Concorde announced by Aeroplane Heaven

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Yes, given the tropical latitude I expected to. I checked the ISA dev and it was only around -5 which probably explains why. I had around 90 pax with 3 in the flight deck.

It was CPS-X that calculated the Vref. I set the bugs around 100mm before decel. Vref, Vref+7, 190 and 230 usually as they’re the downwind and localiser intercept speeds.

04R isn’t the longest and I exited at the far end. The best bit was VAS. 1200Mb free at LAX with 80+ Ai and still 1000Mb at PHNL. I have LOD at once notch from max. Taking it all the way does eat into another 200+Mb.

My landings are still too hard. Flaring is the hardest bit. Probably don’t have engines high enough. 87% N2 okay?

Thinking of PHNL over to Tokyo. Is that doable?

The model isn't accurate in P3d when it comes to the cruise climb - it sits too low for too long. 

I suggest setting the bugs as I described because Vref+7 became the standard landing configuration when hand flying - this may also help your landings. Vref+10 was set because it was the maximum landing speed that the crew could use under normal circumstances - only serious failures would change this.  Not sure why you are using 230 as a speed, normal profile was 350 - 300, 250, 210, 190 Vref+7.  

I would need to see a video of how you go about it to help but you should be using autothrottle unless it's broken or you have a double engine failure down to 40ft, then leave the power setting where the autothrottle put it from 40ft down to 15ft, at which point you slowly close the throttles, aiming to have them closed just before you touch the mains.  As you close the throttles, you will need a tiny (not simulated well as it would be more in real life) amount of back pressure to keep the nose level, don't let it drop but don't pull it up either.  If you are at Vref+7 in the final approach you are aiming for 10 and 3/4 degrees pitch attitude to maintain to nose in the right position - with Vref the pitch will be just over 11 degrees which is getting close to 12 which put you in danger of scraping the TRA nozzles - another good reason to use Vref+7!

If for some reason you are handling the throttles manually, which would never have been done in real life unless something was broken, your final approach speed must be a minimum of Vref+7 (says so in the book) up to a maximum of Vref+17! Normally, depending on weather, Vref+10 would be advisable, hence always having it set on a bug - if the autothrottle drops out on final you know what to shoot for. 

Power settings were not really used as reference for landing as airspeed is the critical factor - Vref is also VLO (lowest authorised) at this stage in the flight. 

Oh, and if a cross wind, kick off the drift and level the wings at 15ft, don't wait till the mains touch as you could have scraped the TRA nozzles on the wing down side by then! 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Hi Frazz,

I'll stick to Vref+7 for future landings, thanks. I used 230 out of habit, nothing more. Regarding using autothrottle it does go against the grain a bit as I like to handle things manually for the last few miles.

Disabling A/T was easy in the real aircraft as the buttons were placed on the throttles themselves. I have no equivalents so even though I could program a button on the throttle quadrant to do the same that means taking my hand off the throttles which isn't ideal.

Thanks for the tips on landing. It remains the most challenging aircraft when it comes to landing. More practice required! 😉

Incidentally, PHNL-RJAA is 3320nm GCR so should be doable - just.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Hi Frazz,

I'll stick to Vref+7 for future landings, thanks. I used 230 out of habit, nothing more. Regarding using autothrottle it does go against the grain a bit as I like to handle things manually for the last few miles.

Disabling A/T was easy in the real aircraft as the buttons were placed on the throttles themselves. I have no equivalents so even though I could program a button on the throttle quadrant to do the same that means taking my hand off the throttles which isn't ideal.

Thanks for the tips on landing. It remains the most challenging aircraft when it comes to landing. More practice required! 😉

Incidentally, PHNL-RJAA is 3320nm GCR so should be doable - just.

If you are just flying for fun then handle throttles manually as much as you want.  It wasn't done for real though, and in fact it wasn't normally allowed to depart without at least one A/T channel working.  The split second it would take to press a button to disconnect the A/T shouldn't harm your approach, at least no more than selecting Vref+7 at 800ft on IAS ACQ. 

By the way, approach without A/T was flown quite differently, especially with two engines out: 210kts then Vref+30 or 190kts whichever is higher, then from 800ft start to bleed speed off back to final approach speed.

I must emphasise that A/T was always used down to 40ft unless there was a failure, and if one dropped out the first thing you would see is one or both pilots rush to re-engage it!!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

I find it odd that more landings weren't done with manual control of the throttles just in case both systems ever failed and the pilots would then have plenty of experience of handling them. On calm days with little chance of windshear or other nasties surely it would have been perfectly safe to disengage a/t now and then?

