Jump to content

Aileron position


Alfredo Hernandez

Recommended Posts

Ray Proudfoot

Don’t worry about it. Just a visual abnormality.

When flying at Mach 2 the gap between the engineer’s panel and the bulkhead shows a gap in the fuselage and the outside world is visible. :D

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

Don’t worry about it. Just a visual abnormality.

When flying at Mach 2 the gap between the engineer’s panel and the bulkhead shows a gap in the fuselage and the outside world is visible. :D

Your lighting issue could fall into this category too Ray....haha only joking! 

As a captain once famously said, it's the only plane that the pilot inside wishes they could see it from the outside as well. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz, Now that I know the lighting thing is a bug that we have to live with I'm going to review HDR lighting again. That may help.

Yes, it is a most beautiful aircraft and I should spend some time refining the outside views with ChasePlane. I'm on a short holiday from Concorde whilst I complete my world tour in a 737. My god, it's so flippin' slow though. :(

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

Frazz, Now that I know the lighting thing is a bug that we have to live with I'm going to review HDR lighting again. That may help.

Yes, it is a most beautiful aircraft and I should spend some time refining the outside views with ChasePlane. I'm on a short holiday from Concorde whilst I complete my world tour in a 737. My god, it's so flippin' slow though. :(

Why on earth would you want to do that....? I never liked the 737 I must confess, I felt it was a little clunky and guessed the reason was it was using 707 tech for the initial versions.  I know it has been continually upgraded etc but look where that's got them too....

By the way, if people think the issues of the MAX are only present on the 737, they should look for a documentary on the 787 and the earlier versions of the 737.  I'll say no more as it's off topic but very interesting.... If it's Boeing I ain't going. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Why would I want to do what? Fly the 737? It’s the only other quality aircraft I have in P3Dv4. The PMDG is very well modelled. I’m not a lover of Airbus. Don’t like the cockpit layout. Never have, never will.

Who said it’s like flying a computer? John Hutchinson? Anyway, I digress too. :D

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

Why would I want to do what? Fly the 737? It’s the only other quality aircraft I have in P3Dv4. The PMDG is very well modelled. I’m not a lover of Airbus. Don’t like the cockpit layout. Never have, never will.

Who said it’s like flying a computer? John Hutchinson? Anyway, I digress too. :D

That's not really what he said as he hasn't flown a glass cockpit, his words were more about the Concorde flight deck: "this is a proper flight deck with needles and dials, none of this glass cockpit ponsy rubbish" and of course it was said with tongue firmly in cheek.  

There is no doubt that glass cockpits have great advantages to situational awareness and the flight envelope protections have indeed made flying safer.  But my personal opinion (and I state that firmly, my personal opinion) as someone who spends life training humans, is that the less thinking they have to do when things are normal, the less adept they are at coping when things go wrong. When you had to use paper charts, VORs, INS positioning etc, you had to know in your minds eye where you were relative to alternates etc. Now, they look at a screen and it tells them the answer, what happens if the screen stops working (not just the screen but the whole system) - they declare a mayday and land asap, assuming they know where to find a runway.  

I once read a book by a very experienced training captain who had experience of flying traditional instrument panel airliners right up to present forms, and he was saying he now often hears crews requesting diverts due to FMS failures over Europe, when in his opinion they could continue VOR to VOR by manual tuning...you know, the old way!  Not knocking it, I enjoy flying the bus on occasions, and I have the PMGD 737 which is a good simulation, but I find it the rose wine of airliners, not quite fully modern, not quite classic.

Just my reasoning but I understand why folk like them.  Just having watched a documentary about whistle blowers from Boeing a few years ago, I wouldn't want to fly on one personally. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz, tongue-in-cheek or not it was something a lot of us can relate to. On pilot training you only have to look at the Air France flight from Brazil back to Paris for a classic example of training to use the autopilot as opposed to flying the aircraft. AF have since modified their training I believe.

On a separate topic is it possible for Concorde to fly at FL500 subsonically? A post from someone on FB who was in the flight deck as a passenger on an Air France Round the Bay flight insists the aircraft was at that altitude at M0.95. Possible?

Link to post
Konstantin
7 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

On a separate topic is it possible for Concorde to fly at FL500 subsonically? A post from someone on FB who was in the flight deck as a passenger on an Air France Round the Bay flight insists the aircraft was at that altitude at M0.95. Possible?

