Just out of curiosity - Airplane Guys

^ My brother, who has contacts, called me up to say he had free Concorde tickets to London and he wanted to go there and turn around and come back :) I was already in NYC at the time, for something. I didn't take him up on it, but maybe would have if I knew it wasn't going to last. Or maybe wouldn't have if I'd known the end was it was going to explode...
 
Last edited:
I've watched evening take offs from Heathrow a few times and the sight with the reheat plus the sound - makes your chest vibrate - never failed to impress.

Once, when I was in St Andrews, they booked Concorde to bring some of the world's top golfers over from the States for the 1984 Open. Special clearance to land at RAF Leuchars. A lot of people flooded into the area to see the plane, which normally never came to Scotland, so the arrival was watched by a big crowd. I was on a hill at Strathkinness looking down on the runway just a couple of miles away.Those of use who hung around for the departure were rewarded by the pilot laying on a brief aero display. He had an empty plane with very low fuel - it was only going a short hop back to Heathrow, about 400 miles. So after a few slow passes and steeply banked turns, he pointed the nose south, lit up the afterburners, pulled the stick back and roared up, up and away. I'll never forget that.
 
These are not my pictures. But years ago, we had an Air Force B-1 Bomber fly by the ship at low level 200' AGL or so. After the first pass, it came back around at supersonic speed. The high humidity at sea level causes the vapor to compress around the mid section of the fuselage and at other points. This is not a condition of breaking the sound barrier as many think. The cone is visible at lower speeds as well simply depending on the pressure a humidity level. Still, it is cool as heck to see on a bird this size. And, the sound wave that hits you feel like the pressure wave from a bomb blast.
Boeing-Planing-to-Turn-the-B-1-Bomber-Into-a-Supersonic-Gunship-660x330.jpg


OIP.Awp_leJFGmfozSRWW1zwIAHaEW
 
These are not my pictures. But years ago, we had an Air Force B-1 Bomber fly by the ship at low level 200' AGL or so. After the first pass, it came back around at supersonic speed. The high humidity at sea level causes the vapor to compress around the mid section of the fuselage and at other points. This is not a condition of breaking the sound barrier as many think. The cone is visible at lower speeds as well simply depending on the pressure a humidity level. Still, it is cool as heck to see on a bird this size. And, the sound wave that hits you feel like the pressure wave from a bomb blast.


OIP.Awp_leJFGmfozSRWW1zwIAHaEW

Looks like a supersonic crested ballerina.
 
20 Concorde's were built. They served in passenger service for 27 yrs. Only one ever crashed. I'd call that a good safety record.
Really I don't know what to call a good safety record so I can't disagree or agree. What happened to it is pretty interesting. But the perception is that event spelled the end of it. Just now skimmed the Wikipedia article on Concorde, and a mechanic was actually convicted and overturned of manslaughter.
 
IIRC the Concorde crash was caused by debris - part of a tyre carcass left behind by an earlier plane - being flung up and causing fuel tank rupture. I have been told that is why airports now send a car along the runway after every aircraft movement, to check for debris.
 
Yeah.
when we designed Concord aviation fuel cost 17cents an Imperial Gallon,
By the time we'd appeased the French by letting Concord 001 fly first aviation fuel cost 17 cents a cupful.
Economics did as much to kill the Concord as American debris on a French runway.
Quoting the late Sir Terry Pratchett "An aircraft that looks like it's going 200 mph when it's parked."
 
^Something said it took as much fuel to taxi to the runway as the average car uses in 6 mos. Also implied there was a separate tank for taxi fuel and that the pilot should have used it up, and that that's the tank that took the hit and exploded. Who knows, I for one am not going to break down and look for the report..
 
Show me a plane that has a perfect safety record and I'll show you one that never got built. All in all planes are far safer than cars or bikes.
 
IMHO, the closest thing to a "perfect machine" was the DC-3, and even those went down on occasion....
P.S. I didn't intend my opinion to start a debate. Just sayin'. t.
There's an interesting video on a DC-3 crash and burn on takeoff. Apparently the fuselage blocks the airflow to the rudder and the wings have the wrong angle of attack unless the tail is raised and the plane is level, so it's important to get the tail up in the air quickly on takeoff. Same on landing, keep the tail up. Pretty interesting
 
Last edited:
Only "implied" when you have no idea what you're talking about. Airplanes don't have "taxi tanks." :rolleyes:
Talking about contributors to the crash, this says what the pilot should have done was burn off all the taxi fuel. A tank go hit. That implies implies what got hit was a "taxi tank", no? But you're right, I'm not a Concorde pilot and Concorde chief mechanic like you. Thankfully.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0DFyUJfciQ
 
Talking about contributors to the crash, this says what the pilot should have done was burn off all the taxi fuel. A tank go hit. That implies implies what got hit was a "taxi tank", no? But you're right, I'm not a Concorde pilot and Concorde chief mechanic like you. Thankfully.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0DFyUJfciQ
Ain't you the one always beatin' the "never trust any source" drum? :rolleyes:
It was tank 5 that ruptured. Tank 5 is one of 4 main tanks that fill the eng feed tanks.... one for each engine. Running that tank dry as a "taxi tank" would be rather silly, no?
Go back to makin' up shit about pregnant women and vaccines... At least there you can claim somebody else made it up when you're called on it. :doh:


fuel system.png
 
Last edited:
20 Concorde's were built. They served in passenger service for 27 yrs. Only one ever crashed. I'd call that a good safety record.

Really I don't know what to call a good safety record so I can't disagree or agree. Just now skimmed the Wikipedia article on Concorde,.

Talking about contributors to the crash, this says what the pilot should have done was burn off all the taxi fuel. A tank go hit. That implies implies what got hit was a "taxi tank", no? But you're right, I'm not a Concorde pilot and Concorde chief mechanic like you. Thankfully.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0DFyUJfciQ


You know Jim i have just been convinced that i should not listen to someone who has spent years in the aviation industry servicing and working on all kinds of commercial airplanes and jets.............I'm convinced that i should listen to someone who says things like....................

"Really I don't know what to call a good safety record so I can't disagree or agree"..........."Just now skimmed the Wikipedia article on Concorde"..........Also implied there was a separate tank for taxi fuel and that the pilot should have used it up, and that that's the tank that took the hit and exploded......................."There's an interesting video on a DC-3 crash and burn on takeoff. Apparently the fuselage blocks the airflow to the rudder and the wings have the wrong angle of attack unless the tail is raised and the plane is level",..................."But you're right, I'm not a Concorde pilot and Concorde chief mechanic like you. Thankfully."

So with all this stated information that was skimmed,implied, found interesting, cant agree or disagree and not from a concord chief mechanic, i have to stop listening all posted verifiable information from the experts.........Now i am inteligent and learned
 
Go back to makin' up shit about pregnant women and vaccines...
I said nothing about pregnant women.

P.S. Were you dismissed from the Air Force on a section 8, or whatever it's called there? Mental incapacitation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top