Still reading that 83 page epic Concorde thread on PPRUNE, really sad that an aircraft as amazing as that is no longer slipping the surly bonds at mach 2.0:
Didn't Sir Richard Branson offer to buy them (albeit at the price of $1)
But because Airbus (The company that originally built the concorde was absorbed into Airbus I think) said if he bought it, they wouldn't give him any support whatsoever?
So what indicator broke? Mach 2 at 60k is about 1350 mph, the airspeed indicator shows about 500 mph(430 knots)
That is true airspeed that you are referencing.
True air speed is the actual speed through an air mass. Essentially your groundspeed (actual speed over the ground) is True airspeed plus or minus wind. So, TAS of 1350 mph, 100mph tail wind; GS =1450mph.
The indicator is showing IAS (Indicated air speed {duh!!}) Which close to CAS (Calibrated airspeed)
At that altitude the altimeter is subject to different errors. Not the least of which is the fact that there isn't a heck of a lot of air up there to effect the pitot static system.
Up at that altitude they wouldn't fly referencing IAS. They would be referencing Mach number instead, and then transition to IAS at a lower altitude.
With my limited time on Concorde (ie 0 hours) I can make an educated guess that there are in fact no indicators broken in that picture.
Last edited by sa226; 06-01-2012 at 09:41 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
Up at that altitude they wouldn't fly referencing IAS. They would be referencing Mach number instead, and then transition to IAS at a lower altitude.
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely - at high altitude and high speed there is a very narrow range of indicated airspeeds that an aircraft can operate at - too little IAS, and you're in a stall, even though you're supersonic, and just a little bit too fast, and you encounter big issues with compressibility that can result in abrupt loss of control:
I believe the Concorde had an indicated speed range at 60,000 feet of something like 140 knots. The U-2 had a speed range of 10 knots at altitude, which is to say that you had only a 10 knot difference between stalling and exceeding maximum velocity, resulting in a loss of control in either case. Quite a small margin!
I'm certainly no expert on this though - someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely - at high altitude and high speed there is a very narrow range of indicated airspeeds that an aircraft can operate at - too little IAS, and you're in a stall, even though you're supersonic, and just a little bit too fast, and you encounter big issues with compressibility that can result in abrupt loss of control:
I believe the Concorde had an indicated speed range at 60,000 feet of something like 140 knots. The U-2 had a speed range of 10 knots at altitude, which is to say that you had only a 10 knot difference between stalling and exceeding maximum velocity, resulting in a loss of control in either case. Quite a small margin!
I'm certainly no expert on this though - someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've read through that entire Concorde thread on PPRUNE, and after this picture was posted one of the former Concorde pilots points out exactly what I've bolded in your post.
If you look at the airspeed indicator in that picture the black/yellow "barber poll" (450kts) is the maximum speed, and the white "bug" at 300 knots is the slowest. So the Concorde at that altitude really didn't have much of a coffin corner compared to the U2 at its maximum cruising altitude.
I've read through that entire Concorde thread on PPRUNE, and after this picture was posted one of the former Concorde pilots points out exactly what I've bolded in your post.
If you look at the airspeed indicator in that picture the black/yellow "barber poll" (450kts) is the maximum speed, and the white "bug" at 300 knots is the slowest. So the Concorde at that altitude really didn't have much of a coffin corner compared to the U2 at its maximum cruising altitude.
Yeah, it's neat that the picture of the instruments matches what people who flew them write about the performance. It was also interesting to learn that the coffin corner was so large that they worried more about the temperature of the nose than getting deep into the aerodynamic corner limits.
I just saw one in person for the first time last week at LAX. Saw this Qantas one on the way in. The pilot of that flight didn't say anything about it. On the way out there was a Singapore Airlines one parked at the same gate, and the pilot pointed it out "for those aviation buffs on the plane."
The Following User Says Thank You to QuadCityImages For This Useful Post:
When I was in Hong Kong last year, I had the chance at the airport to see an A380 and 747-400 sitting next to each other. One thing that struck me is the classic look of the 747, with the cockpit up high vs. the A380, which gave the A380 a really bloated look in comparison.
The guy next to me commented that it was like looking at the QEII (747) moored next to the latest Royal Caribbean ship (A380)...
__________________ You’re just old hate balls.
--Funniest mod complaint in CP history.