I don't think so. At that low speed and high altitude, the engines simply didn't have enough air to produce a meaningful amount of thrust to keep the airplane at level altitude. Also, the airplane would have to fly way below the aerodynamically optimal IAS, which would increase drag and make it harder to maintain the speed, even at light weights.

Maybe the airplane slowed down to M0.95 at FL500, and then started the descent?  That would be doable.

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

Frazz, tongue-in-cheek or not it was something a lot of us can relate to. On pilot training you only have to look at the Air France flight from Brazil back to Paris for a classic example of training to use the autopilot as opposed to flying the aircraft. AF have since modified their training I believe.

On a separate topic is it possible for Concorde to fly at FL500 subsonically? A post from someone on FB who was in the flight deck as a passenger on an Air France Round the Bay flight insists the aircraft was at that altitude at M0.95. Possible?

I think Hutch probably got a bit of stick for making that comment though and there was always a little resentment from some "normal" pilots with regard to what became known as the flying club within BA.

In answer to your question, not according to procedure in BA.  All graphs have a maximum of FL410 for 4 engine subsonic cruise and even then you have to be at a maximum weight of 100T so with a minimal load of 85T you would only have 15T of fuel left.  By that stage you would be wanting to get to a runway and not be up that high.  Plus, M0.95 at an altitude of 50,000ft would give you a very, very low airspeed like 230kts or something which is below the lowest authorised speed at that altitude of 300kts.  You would stall out of the sky.

It sounds like a case of memory through rose tints or a case of AF pilots chancing something they shouldn't have (no offence to them and I wasn't there so maybe not).  I find a lot of people making claims on FB and other places, that are not real life but of course nobody can prove them wrong now.  Even numbers quoted by people who are qualified to know are beginning to vary as time goes on. 

If you need proof, download the clip board aide memoire from my thread the other day as there is a graph on there and the highest FL is 410 which was regarded (in BA) as the highest subsonic level. 

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 minutes ago, Konstantin said:

I don't think so. At that low speed and high altitude, the engines simply didn't have enough air to produce a meaningful amount of thrust to keep the airplane at level altitude. Also, the airplane would have to fly way below the aerodynamically optimal IAS, which would increase drag and make it harder to maintain the speed, even at light weights.

Maybe the airplane slowed down to M0.95 at FL500, and then started the descent?  That would be doable.

I would argue that it wouldn't be doable without stalling....  Or at least flying outside the flight envelope which is illegal, but then....

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz and Konstantin,

This is what he said... "As my account says, no reheats until supersonic climb along the Bristol Channel. Normal subsonic cruise for Concorde is M0.95 at 29,000', but these 'round the bay' flights were non-standard in several ways. Take off was 'sporty' because of the light weight, and if we were to be at 60,000' and M2 by Bay of Biscay yet subsonic over land shortly before, a long subsonic climb prior to 'reheats on and supersonic climb' compresses the profile to fit the relatively short flight. Hence 50,000 over South Wales."

Maybe if either of you could get the fuel loading one of us could try it. He said G-BOAD was used meaning it was a BA flight, not AF as I said earlier. I agree with both of you but he seems adamant. He was the Technical Tour director at Manchester for G-BOAC so seems to know his onions. Just to confirm this was a round-the-bay supersonic flight so not the conventional LHR-JFK one. Different rules used perhaps.

Link to post
Fraser Gale
10 minutes ago, Alfredo Hernandez said:

Sorry to intercede. So the elevon position has a way to be fixed? or do I have to live with it like that?

You'll have to live with it now unfortunately.  

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

Frazz and Konstantin,

This is what he said... "As my account says, no reheats until supersonic climb along the Bristol Channel. Normal subsonic cruise for Concorde is M0.95 at 29,000', but these 'round the bay' flights were non-standard in several ways. Take off was 'sporty' because of the light weight, and if we were to be at 60,000' and M2 by Bay of Biscay yet subsonic over land shortly before, a long subsonic climb prior to 'reheats on and supersonic climb' compresses the profile to fit the relatively short flight. Hence 50,000 over South Wales."

Maybe if either of you could get the fuel loading one of us could try it. He said G-BOAD was used meaning it was a BA flight, not AF as I said earlier. I agree with both of you but he seems adamant. He was the Technical Tour director at Manchester for G-BOAC so seems to know his onions. Just to confirm this was a round-the-bay supersonic flight so not the conventional LHR-JFK one. Different rules used perhaps.

