| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Peter Mugridge |
John Ernsting, who had influence on Concorde's design, has died. |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1796 (01/07/09 12:43) |
Obituary in the Daily Telegraph today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/air-force-obituaries/5701286/Air-Vice-Marshal-Professor-John-Ernsting.html |
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7471 (01/07/09 16:31) |
So he's the one who insisted on those little windows?
Someone we can all take off our hat to...... CJ |
||
|
brider |
|||
|
Posts: 582 (01/07/09 17:21) |
A former Concorde flight engineer told me that it would still be possible to maintain a reasonable cabin pressure if TWO windows were broken at 60,000 ft as
their area would match the area of the fresh air input manifold. Does this seem reasonable? Obviously it would not be very comfortable for the adjacent
passengers...
|
||
|
gzk6nk |
|||
|
Posts: 426 (01/07/09 19:50) |
brider wrote: |
||
|
bentleyboyz |
|||
|
Posts: 659 (01/07/09 19:57) |
an emergecy descent to around 10,000ftIf I recall this would involve using the reverse buckets on 2 engines is that correct? if so would it be at full throttle on those 2? |
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2950 (01/07/09 20:15) |
Paul use of the reverse thrust Buckets in flight is at Idle Power not FULL POWER. as you may get told by a Pilot the reason why if we are lucky.
 
|
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7473 (01/07/09 20:22) |
Hand-copied from a graph in Chris Orlebar's book and annotatted for a French forum (no flat-bed scanner at hand). One window (hublot) and all four aircon-pressurisation packs (groupes) working....... OK, with the oxygen masks. One window and only three packs (groupes) working... Still OK but you'd be very happy to have the oxygen masks. Two windows.. not shown, but probably much the same case as one pack u/s. Still needed a pretty vigorous descent by the aircraft ('avion' curve). CJ |
||
|
gzk6nk |
|||
|
Posts: 427 (01/07/09 21:17) |
Thanks, CJ. Excellent info. It's years since I read Christopher's book. Have to drag it off the shelf and re-read.
|
||
|
Peter Mugridge |
|||
|
Posts: 1797 (01/07/09 22:00) |
I notice, Christiaan, that the descent graph starts from 65,000ft and not the actual service ceiling of 60,000ft.
Was that the originally intended cruising height, or is it a case of the graph starting from the higher altitude used for certification testing in case of a problem on the tests? Meanwhile, following this latest obituary, one has to wonder at how many of the Concorde design team are still around? Probably be very difficult to establish; it's probably difficult enough to establish just how many people were involved in the design in the first place? As a footnote, saw the two part James May programme on BBC2 this week and last week about his flight in a U2 in order to see the curvature of Earth. Maybe he should have tried a more comfortable alternative prior to October 2003... :-) |
||
|
brider |
|||
|
Posts: 583 (02/07/09 07:33) |
Of course, a briefcase could be used to restrict the flow of escaping air through such a small window and, presumably, the valves controlling the egress of
'stale' air would probably close to try to maintain cabin pressure. On a quiz show (Q.I.) recently a question was asked about the effects of banning
smoking on aeroplanes and the answer was that airlines realised that they would not have to change the air so often, so they reduced the flow, thereby saving
fuel...
|
||
|
Fred |
|||
|
Posts: 205 (26/07/09 00:45) |
A BA engineer once explained to me that, inherent with modern commercial aircraft design, was a redundancy by which, in the event of explosive decompression, a
relatively large part of the airframe will blow out and disconnect. He said that this was deemed preferable to massive decompression through a small, rigid,
aperture, which could ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the airframe. He was very clear about this as a design plan. Was he right?
|
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7503 (26/07/09 22:21) |
Fred,
I'd have to see more of the background to his statement to be able to comment on it. The one thing I know is that, with full oxygen available, an explosive decompression at FL400 is just about survivable, even if a rapid descent is vastly preferable.... That is about the maximum altitude where the majority of longer-range commercial flights fly nowadays. For Concorde, at FL600, that was definitely no longer the same. I'm sure it would not have been a pleasant experience.... just as well that in 27 years of service, it never happened. CJ |
||
