Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde Subsonic Cruise  
User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Since it's been announced that BA will keep one Concorde operational (and I'm assuming it will be for airshow and display purposes), would it be desirable to fly subsonic at lower flight levels to go long distance? I am thinking in terms of less stress on the aircraft to vist, say, Oshkosh in the future. Thanks...Jack


all best; jack
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLHR340 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4489 times:

No the aircraft is not designed for low level flying it would use up to much fuel - the delta wing is made for supersonic flight not subsonic it would cause to much drag on the a/c (I think).
And even at subsonic flight the engines are still LOUD so if the aircraft was to fly over land there would be a lot of complaints from the houses it will fly over.

I bet I am completely wrong  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

LHR340



A340 LoVeR! EC-GQK - LHR The Bussiest International Airport & 3rd Bussiest In The World!
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

Personally, I would be very surprised if there were more drag - or noise - when subsonic.

Anybody with appropriate concorde experience who can enlighten us?  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineLHR340 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Bob - I hear concorde fly over everyday, when it is hot it echoes and rumbles around for ages, it would be enough to annoy anyone at subsonic alt. Concorde is designed for supersonic not subsonic!

LHR340



A340 LoVeR! EC-GQK - LHR The Bussiest International Airport & 3rd Bussiest In The World!
User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

I am questioning if it would be a benifit to the airframe to eliminate the supersonic flight cycles. Thanks...Jack


all best; jack
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

I think you'll find that supersonic cruise actually helps the airframe.

The high skin temperatures eliminate almost all of the corrosion


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

Concorde does actually consume more fuel per mile when flying subsonically. As LHR340 pointed out, the delta wing is suited to supersonic cruise. Due to the thin wing's low aspect ratio and camber, subsonic flight requires a higher angle of attack than a subsonic airliner, creating more drag (although total drag at Mach 2 is much higher than at Mach .95). Initial cruising altitude is somewhat low (around FL290) to keep the AOA down.

The Olympus turbojet engines are the main problem, however. They are designed for Mach 2 flight and take full advantage of the precompression of the air stream created by the intake system, which dramatically increases efficiency and offsets the higher drag during supersonic cruise. Just as the 707-120's turbojet engines weren't as efficient as the -320's turbofans, Concorde's engines are at a disadvantage at subsonic speeds. When all is said and done, Concorde's range is reduced substantially when flying subsonically. I can't find the exact figure, but about 3,200 miles comes to mind. Even the swing-wing Boeing SST, which was (on paper) quite a bit more efficient than Concorde in subsonic flight, suffered a subsonic range penalty due to its turbojet engines.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

I am questioning if it would be a benifit to the airframe to eliminate the supersonic flight cycles.

Absolutely not!

As XXXX10 already stated, Concorde's supersonic abilities is one of the reasons it's been able to live on so relatively healthily despite the temporal age of its airframe


User currently offlineJetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4306 times:

Slightly off the topic of the Concorde airframe, but I have been away from aviation for a week.

Jack, where did you hear that BA is keeping an operational Concorde. Just curious.....


Jetdoctor



Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.
User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Dear JetDoctor: The topic, "British Airways: We Will Keep 1 Concorde Flying", started 2003-06-07, is in the Civil Aviation Forum and uses the London Times as a source. I assume (maybe incorrectly) that the information is valid.

Dear Others: I'm suspicious that my question has been misunderstood as a veiled suggestion that perhaps Concorde could remain in pax service if not flown supersonic. This is not at all the point of the question. I am of the old warbird mentality where we typically operate vintage airplanes below their performance capabilities when flying extended distances between airshow venues. I was questioning if it would be desirable to do the same with Concorde on an occassional transatlantic flight (I had Oshkosh in mind, once a year). The cost in time, refueling, etc. would obviously be excessive, but I'm not talking about normal revenue producing operations, I'm talking about "saving" the airplane.

Now, the "no" answers directly addressing my question leads, then, to another: if it is so important to fly Concorde supersonic, would future flights to airshows in Europe be occassionally supplimented with supersonic operation off-coast to "maintain" the airplane?

I thank all of you for your input and apologise if this topic has become a bit tiresome for some of you. Kind regards...Jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4211 times:

I see alot of the armchair experts are replying to this, you might be better off looking at this website for the info you require, or contact GDB or Bellerophon.

http://www.concordesst.com

 Smile




"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 584 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

Cptkrell

... would it be desirable to fly subsonic at lower flight levels to go long distance...

Not from a fuel economy point of view. Concorde’s subsonic range will be roughly about 25% less than her supersonic range.

The most fuel efficient way to operate Concorde is this:

Fly as fast as you can, as quickly as you can, for as long as you can.

To illustrate this point, consider the following fuel flow figures. They are all based on a Concorde at the same weight, in ISA temperatures, flying at the optimum Mach number for her altitude and at the optimum altitude for the number of operating engines.