Just because he was a tour guide doesn't mean he was qualified as a Concorde pilot - I've been to MAN twice on the tech tour, first time the guy was a lecturer in aerodynamics and new his stuff about vortex lift but still didn't get all the Concorde numbers right! 

In the statement above he doesn't say M0,95 at FL500 Ray, which is the main point....  They usually went out Bristol Channel so I agree with 50,000ft south of Wales but at M2 not M0.95 as you stated in your original post. 

Round the bay would be light weight takeoff (40T of fuel no luggage or meals) so 3,000ft by noise time easily, then normal sub crz as he says at FL290 M0.95, accel in Bristol Channel usual point having started fuel transfer early, reheat off at M1.7 as usual unless the captain was showing off and left them on till M2.00 for fun, hit M2.00 at 50,189ft as usual but continue climbing, left turn round Lands End and decel to be M1.00 not later than 40nms to Gernsey if I remember correctly. Sometimes they got to FL600 sometimes not.  

If he is adamant they were at FL500 at M0,95 then ask him the name of the captain please.......because something strange was going on. 

Was he a paying passenger? If so was he in the jump seat for the whole flight? If not then chances are the Marilake screens were acting up (which they could do). If he was a passenger then he would have had around a 30sec visit to the flight deck, need I say more...?

I don't think even the most reckless of Captains (and some were in the nicest way possible) would get down to a calibrated airspeed of 240kts at 50,000ft with a hundred passengers on!!

What Facebook page is this on anyway? 

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Concorde flight envelope from the real manual: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kph23lOz7DkE4sgFn_4I1-oymB1BZTML/view?usp=sharing

Concorde flight envelope from publicity (BAC) slide: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WN32oDVlNUdDq4sF6Bh-82snBuJTCYg/view?usp=sharing

As you can prove from the official document (the first one) at M0.95 (follow mid point between M0.90 and M1.00 line up the curve) and 50,000ft you are not only below the lowest authorised airspeed (VLa) but you are also below the stick shaker speed!

Not doable.

Frazz

  • Like 2
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Fraser Gale said:

Just because he was a tour guide doesn't mean he was qualified as a Concorde pilot - I've been to MAN twice on the tech tour, first time the guy was a lecturer in aerodynamics and new his stuff about vortex lift but still didn't get all the Concorde numbers right! 

In the statement above he doesn't say M0,95 at FL500 Ray, which is the main point....  They usually went out Bristol Channel so I agree with 50,000ft south of Wales but at M2 not M0.95 as you stated in your original post. 

Round the bay would be light weight takeoff (40T of fuel no luggage or meals) so 3,000ft by noise time easily, then normal sub crz as he says at FL290 M0.95, accel in Bristol Channel usual point having started fuel transfer early, reheat off at M1.7 as usual unless the captain was showing off and left them on till M2.00 for fun, hit M2.00 at 50,189ft as usual but continue climbing, left turn round Lands End and decel to be M1.00 not later than 40nms to Gernsey if I remember correctly. Sometimes they got to FL600 sometimes not.  

If he is adamant they were at FL500 at M0,95 then ask him the name of the captain please.......because something strange was going on. 

Was he a paying passenger? If so was he in the jump seat for the whole flight? If not then chances are the Marilake screens were acting up (which they could do). If he was a passenger then he would have had around a 30sec visit to the flight deck, need I say more...?

I don't think even the most reckless of Captains (and some were in the nicest way possible) would get down to a calibrated airspeed of 240kts at 50,000ft with a hundred passengers on!!

What Facebook page is this on anyway? 

Frazz, I’m not making it up. He said this in an earlier post...”No, definately 50,000' or so over S Wales, M0.95. The aircraft way below us was at FL330 cruise westbound. It was obvious looking out the window we were a lot higher than 'normal' airliner height and somewhat faster!”

Given he was in the jump seat for the duration I’m sure he’s capable of reading instruments. All I’m doing is acting as the messenger here and asking the questions. I doubted his facts which is why I asked here for opinion.

He flew in August 1999 in G-BOAD so perhaps you can find the captain from that.

It’s in the Manchester (Ringway) Woodford site. Setup for those who worked at either site back when Woodford was operational.

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

Frazz, I’m not making it up. He said this in an earlier post...”No, definately 50,000' or so over S Wales, M0.95. The aircraft way below us was at FL330 cruise westbound. It was obvious looking out the window we were a lot higher than 'normal' airliner height and somewhat faster!”

