Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AgnusBymaster
Topic Author
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 8:11 am

Concorde Flights

Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:15 am

I was wondering, does anyone know what the typical flight path for the Concorde on the JFK-LHR flight is? When do they go supersonic and when do they go subsonic again? Are there only certain runways at JFK that can be used? Thanks.
 
Guest

RE: Concorde Flights

Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:35 pm

SST go supersonic as soon as a few miles from coastline - as far as noise limitations... Typical flight tracks take them from FL 530 to FL 590, until short of coastline of UK (or France) to reduce speed and flight level...
Your question is rather "general in nature"... so is my answer...  Smile
(s) Skipper
 
AgnusBymaster
Topic Author
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 8:11 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:51 pm

Actually, more what I was wondering:

Do the flights have to do a lower level sub-sonic cruise for some amount of time before they burn off enough fuel to accelerate and climb to Mach 2/FL 5X0? I suppose it would depend a lot on the cargo/pax load and the atmospheric temperature. But in general, how much of the flight is actually spent at Mach 2 versus lower mach numbers or subsonic speeds. Also, I seem to recall something about the Concorde's route for JFK to LHR taking it over Newfoundland and Southern Ireland. If that were indeed the case, a substantial portion of the flight would have to be subsonic.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:19 am

As usual, you'll get more detailed information from the experts but BA's route takes Concorde well south of Ireland and uses the Bristol Channel to maximise the supersonic portion of the flight.
 
Woodreau
Posts: 2070
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:05 am

I thought the Concorde had dedicated fixed tracks across the Atlantic. Sierra Mike, November or something like that. But I don't know if the route to get onto and off the supersonic tracks remain the same or not.

Cheers  Smile
Woodreau
Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
 
GDB
Posts: 14196
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:14 am

Bellerphon will know more about this side of things, but check this out anyway;
http://www.speedbirdonline.co.uk/concorde.html
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:18 am

AngusBymaster

The standard flight path for a JFK-LHR flight on Concorde will be on Track SN, which is a fixed track, for Eastbound SST flights over the North Atlantic, running from 60°W to 15°W.

The bits at either end of SN depend on ATC, but a typical route would be JFK-SHIPP-LEOES-LINND-3SN-SN-SL3-UP2-OCK-LHR.

The initial route out of JFK depends on the runway and standard instrument departure in use. 22R is our preferred runway, weather and traffic permitting, with 31L as second choice. We can, and have, used the other runways at JFK, but they impose considerable operational restraints on us, and we avoid using them whenever possible.

After a maximum weight take-off we can climb immediately to FL500/M2.0, we do not need to burn off fuel prior to commencing climb and acceleration. The only reasons we stay subsonic are if we are over land, under other aircraft, or ATC haven't cleared us to accelerate and climb.

If cleared to climb unrestricted to FL600 and accelerate to Mach 2, we will be supersonic passing FL290, some 10 minutes after take-off, and we will be at FL500 and M2.0 around 35 minutes after take-off.

Concorde’s route does not go over Newfoundland or Southern Ireland, although it is not too far offshore from either of them.

For the descent into the UK, in the summer months Concorde must be subsonic no later than 55 miles before MATIM, a point on the Devon coast near Ilfracombe, and will be descending through about FL 410 as she becomes subsonic.

On a typical JFK-LHR flight with a flying time of 3h:10m, around 2h:35m will be above Mach 1, and around 2h:00m will be at Mach 2.

Regards

Bellerophon

 
tom775257
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 1:51 pm

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:36 am

It is a major blow to the u.k. civil aviation industry to loose Concorde (IMHO). I am gutted that I shall most likely never travel faster than the speed of sound.
Bellerophon I wish you the best for the future - especially after this autumn (I think I remember you from pprune talking about fast pointy things) I guess you shall be flying a slower bird soon enough  Sad
From a drunk U.K PPL trainee…
Goodnight.
 
AgnusBymaster
Topic Author
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 8:11 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:01 pm

Thanks! I'm continually impressed by this forum!
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:33 am

Not really the topic, but here's the departure route for today's CDG/JFK flight:

LFPG 08:43 000
*4CGN 08:47 084
*6CGN 08:50 178
SL4 EVX 08:52 237
SL4 *2SST 09:00 353
SL4 TESGO 09:06 405
SL4 AKELO 09:11 446
SL4 RILKA 09:17 465
SL4 RATKA 09:21 481
*SM 09:33 490
420000N0670000W 11:29 490

Quite surprising that the aircraft is just a FL490

Here's part of a flight plan for the BA JFK/LHR, unfortunately I have details only for the european airspace:

KJFK 13:26 000
503009N0300000W 15:27 600
SL3 *SN 15:55 600
SL3 *5010 16:04 570
SL3 BARIX 16:08 570
SL3 MATIM 16:21 350
UP2 PITEM 16:27 278
NIGIT 16:34 140
OCK 16:38 070
EGLL 16:41 000

And here we have FL600.

