search for "Concorde Manual" and look for the blue coloured CD which has all the main manuals on it. Last time I saw it pop up it was £20 for over 5000 pages of stuff. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
47 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

No, I can't.  Go on eBay and search for "Concorde Manual" and look for the blue coloured CD which has all the main manuals on it. Last time I saw it pop up it was £20 for over 5000 pages of stuff. 

Is this it?  https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CONCORDE-12-Flying-Manuals-on-CD-over-5-000-pages-many-free-extras/282724734464?hash=item41d3b51600:g:SrEAAOSwVNxaAc~A

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
9 minutes ago, Seth Goodwin said:

Ray, search the internet for the last name of the seller on that page and Concorde and you'll have your answer.

What last name? All I can see is concorde001003

Ah, Pete Finlay

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...