Given he was in the jump seat for the duration I’m sure he’s capable of reading instruments. All I’m doing is acting as the messenger here and asking the questions. I doubted his facts which is why I asked here for opinion.

He flew in August 1999 in G-BOAD so perhaps you can find the captain from that.

It’s in the Manchester (Ringway) Woodford site. Setup for those who worked at either site back when Woodford was operational.

I don't disbelieve you and I'm not saying that he doesn't believe he is correct but if you look at the flight envelope data I've shown you, it isn't possible to be at M0.95 at 50,000ft without the stick shaker rattling like mad and probably the high incidence superstab kicking off too, so something doesn't add up here........! 

50,000ft near South Wales yes, but even if you hand flew it holding M0.95 in the climb with reheat on your airspeed would decay and decay and your incidence go up and up till all the bells and whistles start going off! The same would happen if you held FL500 and decelerated to M0.95 and more to the point why on earth would you want to do this anyway?!  

I have given you all the evidence I can, and it is the same flight envelope graph that all the guys (and Barbara) learnt and were taught to stick to during the conversion course.  I don't believe any of them would have risked their own neck to do what this guy describes.  

Not being funny, but it is possible that the FO Mach Meter was malfunctioning or his/her ADC was being strange and from the jump seat you would naturally look at the right seat instruments.  I know you say he was in the jump seat so must be able to read instruments but that's not really the case.  I could, you could but my mother would have had a jump seat ride if I'd been a Concorde pilot back then and she wouldn't know one needle from the next!  Unless he shows a photo to prove it, I think either he's muddled numbers after 21 years or that there was an instrument unserviceable, even intermittently that caused it. 

Unless we can get a pilot to confirm or deny I'm sticking with the printed evidence. 

Does he have photos? 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I’ll reply properly tomorrow but sadly there’s only one photo of the whole flight deck with him presumably on the left in the jump seat and the flight engineer on the right. Impossible to read any instruments.

I agree it sounds totally implausible but despite the 21 years he seems adamant about 50,000ft and Mach 0.95. I don’t think we’re going to change his mind.

The only way would be for you to locate the pilot.

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

I’ll reply properly tomorrow but sadly there’s only one photo of the whole flight deck with him presumably on the left in the jump seat and the flight engineer on the right. Impossible to read any instruments.

I agree it sounds totally implausible but despite the 21 years he seems adamant about 50,000ft and Mach 0.95. I don’t think we’re going to change his mind.

The only way would be for you to locate the pilot.

The other thing that is slightly strange (but not important enough to mention to him so don't) is that those charter flights always carried a PR pilot or flight engineer in the jump seat to do the commentary. Yes, there was the fifth seat in the "tunnel" but apart from it being uncomfortable, having it setup would block access for the flight deck visits.... 

If he's such an expert, show him the flight envelope graph and ask him to explain how it was possible please.  As far as I'm concerned, no pilot would fly it in that condition unless they wanted the sack! And the quick access recorders were read on every LHR arrival to look for unusual events - the stick shaker going off would be noticed!  But, I'm not qualified in any way either so...

Here is a round the bay in March 1999 in which you will note the PR captain (in this case) sitting in the jump seat, having been doing the PA and he tells the visitor 54,000ft (in round figs.) twice the speed of sound. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Vimal Anandharaman

Regarding the debate of old vs new, I think the fact that VOR's are being phased out in Europe has made such that VOR to VOR flying is impractical and as such why pilots rather head back to the ground in situation such as FMS failures.  

Admittedly in the sim, I like old classic airliners ( and of course the 320 ) cus there are more things to be done. IRL most pilots will probably prefer the ease of use of modern planes. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Frazz, on reflection I’ve decided to draw a line under the discussion with that chap. I see no point in proving to him he was incorrect. It serves no useful purpose.

Link to post
Andrew Wilson

Were they suggesting 50,000ft/M0.95 on the outbound leg? If so - no, that didn't happen. For the simple reason - the reheats wouldn't ignite at that altitude :)

image.png

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Fraser Gale
46 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Were they suggesting 50,000ft/M0.95 on the outbound leg? If so - no, that didn't happen. For the simple reason - the reheats wouldn't ignite at that altitude :)

image.png

Exactly, and even in the reheat envelope shown here by the time you are at FL450 you are around M1.60!