Cheers


Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:20 am

OO-AOG

There are some errors in the BA details you quote.

The position given at 30°W for BA2 is not correct, as this position is (nearly) on the Westbound SST track SM.

Whilst the time by 30°W looks about right, I very much doubt that BA2 was at FL600 by then, especially if AF2, coming the other way, really was only at FL490 by 67°W, which, frankly, I also doubt.

Regards

Bellerophon
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:59 pm

Bellerophon

The flight plan above is the actual route flown by the Concorde yesterday as per CFMU (Eurocontrol). I can't of course check for BA flights, but I can tell you that for our own company flights, the info on CFMU is very often accurate.

Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:23 pm

OO-AOG

Let me make it clear that it is the BA2 that I am talking about when I say that the flight plan you quote is not correct.

The position given at 30°W is wrong, as is the quoted altitude.

As far as AF goes, whilst I can't check on what their aircraft actually achieved in the same way that I can with BA, I find it very hard to believe that the aircraft was only at FL490 by 67°W.

I don't wish to appear discourteous, but if CFMU is very often accurate, then I'm afraid this looks like one of the times when it isn't.

Regards

Bellerophon

 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:53 pm

Bellerophon

Neither do I want to appear discourteous, I was just expressing my own experience with CFMU. Now, indeed, I do not dispatch any supersonic aircrafts, so all the data below is just quoted for information. CFMU is not an enthusiast website but a professional tool (for those who never heard of it)

This is the estimated route filed for today BA2

KJFK 13:15 000
SHIPP 13:20 156
LINND 13:29 338
395200N0681500W 13:38 416
402500N0670000W 13:42 426
*SN4 14:01 430
*SN5 14:19 430
*SN6 14:25 430
*SN7 14:47 430
*SN8 15:08 430
*SN9 15:29 430
SL3 *SN 15:39 410
SL3 *5010 15:48 410
SL3 BARIX 15:53 410
SL3 MATIM 16:01 430
UP2 PITEM 16:05 380
NIGIT 16:13 140
OCK 16:17 070
EGLL 16:20 000


While this is the actual data of G-BOAG

KJFK 13:15 000
*SN6 14:34 543
*SN7 14:57 600
*SN8 15:17 600
NATSN *SN9 15:36 610
SL3 *SN 15:46 610
SL3 *5010 15:55 610
SL3 BARIX 15:59 610
SL3 MATIM 16:09 478
UP2 PITEM 16:14 380
NIGIT 16:23 140
OCK 16:27 070
EGLL 16:30 000


Once again, this is some CFMU data and if you insist on the fact that
it's not possible, well I guess we can all believe you. Thanks anyway.
Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:15 am

Gentlemen, allow me to interrupt? I would like to increase my learning today. Can you please explain what these numbers/values represent? I know I ask a lot  Innocent I try to answer my patient's questions easy without getting too complex. Likewise, can you "dumb-down " this topic and exaplin how I, Layperson non pilot, can understand these?

So far, I understand that, let's say BA002 for example, leaves NY and then clears any land (as part of noise abatement). From there, isn't it just rocket ahead to mach 1.7 then kill the afterburners?
You see, I understand when leaving London, you have to clear land, you you crusie at M 0.95 for a while then the afterburners come on again. But must this be done when leaving NY since you are over the water usually quicker?

anyway, so what's all this mean  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Thanks.
KJFK 13:15 000
*SN6 14:34 543
*SN7 14:57 600
*SN8 15:17 600
NATSN *SN9 15:36 610
SL3 *SN 15:46 610
SL3 *5010 15:55 610
SL3 BARIX 15:59 610
SL3 MATIM 16:09 478
UP2 PITEM 16:14 380
NIGIT 16:23 140
OCK 16:27 070
EGLL 16:30 000
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:03 am

OO-OAG

Once again, several altitudes quoted for todays BA2, both planned and achieved, are wrong.

I can't say it any more clearly than that. Let me point out some errors.

Consider the altitudes quoted on the "estimated route filed for BA2 today".

