747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:46 am

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?
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3737
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:44 am

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.
 
pjflysfast
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 11:05 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:24 pm

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.
 
DH106
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:33 pm

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....
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:56 pm

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
 
vc10
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:48 pm

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
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:07 pm

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
 
twal1011727
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:36 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:41 am

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
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:54 am

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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:09 am

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.
 
pjflysfast
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 11:05 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:16 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:24 am

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." - John Ringo
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:18 pm

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
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:12 am

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!
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:58 pm

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
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Did The Concorde Need A Long Take Off Roll?

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:59 am

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"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bhill, Google [Bot], thepinkmachine and 13 guests