FL500 at M1.95 wasn't possible as CAS would be down to around 233kts in standard atmosphere conditions.  Through the floor. 

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

Frazz, on reflection I’ve decided to draw a line under the discussion with that chap. I see no point in proving to him he was incorrect. It serves no useful purpose.

I agree, as I said early on, memories are fading and there is no way to prove them write or wrong.  It wasn't possible.  I still think he may have seen those figures on the instruments but that there was a fault in an ADC - that happened with the old analogue (but very accurate) systems. 

Yes, on occasions the flight envelope was "stretched" shall we say, but I would bet quite a bit of money on it always being up the way rather than down.  I.e. over speed a bit to get the passengers to M2.00 on a charter or above 127C TMO to get them to M2.00 but I seriously doubt anybody other than the test pilots went below the lowest authorised speeds on any flight and they were clearly defined and learnt by crews. No harm to the guy, he believes that's what he saw, so fine he may have, but according to all that we know and documents we have it wasn't possible without stick shaker activating. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
1 hour ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Were they suggesting 50,000ft/M0.95 on the outbound leg? If so - no, that didn't happen. For the simple reason - the reheats wouldn't ignite at that altitude :)

Looks like it from this post... "No, definately 50,000' or so over S Wales, M0.95."

That sounds very much like the outbound leg since it wouldn't be that high for the return. I don't have a chart for these bay flights but it sounds very much like it's the standard routing for a JFK run then changing heading over South Wales / Bristol Channel.

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

Looks like it from this post... "No, definately 50,000' or so over S Wales, M0.95."

That sounds very much like the outbound leg since it wouldn't be that high for the return. I don't have a chart for these bay flights but it sounds very much like it's the standard routing for a JFK run then changing heading over South Wales / Bristol Channel.

Here is the BA chart for round the bay.  Outer green track was the normal one with the accel point marked with a large arrow and the M1.00 point marked with a squiggly type arrow mark.  It makes no difference though, it wasn't possible in the flight envelope. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vkxMEtkJSX8kGggI_pVodNg6kW_uy4MB/view?usp=sharing

 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

You've just reminded me I have some Concorde paper charts including that one. If they flew the outer green route (SL2) that seems to take them towards Guernsey. The inner one (SL3) seems more logical taking them to TESGO. Thoughts?

I should try this flight sometime. Looks interesting.

Link to post
Andrew Wilson
45 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You've just reminded me I have some Concorde paper charts including that one. If they flew the outer green route (SL2) that seems to take them towards Guernsey. The inner one (SL3) seems more logical taking them to TESGO. Thoughts?

SL1/SL4 and in on SL3/5 was CDG-LHR. TESGO was at or near the accel pt.

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

You've just reminded me I have some Concorde paper charts including that one. If they flew the outer green route (SL2) that seems to take them towards Guernsey. The inner one (SL3) seems more logical taking them to TESGO. Thoughts?

I should try this flight sometime. Looks interesting.

It is the best route for a Sunday evening I always think as it only takes just over an hour and you are busy the whole time.  I usually hand fly the whole flight. 

If you look closely round the route lines, you will see white direction arrow inserts showing route direction.  The outer is anti-clockwise and the inner is clockwise.  The outer route was also used for charters to Paris with the inner being the return to London from Paris.  I'm not aware of the round the bay ever following anything other than the outer route, other than if they extended the route down over the Bay of Biscay to elongate the time in the air.  As I said previously the subsonic points are marked by the green squiggly thing on the outer before Guernsey (about 40nms if I remember correctly) and on the inner there are two before MATIM, one for summer and one for winter. 

Round the Bay was the outer route basically.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

Just to add to what Andrew and I already said, Round the bay was the outer route (SL2/SL7) to Guernsey, then a quick right turn to Jersey (you must be subsonic or your turns are in trouble) then left at Jersey onto the UG27 to BARLU the UB11 north etc. 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
44 minutes ago, Andrew Wilson said:

SL1/SL4 and in on SL3/5 was CDG-LHR. TESGO was at or near the accel pt.

I can see SL4 extending NW from CDG but the accel point is on the coast just south of ETRAT.

My paper chart is by Thales Avionics dated 24 Nov 01.

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

It is the best route for a Sunday evening I always think as it only takes just over an hour and you are busy the whole time.  I usually hand fly the whole flight. 