*SN4 14:01 430
*SN5 14:19 430
*SN6 14:25 430
*SN7 14:47 430
*SN8 15:08 430
*SN9 15:29 430


The maximum speed that Concorde could achieve at this level (FL430) would be M1.69, and the re-heats would still be on.

The re-heats would have to be turned off after 15 minutes use and Concorde would be unable to cross the Atlantic at this level and speed, the fuel flows would be too high. It would have to go either higher and faster or lower and slower.

Concorde does not file a crossing level, but a block altitude, normally FL500-600 will be the clearance from NYC ATC, often varied to FL450-600 by YQX ATC.

*SN9 15:29 430
SL3 *SN 15:39 410
SL3 *5010 15:48 410
SL3 BARIX 15:53 410
SL3 MATIM 16:01 430


This shows Concorde as planned to descend from FL430 at SN9 to FL410 at SL3 and then climbing back to FL 430 by MATIM. Wrong.

Concorde cruise-climbs in a block altitude until reaching the decel-descent point (calculated by the crew to allow the aircraft to be below M1.0 by the speed control point into the UK at the altitude requested by ATC) and begins its descent from that point.

SL3 MATIM 16:01 430

FL 430 is a supersonic level, Concorde cannot be subsonic at this level, yet MATIM is well past the speed control point into the UK. In practice the aircraft will have descended through FL410 and reduced speed below M1.0 at least 55 miles befor MATIM, and will be around FL350 and M0.95 at MATIM.


Now consider the altitudes quoted for the actual data for G-BOAG

NATSN *SN9 15:36 610
SL3 *SN 15:46 610
SL3 *5010 15:55 610
SL3 BARIX 15:59 610


The maximum authorised altitude for Concorde is FL600. According to this data the aircraft has been operating outside its Flight Envelope for 23 minutes. Rubbish.

SL3 MATIM 16:09 478

Again, Concorde cannot be subsonic at this level, yet according to this data, even though it is now well past the M1.0 speed control point into the UK, it must still be supersonic.

As I said before, I don't wish to appear discourteous, and if you want to believe this CMFU data relating to Concorde that is entirely up to you, but it contains several errors.

I'm afraid this post is going to be my last on this subject.

Regards

Bellerophon
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:16 am

Mirrodie

From there, isn't it just rocket ahead to mach 1.7 then kill the afterburners?

Ideally yes, and it often happens, but remember that Concorde climbs and accelerates at the same time, so until NYC ATC can clear us to climb unrestricted to our block altitude FL450-600 both they and we prefer Concorde to stay subsonic, typically around FL260 and M0.95.

If we really had to, we could level off at say FL370 and M1.4, whilst a B747-400 goes over the top of us at FL 390, but it is horrendously inefficient in fuel useage, and the Boeing will probably also get boomed by us if it is fairly close.

SL3 BARIX 15:59 610

Route: SL3
Waypoint: BARIX
Time over Waypoint: 15:59 (UTC/GMT/Z)
FL: 610

Regards

Bellerophon
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:15 pm

Bellerophon

Thanks for the very clear explanation on the subject, I would love to know the reason why CFMU doesn't give accurate info for the SSC flights, anybody has an answer?

I know this was the be your last post on the subject, but could you give more explanation on this

FL 430 is a supersonic level, Concorde cannot be subsonic at this level

You mean that FL430 on SL3 is a supersonic level do you?

I can guess that you are one of the lucky fews driving this gorgeous bird, any chance you could post/email a company flight plan ... really curious.
Anyway many thanks for your imput!

Cheers

Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:38 pm

OO-AOG

You mean that FL430 on SL3 is a supersonic level do you?

No, I didn't say that FL430 on SL3 was a supersonic level, and for all I know ATC may well clear high-flying subsonic aircraft, such as Gulfstreams or Learjets, up to FL430, or even higher, on SL3.

I said that Concorde cannot be subsonic at FL430.

This is true regardless of the airway or track she is on. It is too slow for her, and outside the authorised Flight Envelope. At FL430 Concorde must be supersonic.

Concorde will never plan to fly level at FL430 (although could do if asked) and will only pass through it in climb (typically at M1.69) or descent (typically at M1.17).

Regards

Bellerophon
 
KLAX
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:59 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Thu May 01, 2003 4:04 am

This is a really fun read guys  Big thumbs up I had a snack, put some jazz on and just scrolled through the thread  Big thumbs up

-Clovis
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Thu May 01, 2003 10:14 am

Thanks for the information Bellerophon. I learned quite a bit.

