1 hour ago, Chock said:

And so there it is in a nutshell. If it is a huge list of things, then it's a lot of work, which has to be offset against potential sales to see if it is feasible, which it seems isn't, which, if that is not to be an impasse, takes us back to why it would be more feasible if someone was doing that work because they wanted to, rather than for financial remuneration. Which all comes back to why I was suggesting a way to go if somebody wanted a realistic one with detailed functionality and had the ability and will to do that work for themselves.

The only way for all this work to be done is by someone who is a professional coder and who does it for a living, neither of which describes me.  Ask me how the air intake control unit schedules N1 reduction in low temperatures and I'm there, but don't ask me how to code it.  The hours it would take do not add up to it being a hobby project, you would need some sort of financial compensation at the end of it, and those of us who have day jobs wouldn't have the time to do consistent work on it. 

Any detailed simulation would have to be done by a company, one in particular if you ask me.  Even they ask for external help occasionally, but they ask, I don't see them taking the word of anybody they don't know at least from the forums.  Although I was a bit annoyed when they listened to someone on the forum who insisted on referencing an out-of-date copy of the aircraft manuals, getting them to change the logic of a solenoid latched switch that is now wrong because the function of the switch was altered soon after entry into service...

I've said more than once, if I had the programming knowledge, I would have made one by now, but I don't. 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don't think so. I just use the value calculated by CPS-X. Sometimes it's as low as 30Kg, other times 150 or so. If Pierre was around he could explain how he calculated it.

AF did use slightly different numbers for some of the balance stuff, he may have used the French method. 

 

57 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

AF did use slightly different numbers for some of the balance stuff, he may have used the French method. 

The user can choose BA or AF for their planning. I have no idea about what he may have done differently for each apart from the obvious change of language on some of the resultant data provided.

54 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The user can choose BA or AF for their planning. I have no idea about what he may have done differently for each apart from the obvious change of language on some of the resultant data provided.

I don't think he would have used the different figures some how. 

@Canine Crew, I take your point that there is quite a lot to learn on flying Concorde and much of the setup is very different to any Boeing or Airbus.

There is a Virtual Flight Engineer so If you hand over to him those duties it eases your workload considerably.

From C&D to taxi takes me around 15 mins which includes setting up the INS, entering the flight plan and starting the engines. Not dissimilar to an Airbus. Just different.

The biggest difference is of course speed. Take a flight from Oslo to Heathrow. Around 2.5hrs in an Airbus I would imagine. Concorde does it in 1h 25m. Subsonic down to the coast at FL280, Mach 0.95 at which point it’s already travelling 100mph faster than an Airbus.

Then you hit the reheats and the climb rate for a short flight is tremendous. 5,000fpm perhaps more with only 35T of fuel. Within a minute you’ve gone through the sound barrier. After 6 minutes you’ve hit Mach 1.7 at 43,000ft when the reheats go off and the aircraft accelerates to Mach 2.0. / 50,000ft. That’s 2.4 times quicker than an Airbus.

Within 40 mins at 55,000ft I have to start decelerating and descending to be subsonic 50 miles off the Essex coast at FL350 inbound to Lambourne.

Thereafter it’s the same as an Airbus albeit at higher speed on Approach and landing around 155kts with braking only when the nose wheel touches the deck.

Just like driving a Ferrari with the best bit not paying for the fuel. 😁 Not tempted? 😉

Nice sales pitch @Ray Proudfoot!  Might need to wait till there is a new production line though...😁

I do understand why some folk just don't want to "go there" with Concorde - it was the same in real life actually.  A friend of mine who flew for BA for years was never interested in bidding to go onto the fleet. Plus, we are so far on from the type of flying that Concorde involves - navigation by VOR, NDB, INS without the ability to just plug a route into the FMS and go, as well as the lack of a visual map display - it is a real pilots aircraft and I don't mean that people who aren't interested in it aren't pilots...I just mean you have to really want to do it or you will find it hard work.

I still love it though.

So Concorde were never fitted with an FMC?   They used the INS right up to the end?

51 minutes ago, Mace said:

So Concorde were never fitted with an FMC?   They used the INS right up to the end?

There were 3 INSs and accuracy was excellent. Given INSs had worked well since the aircraft went into service no need to replace them.

57 minutes ago, Mace said:

So Concorde were never fitted with an FMC?   They used the INS right up to the end?

Correct, although it was the first aircraft to have INS with built-in memory to aide quick loading of stored waypoints - an early version of FMS!

There were feasibility studies happening before retirement of the aircraft to fit FMS and various other avionics that were going to become necessary for future operations.  They were quite far advanced at the time of the retirement announcement and look promising.  Personally though, I think it would have taken away a little bit of the charm.

@Ray Proudfoot a little Friday treat for those who haven't seen it.   Fast forward to around 11 mins in. 

 

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

@Ray Proudfoot a little Friday treat for those who haven't seen it.   Fast forward to around 11 mins in. 

Thanks Frazz. Watched from 11 to 25. Not seen that before. How humble was the Concorde / BA747 pilot in saving his and the other aircraft.

Plenty of Americans love the SST. ❤️

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thanks Frazz. Watched from 11 to 25. Not seen that before. How humble was the Concorde / BA747 pilot in saving his and the other aircraft.

Plenty of Americans love the SST. ❤️

Considering that our most overt contribution in the civil field is the Boeing Sonic Cruiser (heh), I'd say yes we love the SST.

For some reason to this day I still chuckle at that name.  The Sonic Cruiser.  It sounds like something you would shave with.

9 minutes ago, Mace said:

Considering that our most overt contribution in the civil field is the Boeing Sonic Cruiser (heh), I'd say yes we love the SST.

For some reason to this day I still chuckle at that name.  The Sonic Cruiser.  It sounds like something you would shave with.

You certainly come up with catchy names. 😁 I think only America called it the SST. To Brits it was always Concorde. Not THE Concorde of course, just Concorde even though there were seven of them.

57 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thanks Frazz. Watched from 11 to 25. Not seen that before. How humble was the Concorde / BA747 pilot in saving his and the other aircraft.

Plenty of Americans love the SST. ❤️

He is a very cool, calm, almost serious gentleman.  Just what you need when things go crazy in an airliner and it has to be said, they sometimes do!

To be honest, I've often wondered how the USA ATC system gets to do some of the things they do, and his story emphasises the point... Another one I'm not keen on is the practice of clearing multiple aircraft to land on approach as a kind of "unless you hear otherwise, you're clear".  The runway should be empty before receiving a clearance. 

@Ray Proudfoot Obviously tempted now! 🙂 Still find it mind blowing that I could choose whether to do a London-Athens rotation in the 320 or London-JFK rotation in the Concorde, and it takes the same amount of time.

Maybe now I would be interested in learning a "full-on" Concorde...........