If you look closely round the route lines, you will see white direction arrow inserts showing route direction.  The outer is anti-clockwise and the inner is clockwise.  The outer route was also used for charters to Paris with the inner being the return to London from Paris.  I'm not aware of the round the bay ever following anything other than the outer route, other than if they extended the route down over the Bay of Biscay to elongate the time in the air.  As I said previously the subsonic points are marked by the green squiggly thing on the outer before Guernsey (about 40nms if I remember correctly) and on the inner there are two before MATIM, one for summer and one for winter. 

Round the Bay was the outer route basically.

Yes, spotted the white arrows. You must have a decent yoke to hand fly. When I get the Fulcrum that should allow me better control.

The route name of “round the bay” is a bit misleading as it’s nowhere near Bissau. They should have called it the Cornwall Loop! :D

43 minutes ago, Fraser Gale said:

Just to add to what Andrew and I already said, Round the bay was the outer route (SL2/SL7) to Guernsey, then a quick right turn to Jersey (you must be subsonic or your turns are in trouble) then left at Jersey onto the UG27 to BARLU the UB11 north etc. 

Yup, followed all that on my chart. It also has a routing for Lisbon - Barbados which seems odd given Air Portugal never bought Concorde.

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

Yes, spotted the white arrows. You must have a decent yoke to hand fly. When I get the Fulcrum that should allow me better control.

The route name of “round the bay” is a bit misleading as it’s nowhere near Bissau. They should have called it the Cornwall Loop! :D

Yup, followed all that on my chart. It also has a routing for Lisbon - Barbados which seems odd given Air Portugal never bought Concorde.

Lisbon was an important alternate on the BGI route, and could be nominated as a refuel because the route out of there is more direct.  I just have a cheap Saitek yoke, key is to have it calibrated as tight as possible (slightest movement gives a reaction) which is accurate for Concorde, and if you fly it accurately, observers should think you are controlling by osmosis because you never move! 

I agree on the route name, never understood that one.

My charts are June 03 Aerad, the last version I believe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

I'll give it a try but I doubt I have the skill with the limitations of the Saitek. Regarding my earlier post which may have confused you Bissau should have read Biscay. Bloody word guessing by Apple.

Roger on the Lisbon alternate for Barbados.

I've been planning Manchester - Montreal as something of a change. Avoided it as so much of the latter route was over land. But then I noticed supersonic is permitted for quite a way which makes it more appealing. I'm just a bit stuck at the Montreal end as the last waypoint appears to be YSO at 44143N 079103W but that's to the west of Montreal and there doesn't appear to be any STARS according to PFPX.

How was it routed and was YSO a valid waypoint?

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

I'll give it a try but I doubt I have the skill with the limitations of the Saitek. Regarding my earlier post which may have confused you Bissau should have read Biscay. Bloody word guessing by Apple.

Roger on the Lisbon alternate for Barbados.

I've been planning Manchester - Montreal as something of a change. Avoided it as so much of the latter route was over land. But then I noticed supersonic is permitted for quite a way which makes it more appealing. I'm just a bit stuck at the Montreal end as the last waypoint appears to be YSO at 44143N 079103W but that's to the west of Montreal and there doesn't appear to be any STARS according to PFPX.

How was it routed and was YSO a valid waypoint?

If you want the finer detail on the Round the Bay I suggest a different thread as the "turn round a point" is quite a fun technique but takes getting used to.  Unless you have a copy of Mike Riley's book in which it is covered. 

I've never flown to Montreal - the standard route (usually in the summer I believe) was Manchester to Toronto.  Montreal was an alternate for this.  It might be an idea to organise the forum a bit with a thread for each route worthy of discussion....

Do you have the Barbados operating notes?  Very interesting and helpful!

Link to post
Seth Goodwin

  

On 5/3/2020 at 8:37 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

On a separate topic is it possible for Concorde to fly at FL500 subsonically? A post from someone on FB who was in the flight deck as a passenger on an Air France Round the Bay flight insists the aircraft was at that altitude at M0.95. Possible?

As others have since pointed out, no that is not possible. I can't see Frazz's envelope link as it is protected, but I found 1980 BA flight envelope limitations document that indicates you'd be on the receiving end of a stick shaker at Mach 0.95 at 43,000 feet or basically stalling at 0.95 @ 50,000 feet.

On 5/3/2020 at 8:54 AM, Fraser Gale said:

It sounds like a case of memory through rose tints or a case of AF pilots chancing something they shouldn't have (no offence to them and I wasn't there so maybe not).