Just like standard pilots performing manual landings every so often to keep their eye in. I know @jon b never flew Concorde but he flies a 747 so some thoughts from a real-world pilot would be useful here.

[Ted Striker 338]

Frazz, If Concorde X had shared cockpit you could make a living giving online pilot training and check rides for it.

Ted

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

32 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

Frazz, If Concorde X had shared cockpit you could make a living giving online pilot training and check rides for it.

Ted

I would love that to be truthful... Training captain here I come! 😄

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I find it odd that more landings weren't done with manual control of the throttles just in case both systems ever failed and the pilots would then have plenty of experience of handling them. On calm days with little chance of windshear or other nasties surely it would have been perfectly safe to disengage a/t now and then?

Just like standard pilots performing manual landings every so often to keep their eye in. I know @jon b never flew Concorde but he flies a 747 so some thoughts from a real-world pilot would be useful here.

The reason is simple: Concorde at approach speed was so far down the back of the drag curve that a decrease in airspeed required an increase in power to hold the new airspeed.  This is not normal and hence the manufacturers and authorities insisted on a good quality authothrottle in order that the pilot workload was reduced.  It's also why you have to add to your Vref if not using A/T - less power required for higher airspeed and more safety margin.

Now, while I accept your argument for practice, some things are best left to the simulator checks twice a year, rather than reducing safety margins with 100 PAX down the back.  A/T on Concorde was considered an essential system, and the pilots liked it because they didn't have to worry about airspeed management. 

After all, they stopped allowing pilots to land the aircraft in mechanical signalling during base training because it was felt to be a little to dodgy - they did approach to 100ft then re-engaged it!  Electrical signalling to the flying controls in just like A/T - always used unless unavailable. 

The other thing is, when an automatic system can hold speed to within a knot, why give yourself the hassle when you have plenty other things to think about on approach. 

At the end of the day, they were trained/taught/told to use it on all approaches, so they did.  In fact I know of one SEO who had a near miss because a pilot (who also got a fright and went back to the sim to practice) allowed speed to decay on departure, after which the SEO was always nervous unless the autothrottle was in charge!

[Ted Striker 338]

11 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Training captain here I come!

Now we just need FSLabs to follow through........

Hopefully, at the very least, the existing 32 bit Concorde-X will work in the MSFS2020 with the FSX compatibility mode. I don't know if we would still have VAS problems in that scenario being that it is running in a 64 bit sim. It wouldn't have shared cockpit of course so no in cockpit flight instructor career.

Ted

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Frazz, excellent reply as usual. I suppose the delta wing added all sort of complications missing in normal aircraft. The huge amount of drag and even small changes in pitch would affect air speed far more than in conventional aircraft.

Back to the sim tomorrow for a few circuits and some touch ‘n goes. I have got the vertical speed down to below 150fpm on occasions but it’s a rarity. Perhaps a/t is the key.

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

38 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

Now we just need FSLabs to follow through........

Hopefully, at the very least, the existing 32 bit Concorde-X will work in the MSFS2020 with the FSX compatibility mode. I don't know if we would still have VAS problems in that scenario being that it is running in a 64 bit sim. It wouldn't have shared cockpit of course so no in cockpit flight instructor career.

Ted

I'm sure eventually we will fly her in 64 bit but who knows when - a little like the state the whole world is in at the moment. If I lived closer to Brooklands where the BA simulator is now situated, I would volunteer there. 

[trumpetfrazz1 89]

31 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Frazz, excellent reply as usual. I suppose the delta wing added all sort of complications missing in normal aircraft. The huge amount of drag and even small changes in pitch would affect air speed far more than in conventional aircraft.

Back to the sim tomorrow for a few circuits and some touch ‘n goes. I have got the vertical speed down to below 150fpm on occasions but it’s a rarity. Perhaps a/t is the key.

I try...  Yes, the delta creates more and more drag the slower it goes until really you are kept in the air by the thrust acting down the way (partly) like a rocket.  Hence you must close the throttles slowly at 15ft or she'll drop out of the sky, bounce, bounce again........and there will be a few noises from down the back. 

The most important thing with A/T engaged is pitch attitude flying.  Set the pitch bug by referring to the incidence gauge - incidence - glide slope angle gives the best datum.  For example on final your incidence (in Concorde's case the pitch angle at which VS = 0) reads 11 degrees (depending on speed) glide slope is 3 degrees, so set pitch bug at 8 degrees which if held should give you a steady track down the glide.  Small pitch changes round this datum will give a nice smooth ride and around 850 fpm but at 20ft a slight pitch up by quarter of a degree will bring this down to below 800 fpm.  All being well, ground effect will slow this gradually and between that, throttle reduction and keeping the pitch attitude steady you will kiss the ground with your rate of descent reaching 0 fpm as the shocks depress on the mains.  

