Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3504 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10195 times:

I was just wondering did the Concorde need a long runway to take off like a fully loaded 747 or 707, or did it get off the ground pretty quickly?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3611 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10178 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I was just wondering did the Concorde need a long runway to take off like a fully loaded 747 or 707, or did it get off the ground pretty quickly?

I always remembered it taking way less than a 747.


User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10149 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.

User currently offlineDH106 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10093 times:

Quoting PJFlysFast (Reply 2):
It took off normally at 200 MPH

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....
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10067 times:

The main runways at CDG, JFK, and LHR are as long as they are for a reason...

Yes, it needed a lot of runway.
But in part that was because it needed a lot of runway to safely stop if it would have aborted (due to its higher v1 and vr).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10050 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

littlevc10


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10042 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 4):
The main runways at CDG, JFK, and LHR are as long as they are for a reason...

I dón´t know about CDG or LHR, but the runways at JFK are as long as they are not because of Concorde, but because of the early 707s, which took forever to get off the ground.

Concorde took off at a faster speed than other planes, but it also got up to that speed faster. So I´d think the takeoff distance would be similar to a 747, maybe a little longer.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9973 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.

KD MLB


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9966 times:

Quoting PJFlysFast (Reply 2):
It took off normally at 200 MPH.

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.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9957 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 4):
The main runways at CDG, JFK, and LHR are as long as they are for a reason...

LHR is 3900 m, nothing unusual, FRA, MUC and many other airports have 4000 m.

But Concorde also regularly flew to SMA, where the runway is only 3050 m long, and it was no problem.

But that landing at GCM was spectacular, with only 2140 m of rwy !



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9955 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
At sealevel STD, front wheels left at 220mph and main undercarriage left at 250mph. Main wheel touchdown at landing was 185mph

Thanks for the correction, you are right. Wow that's one fast takeoff roll!


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17001 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9949 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."
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9789 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.

And the all engines operating takeoff distance is much less than the distance that would have resulted from continuing the takeoff from V1 with one engine inoperative.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9623 times:

Some performance info here;
http://www.concordesst.com/performance.html

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!


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9549 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.


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9446 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...........

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Take Off Roll Call Outs posted Fri Mar 3 2006 03:25:08 by CruzinAltitude
Did The Concorde Have Any Speed Brakes? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 23:00:02 by Aak777
757 Take Off Roll Less Than Smaller Planes? posted Tue Jul 12 2005 06:10:07 by Bushpilot
G-Forces On Take-off Intitial Take-Off Roll posted Tue Aug 20 2002 09:51:29 by Wardialer
B737 Take-off Roll posted Sat Oct 20 2001 17:12:31 by Wardialer
Engine Spool-up For Take-off Roll posted Mon Aug 14 2000 21:08:21 by Beechbarron
Take Off On The Roll posted Fri Dec 31 2004 21:03:56 by Klc317
Take-off & Landing - Another Day At The Office? posted Mon Jan 23 2006 00:48:29 by TimePilot
Gear Down Long After Take Off posted Thu May 5 2005 23:36:54 by Sergy2k
V1 And V2 During Take Off At Roll posted Mon Jun 14 2004 13:26:14 by Alphasierra
G-Forces On Take-off Intitial Take-Off Roll posted Tue Aug 20 2002 09:51:29 by Wardialer
B737 Take-off Roll posted Sat Oct 20 2001 17:12:31 by Wardialer
Engine Spool-up For Take-off Roll posted Mon Aug 14 2000 21:08:21 by Beechbarron

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format