Whilst not known for running Concorde to BA standards, I'm doubting they made a habit of stalling planes at 50,000 feet for the heck of it either. In addition to the flight envelope and the aide memoire  you posted over the weekend, Pierre had posted Air France's optimal subsonic cruise chart a couple of years ago here. As you can see just like the BA aide memoire it  too maxes out at 41,000 for a subsonic cruise. Both of which not surprisingly coincide with Vla on the envelope chart.

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

 

Whilst not known for running Concorde to BA standards, I'm doubting they made a habit of stalling planes at 50,000 feet for the heck of it either. In addition to the flight envelope and the aide memoire  you posted over the weekend, Pierre had posted Air France's optimal subsonic cruise chart a couple of years ago here. As you can see just like the BA aide memoire it  too maxes out at 41,000 for a subsonic cruise. Both of which not surprisingly coincide with Vla on the envelope chart.

The flight envelope is clearly defined in several charts throughout the manuals and the charts should be the same sof both airlines other than translation between French and English.  There were cases of AF operating outside other limitations (power plant) which caused damage and quite serious incident on more than one occasion which I personally don't think is about operating to BA standard, it was more about not operating to manufacturer and airworthiness limits. I'm very aware that people tend to be on BA of AF and get very defensive of the one they prefer though, so I don't want to get into that.  As you have mentioned and was stated by myself early in the thread, it wasn't possible without exceeding limits.

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot
5 hours ago, Seth Goodwin said:

  As others have since pointed out, no that is not possible. I can't see Frazz's envelope link as it is protected, but I found 1980 BA flight envelope limitations document that indicates you'd be on the receiving end of a stick shaker at Mach 0.95 at 43,000 feet or basically stalling at 0.95 @ 50,000 feet.

Whilst not known for running Concorde to BA standards, I'm doubting they made a habit of stalling planes at 50,000 feet for the heck of it either. In addition to the flight envelope and the aide memoire  you posted over the weekend, Pierre had posted Air France's optimal subsonic cruise chart a couple of years ago here. As you can see just like the BA aide memoire it  too maxes out at 41,000 for a subsonic cruise. Both of which not surprisingly coincide with Vla on the envelope chart.

I think we all agree that speed / altitude just wasn't possible.

11 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

If you want the finer detail on the Round the Bay I suggest a different thread as the "turn round a point" is quite a fun technique but takes getting used to.  Unless you have a copy of Mike Riley's book in which it is covered. 

I've never flown to Montreal - the standard route (usually in the summer I believe) was Manchester to Toronto.  Montreal was an alternate for this.  It might be an idea to organise the forum a bit with a thread for each route worthy of discussion....

Do you have the Barbados operating notes?  Very interesting and helpful!

I don't have Mike's book but the chart shows the route and the accel / Mach 1 points so I probably have enough info assuming I'll program the waypoints into the INS. What was the optimum CG for that Round The Bay flight? Still 59 I guess?

I'm sure if I switch Montreal for Toronto that plan will be fine. I notice it ended very close to Buffalo which isn't that far from Toronto.

This topic has ended up as a bit of a mash. I'm primarily to blame for that so sorry to the OP for hijacking his post.

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

I think we all agree that speed / altitude just wasn't possible.

I don't have Mike's book but the chart shows the route and the accel / Mach 1 points so I probably have enough info assuming I'll program the waypoints into the INS. What was the optimum CG for that Round The Bay flight? Still 59 I guess?

I'm sure if I switch Montreal for Toronto that plan will be fine. I notice it ended very close to Buffalo which isn't that far from Toronto.

This topic has ended up as a bit of a mash. I'm primarily to blame for that so sorry to the OP for hijacking his post.

You can't just fly it on the INS track as the turn won't work.  You have to enter the centre of the circle as an INS point and fly with reference to that.  On autopilot you use heading hold and the turn datum adjust knob to get specific bank angle depending on the Mach number and adjust to the centre of the turn as you go.  It's this difference that makes it fun! 

You still aim for 59% but by the time it gets there it's time to slow down!  You also have to use the procedure for supersonic flight with low fuel load which I've quoted before in a thread somewhere, so I'm not going to type it all again.

 

Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Given this is a bit more complicated than I imagined I'll put it on the back burner for now. I'm continuing my world tour in the 737 enroute from Hanoi to Hong Kong. Oh the fun of flying at Mach 0.79. :rolleyes:

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...