FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1966
1966 - 0408.PDF
ftlGHT /nternowna/. 17 February 1966 247 AIR TRANSPORT LATEST CONCORDE FACTS ... IMPORTANT in relation to the expanding Weybridge contri- bution to the Concorde was the RAeS branch lecture on Feb- ruary 9 by M Pierre Satre, technical director, Sud Aviation, and technical director of the Concorde project. Symbolic of the appreciation of M Satre's presence was the capacity audience and the appropriate introduction in French by Sir George Edwards, the branch president. In M Satre's lucid exposd of the design philosophy, choice of significant parameters, and progress of the Concorde, a number of interesting new points were made. He also strongly affirmed his support of a "European aircraft industry which is our only chance of surviving in front of the giant American and Russian competition" to which, he said, the Franco/ British consortium for the Concorde was the first step. Design weights were quoted as: maximum take-off, 340,0001b; maximum landing 207,0001b. Maximum usable fuel is 185,0001b and average capacity payload is 28,0001b, which corresponds to 140 passengers seated at 34in pitch with a galley at each end of the cabin and a total of three toilets. On the sensitivity to reserve fuel quantity an increase of lib in the load to be carried called for an extra lib of fuel and thus 21b increase in take-off weight. Realistic block speed on a long stage will be about l.OOOkt (1,150 m.p.h.), taking into account a 22min Concorde 001 fin assembly and machined skin panels as seen at Wey- bridge by M Satre last week (see story on this page). Weybridge is also responsible for the nose fuselage section of the prototypes and is handling the design and construction of these components and the rear fuselage for the pre-production aircraft allowance for engine starting, taxi-out, take-off, acceleration to climb speed, airborne manoeuvring time, landing and taxi-in. Take-off performance will be comparable to that of today's jets, even though there are no high-lift devices. This is due to the natural lift-increasing leading-edge vortices—which increase the linear-flow lift by about 30 to 50 per cent with a further 50 per cent increase at touch-down due to favourable ground effect; low (901b sq ft) wing loading; and the supersonic flight power required which results in a thrust-weight ratio of 0.4 for the Concorde compared with 0.22 for the 707 and DCS. M Satre's description of the advantages of the widespread use of integrally machined structural components—about 5,000 parts weighing 26,0001b and milled from billets originally weighing 265,0001b—needed no emphasis at Weybridge. The retractable droop nose and visor afforded a drag reduction which represented a 10,000-15,0001b saving in take-off weight as compared with the fixed-nose configuration. Over 4,000hr of wind-tunnel testing have been accumulated in approximately 50 wind tunnels in England, France and Holland. Two simplified simulators are in use for investigating piloting and stability characteristics for prototype development. A com- plete simulator, with a full-scale flight-deck, mounted on a mobile platform with three degrees of freedom, is being in- stalled at Toulouse and is to be connected directly with Orly Airport ATC to simulate actual missions. M Satre confirmed that the first Concorde prototype— assembled by Sud—is scheduled to start flying in March 1968, closely followed by the second—BAC assembled—prototype flying from Filton, with pre-production aircraft appearing in 1969 and the first production Concorde in 1970. The present order book stands at 50 aircraft for 11 customers, four being from the USA—which, in the light of the growing reality of the programme is "remarkable illustration that we have with Concorde an unprecedented opportunity to challenge the US manufacturers in their own market." . . . AND COSTS REPLYING to questions in the House of Commons on Feb- ruary 10, Mr John Stonehouse, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, said that he could not confirm the pub- lished figures of increased costs for the Concorde (see Flight last week, page 208, where we reported that the total costs might now have risen to £385-400 million). But he admitted that there had been an increase and that this "must give some concern." There had been a certain amount of inflation in cost since the last estimates were presented. Specifications had also been revised by a new system providing a more accurate apprecia- tion and identity of the costs involved. Expenses incurred after the C of A, which would be quite consderable, were now being included in the assessment. The programme was going very well and was on time. It was hoped that the first prototype would be flying some time early in 1968. The conference that was to take place on the financial costs was, he said, not exceptional; it was to have been held in any case. On both sides of the Channel there had to be rigorous control of expenditure to make sure that these developments took place at the least cost to the taxpayer. Mr Stonehouse confirmed that joint production arrangements increased the costs. The Concorde would have been less expensive if develop- ment had been in Britain or in France, but it would have been impossible for Britain or France to have "gone it alone." They had to ensure that the huge cost of research and development on the Concorde was justified to the taxpayer and also make sure that the return on this massive investment would be sufficient to justify it. In this they had a common interest with the French, who were spending a similar sum.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
