PJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9498 times:
It actually used a lot more runway then the the 747 and 707 because of its wing. It uses a delta wing which takes a lot more air speed to generate the lift it needed for flight. It took off normally at 200 MPH. The delta wing though didn't have as much drag as a normal wing did which coupled with its huge engines gave it the capability to fly supersonically.
Well, 200mph is 'only' about 175knots which I would think is very much in the realm of a heavy 747's Vr? Perhaps some of our good 747 pilots can tell us.
Also, I suspect with afterburner Concorde probably had a higher power/weight ratio on take off than a 747 making it accelerate faster, and combined with that since Concorde had no high lift devices to deploy for takeoff it would be very aerodynamically clean during the t/o roll up to the point of rotation. So you really have to take all these factors into account - not just it's highish t/o speed.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
VC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1397 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9399 times:
How much runway any aircraft needs depends on many variables, but in general terms it needed the same sort of runways when fully loaded as say a 747.
Yes it's take off speed was high , but it's acceleration was much better than conventional aircraft so allowing it to use the same runways as conventional aircraft. It was designed to use airports and flying patterns as they were in the late 1960/70, but one thing that it was sensitive to was the roughness of runways and in the early days [late 1970s] runways had to be inspected before Concorde could use them. Later after some modifications had been done to stiffen the landing gear, roughness became less of a problem
TWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9322 times:
Quoting DH106 (Reply 3): Well, 200mph is 'only' about 175knots which I would think is very much in the realm of a heavy 747's Vr?
DL 56, a B777 from NRT-ATL, speeds for takeoff were V1-161//Vr-167//V2-172 (all knots.)
This A/C weighed in at 639000 lbs. Takeoff was on rwy 16R which is 13123' long. I'm not sure how much runway it used but it had to be at least 8-11000'. I would venture a guess that the SST used about that much.
At sealevel STD, front wheels left at 220mph and main undercarriage left at 250mph. Main wheel touchdown at landing was 185mph.
IIRC, runway requirements include emergency takeoff abort, correct? The actuall takeoff distance for Concorde could have been just under a mile but then slowing a 408,000-lbs plane is different from landing at 245,000-lbs; takes more distance than a landing sequence.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16711 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9298 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8): IIRC, runway requirements include emergency takeoff abort, correct? The actuall takeoff distance for Concorde could have been just under a mile but then slowing a 408,000-lbs plane is different from landing at 245,000-lbs; takes more distance than a landing sequence.
Exactly. There has to be enough distance to stop from V1. So the actual take-off distance is much less than the required runway distance.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
As stated, many variables, I've seen fully loaded departures on a hot day, and plenty of lighter loaded charters go, the latter lept off the runway, the former did not.
Jwenting, you come out with some far out stuff at times, but I must congratulate you on the idea, if I read it right, that LHR and CDG's runways were modified for Concorde!
(And what about other runways-I can think of two in the US for a start?)
Keep 'em coming!
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3913 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8898 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): Exactly. There has to be enough distance to stop from V1. So the actual take-off distance is much less than the required runway distance.
Yes there must be stop distance from V1. But on heavy aircraft there is a V1 Vr split. Watch a B747-200 taking off in the summer. It sometimes seems to lift off just before the end of the runway. V1 was passed long ago.
I remember once being in the cockpit of a charter Tristar taking off from LCA fully loaded. Everything went to plan but we got mighty close to the runways end before it disappeared under the nose.
Back to Concord. I used to watch it take off from BAH around 1982 when it operated to SIN. It left about 2200 local in 35degC temps. It lifted off at about the same point as the B742s but then disappeared over the horizon without seeming to climb at all! Loved watching the shock waves from the reheat at night.
Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8795 times:
I watched many concorde take-off's and landings. I have video of most of the last ever flights departing, and the long distance ones such as the BGI flight used most of the runway, rotating off 27R roughly on passing the Compass Centre, however AF on delivery to Filton, was rotating just after it had passed the Renassaince, just before it went over the top of the tunnel.
I'm sure you google earth experts could measure those distances to give us a rough idea...........
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"