4e...FL520...M2.00...1,134 kts...5,783 kg/eng/hr...23,132 kg/hr...20 kg/nm

4e...FL290...M0.95......562 kts...3,576 kg/eng/hr...14,304 kg/hr...25 kg/nm

3e...FL270...M0.95......567 kts...5,560 kg/eng/hr...16,680 kg/hr...30 kg/nm

…I am questioning if it would be a benifit to the airframe to eliminate the supersonic flight cycles…

Not from an airframe stress point of view, although this is less clearly demonstrated. The prevailing engineering view is that the heat transmitted to the airframe in SuperCruise is beneficial because it dries out any moisture that may have collected in remote or inaccessible parts of the airframe, and has contributed greatly to the lack of internal corrosion to be found and the longevity of the airframe.

… I am of the old warbird mentality where we typically operate vintage airplanes below their performance capabilities…

You will be familiar then with the difficulties that can be encountered with the licensing authorities getting these aircraft back into the air, and with the extensive and expensive maintenance that can be required.

If Concorde were to continue to fly at airshows, as a vintage aircraft, then the UK CAA would have to be convinced that it was safe for her to do so, and a large part of this would involve close scrutiny of the proposed maintenance schedule.

This maintenance schedule could be simplified greatly if, as part of the certification process, it was accepted by all parties involved that Concorde would no longer fly supersonically.

Many systems necessary for supersonic flight could then be de-activated, greatly reducing the expense of routine maintenance. For instance, the following systems would no longer be required.

• Computer controlled engine intake ramps (only used above M1.3).

• Re-heats (there is a procedure for a no-reheat take off at light weights).

• Flight crew pressure breathing oxygen apparatus.

• Fuel Tank 11 (used as a trim tank at M2.0).

• Fuel tank pressurisation system (used to stop fuel evaporating above FL440).

• TMO protection (keeps the Nose Temperature below +127°C).

• Several flight modes within the autopilot system.

• Flight crew training/recency requirements reduced.

• A further speed restriction of M0.7 would mean that the entire fuel trim/transfer would not be required.

All of these are areas where a lot of time, effort and money could be saved.

Presumably the main objective would be to display Concorde at air shows, and at sea level her VMO is 300 kts, so why go to all the difficulty of getting her back to M2.0 where no-one can see her?

So, despite what I said earlier about fuel economy, my personal view is that the maintenance costs and licensing difficulties of maintaining a supersonic capability whilst in private ownership would be too great, and that if she ever does fly again, as a display aircraft, it will only be at subsonic speeds

I would, of course, be delighted to be proved wrong!

… I had Oshkosh in mind, once a year…

So did I. I was the next in line to take her there!

Best regards

Bellerophon



User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Dear Bellerophon and others; kind thanks for all the valuable input. I'm sure we are all hoping for her continued operation in some capacity to preserve history. Perhaps my thoughts of an occassional revisit to the USA in the future may be realized. Regards...Jack


all best; jack
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

dear all, thanks for a great thread. I learn so much here!




Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Even if, as Bellerphon pointed out, costs and engineering effort were substantially reduced by limiting a preserved Concorde to M0.7, I have to say a lot of our guys are doubtful it could still happen.
But, rumour has it that Rod Eddington (who is really pushing this-no doubt he regrets and is angry about being forced to retire Concorde early), wants a fully functioning Concorde.
So another meeting with Airbus is due, they would have to be involved in any preservation effort, much more so if it was to stay supersonic.
On the other hand, a fully functioning Concorde could also be attractive to Quinteq (the new name for the Defence Research Agency), other European aeronautical agencies, Airbus and even NASA.
Look at all the effort Boeing had to go through to get a TU-144 flying.
It would be a shame to see Concorde's still unrivalled capability being lost, (I remember a few years ago some guys from the USAF F-15 units based in the UK visiting us, when we told them how long we could sustain Mach 2 for their jaws dropped).
Maybe once the A380 is in service, a match for the 7E7 is in the works, the A320 updated, Airbus will look at an SST, they'll need a research vehicle.
But it is early days yet, it will be hard enough keeping a subsonic Concorde flyable.


User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

Brian Trubshaw floats the idea of a Concorde supersonic engine-test vehicle in his book. IIRC, he mentions a speed of M2.2 with development in this role.

Come on Airbus, grab it and give us a new SST! Stuff the yankee doodles once again!! (Just kidding!  Big grin ).


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

I typed too soon, BA have spoken to Airbus about keeping one flying for airshows etc, it's not going to happen.
After all, they'd have to provide much of the cash and manpower.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Concorde Subsonic Cruise
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...
Concorde's Cruise Conditions? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 23:55:17 by Lehpron
Could Concorde Fly Transatlantic Subsonic Flight? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 21:27:46 by A380900
Concorde Noise Level During Cruise? posted Fri Nov 16 2001 06:50:19 by YKA
Concorde's Engines posted Sun Dec 3 2006 10:22:34 by Rigo
A332 / Trent 772B SFC And Cruise Settings posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:19:55 by ImperialAero
777 Cruise posted Tue Nov 14 2006 22:28:48 by Glom
Concorde Gear Question posted Tue Nov 7 2006 18:38:10 by EHHO
Could The Concorde Do A Loop? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 23:22:53 by Vio
Slow Cruise Speed posted Sun Jul 16 2006 03:15:53 by Newark777
Size Of The Concorde's Rolls Royce Olympus posted Sat Jul 8 2006 01:54:37 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format