Magic!

If anything I think the sim is too easy to land smoothly and your rate of descent at touch is quite high somehow. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Frazz, your brain must be the size of a planet to retain all this info! 😁

I must admit to watching the glide slope indicator and looking at the runway more than the ADI. Maybe one trick would be to run the sim at half speed inside 5 miles which would give me twice as much time to react.

One other question regarding the command “stick forward”. Was that issued when just the main gear touched the runway or only after the nose-wheel touched?

To allow gravity to control how quickly it comes down seems unwise given no reverse thrust or braking can commence until all are down. Or perhaps pushing the stick forward too quickly and too soon could cause it to hit too hard.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

18 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

The most important thing with A/T engaged is pitch attitude flying.  Set the pitch bug by referring to the incidence gauge - incidence - glide slope angle gives the best datum.  For example on final your incidence (in Concorde's case the pitch angle at which VS = 0) reads 11 degrees (depending on speed) glide slope is 3 degrees, so set pitch bug at 8 degrees which if held should give you a steady track down the glide.  Small pitch changes round this datum will give a nice smooth ride and around 850 fpm but at 20ft a slight pitch up by quarter of a degree will bring this down to below 800 fpm. 

Sadly running my UHD display at 1920*1080 means things are not as crisp as with native FullHD displays. This could be nigh on impossible to manage.

[jon b 2,041]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

 I know @jon b never flew Concorde but he flies a 747 so some thoughts from a real-world pilot would be useful here.

FLEW a 747 , past tense I’m afraid Ray as I’ve been thrown on the scrap heap along with my beloved jet , but I’d better not comment further on that in public 😢

Yes, id have thought that as Frazz has explained the delta wing would have massive induced drag at the sort of angle of attack Concorde landed at. We see it on the jumbo with its swept wing , but probably nothing quite like Concorde. For those reading who may not be familiar.. it’s a bit of a vicious circle,go below the correct approach speed , the angle of attack increases when the speed decreases ( roughly speaking , keeping it simple) that increase in AofA of the wing then causes more induced drag, the increase in drag further lowers the speed , and so lift reduces and the AofA then needs to be increased to maintain the same lift..and so it goes on. You either need a lot of thrust or a lot of sky to get out of that mess. It’s know as being on the wrong side of the drag curve , an expression now often used in every day life to explain a slow response.

On the 747 it’s best to take out the auto throttle at the same time you take out the autopilot. However it’s permissible to leave the auto throttle in when manually flying, and is a good safeguard for example when visually manoeuvring off an offset instrument approach, when you’re looking out of the window more than in at the speed .

What isn’t a good idea at all is to leave the autopilot engaged and make your own thrust adjustments on approach. With the 747’s under slung engines there’s quite a large pitch power coupling going on.... power up and the nose comes up for example. Start putting power on and off manually  with the autopilot in and the autopilot will start over correcting and then you’ll start over correcting with the thrust to counter the pitch change the autopilot has put in.Again a vicious circle and you’ll end up completely out of sync and in a mess.

The flight control computers work in sync with the auto thrust so they anticipate each other’s inputs and likely results on pitch.

I believe the Airbus with its system is even worse. There was an incident years ago where I think a pilot “ experimenting “ left the autopilot in and flew with manual thrust and performed an auto land, it think it was that way round ,but whichever way round it was it’s a big no no on the ‘bus. The end result was a bad tail strike on landing.

Autoland is normally only used when it has to be , the normal routine is to hand fly the landing.

I’ve had a couple of instances over the years of the auto thrust failing ( top tip in a 747, turn the FMC master switch from left FMC to right FMC and try re engaging the auto throttle) I can tell you that high altitude cruising without the auto throttle soon becomes exhausting as you have to watch it like a hawk and are constantly adjusting it as you move through different air masses and winds.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

@jon b, I'm very sorry to hear that John. I know your airline was withdrawing the 747 whatever else happened but to lose your job is very sad. There are a few shoots of recovery with European airlines so perhaps there will be an opportunity with someone else. I sincerely hope so.

Great write-up there. It sounds like an inexperienced pilot could soon get themselves in trouble by manually managing thrust and the aircraft. These automated systems must be a godsend especially in long cruises when boredom can easily set in. That last bit sounds like managing "coffin corner". The nightmare of all pilots!

I imagine you're getting lots of hours in at home. Bought P3Dv5 and the updated 747 yet?