(BTW, whats your screename stand for? Sounds cool. You can always IM me.)

take care, mirrodie
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6796
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Thu May 01, 2003 11:24 am

BTW, is this a regi for ANY concorde a/c (GB1KB)? I was considering buying a model concorde and it had that regi. go figure.
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Thu May 01, 2003 9:51 pm

Mirrodie

...is this a regi for ANY concorde a/c (GB1KB)?...

G-B1KB is not a current BA Concorde, which are G-BOAA to G-BOAG, and, as far as I am aware, has never been on any Concorde.

It has the prefix "G-", so we can rule out the AF aircraft, but the rest of the format is not correct.

UK civilian aircraft should have "G-" followed by four letters and no numbers. It looks bogus to me.

However, the registration G-BIKB, is currently on a BA B757-236

Regards

Bellerophon

 
VASI
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon May 05, 2003 4:08 am

BELLEROPHON:

According to your profile any your staments you belong to the Concorde fleet. As I only flew with the AF Concorde's in the past I want to make my dream come true and fly also with the BA Concorde, due to the very sad fact, that this era will soon be ended.

On each trip with the AF Concorde it was possible to have a cockpit visit, also on my two trips past September 11'th (inflight of course). Is this also possible on the BA aircraft? Of course some crews may refuse this, due to the high workload on each flight, or due to the safety procedures after the terrorist attacks. Just curious about it. My trip will take place during May 16'th and and May 24'th depending on availability, perhaps two months later.

One more thing I am curious about: do you also use the same afterburner thrust than the AF aircraft? Heard that AF uses the highest afterburner rate possible...

Thanks very much!

VASI
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Mon May 05, 2003 4:56 am

VASI

…According to your profile any your staments you belong to the Concorde fleet…

Actually my profile only says that I am an airline pilot based at LHR.

If you've formed the opinion from my posts that I am on Concorde, you may be correct, or, on the other hand, you may be wrong!

…with the AF Concorde it was possible to have a cockpit visit....inflight of course....Is this also possible on the BA aircraft?...

No, under security rules imposed by the CAA, I regret that in-flight cockpit visits are no longer possible on any BA aircraft type, on any route, at any time.

On Concorde, after engine shutdown on the gate, the flight crew will normally accept passengers, for a brief flight deck visit, as they disembark.

…do you also use the same afterburner thrust than the AF aircraft?...

Yes, it is called "Reheat - Take Off Rating" and this is the standard level of thrust that both airlines routinely use for take-off.

…Heard that AF uses the highest afterburner rate possible…

There is an afterburner thrust level greater than the "Reheat - Take Off Rating" thrust level that both airlines use on take-off, but neither airline uses it routinely.

It is called "Contingency", and it is used in an emergency only. Its use is never planned for on take-off.

…I want to make my dream come true and fly also with the BA Concorde…

BA would like that as well, I sincerely hope that you achieve your dream.

Best regards

Bellerophon



 
VASI
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue May 06, 2003 3:57 am

BELLEROPHON:

Thank you for your quick reply!

Two more questions:

1. Shortly after departing JFK and CDG the flight engineer calls out 3, 2, 1, noise!? This is the signal to cut off the afterburners due to noise restrictions.
I also saw it on a report from BBC. When exactly does this take place and is it also dependent on the speed achieved? I remember this situation when sitting in 3A on F-BVFF and later asked the Captain (guess was Capt. Hetrú) about some take off procedures without going into details.

2. On some AF flights and on each AF charter flight a mechanic was onboard. He carried out some minor checks after arriving and before departure and also advised the ground staff of how to refuel tha aircraft. Furthermore he was also inspecting the upper surface of the wing after each arrival by opening the overwing emergency doors, so he gained straight access. Is this the same at British Airways? Funny thing is, that many captains (only on charter flights) introduced the mechanic to the guests onboard, which always applauded.

I deeply regret the decision to phase out this majestic and beautiful legendary lady!

Much obliged!

VASI



 
Bellerophon
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Concorde Flights

Tue May 06, 2003 9:55 am

VASI

Sorry, but there has already been too much thread creep, and you are taking us further and further away from the question that AgnusBymaster originally asked, about the route from JFK-LHR.

My personal view is that these threads are better value if they are confined to points relevant to the original question.

That way, people can easily tell which threads may be of interest to them, and which may not, and they are also much less likely to miss a discussion about a subject that would interest them simply because it took place under an irrelevant heading.

Please, feel free to start a new thread of your own, about Concorde noise abatement, and I shall do my best to answer your questions there.

Regards

Bellerophon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos