Phil Perry Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 With long fuselages the cockpit is a long way forward of the mainwheels, which is where it counts. The nosewheel may not touchdown for another 600 metres. Concorde approaches at a high fuselage angle with the cockpit section angled down. Nev Thanks for that Nev,. . . some of the kids might not know that ( ! ) . . .I think the comments made by the ex-F/O were intended to be amusing, rather than technically correct, but it was most entertaining hering about some of the things, funny and not so funny which went on during the development phase. . . . I wonder if we'll ever see another commercial / passenger carrying SST again ? ? ? . . .probably not in what's left of MY lifetime anyhow . . . they ( the scientific wallahs ) will have to find a means of quietening down the sonic boom. . . . bit like inventing "Whisper Mode" on stealth rotorcraft really . . . . Phil.
facthunter Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 From what I gathered at the time, that would be one hell of an endorsement. Very critical aeroplane to operate, and in some ways, pretty crude and using outdated systems and Parts. The one that crashed in France, did so as a result of quite a few errors, but I think it was the only one to crash. Good effort really, under the circumstances. Nev
Phil Perry Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 From what I gathered at the time, that would be one hell of an endorsement. Very critical aeroplane to operate, and in some ways, pretty crude and using outdated systems and Parts. The one that crashed in France, did so as a result of quite a few errors, but I think it was the only one to crash. Good effort really, under the circumstances. Nev The project began a very long time before the the first aircraft was constructed Nev, so I can well agree that some of the structure/ systems would have been throwbacks to an earlier age. . . . and the French accident investigators blamed a U.S. company aircraft for dropping FOD on the runway cauing a fuel system rupture; the entire fleet was retrofitted with protective plating on underside areas which might be compromised by anything trown upwards by the U/C, . . .then all of them were grounded and scrapped. Branson tried to buy a few for Virgin SST, but the Brit Government wouldn't allow it. . . and the yanks didn't want a BRITISH /FRENCH supersonic aircraft on their soil. . . . . which woulld only leave the Bahrain / Australia route, which would not have been viable. Although Concord very rarely flew without all seats occupied on Any route,. . .the politicians on both sides of the Atlantic bashed the project. Again,. . .very sad outcome . Phil.
facthunter Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The plane was overweight out of balance and a spacer left out of the left wheel assembly. It was tracking to one side of the strip, nowhere near centreline when it lifted off. . There's more to it than the fod.Nev
Phil Perry Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The plane was overweight out of balance and a spacer left out of the left wheel assembly. It was tracking to one side of the strip, nowhere near centreline when it lifted off. . There's more to it than the fod.Nev Yes Nev, so I gather from the voluminous reports generated by that accident . . . and the well - worn comment "Lessons have been learned. . ." appeared in there somewhere near the end of it, the lesson apparently learned by the pollies being that "We don't really need SST aircraft anymore . . ." Still sad.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now