Is Concorde really a "British" design? (2009 thread)

Technology for advancing the “state of the art is fine”…it’s simply hypocritical to disguise it as a commercial venture.
Besides, I doubt if the TU-144 did anything more tio advance Soviet aerospace than their many military probrams…and there seemed to be plenty of R&D funds for those, so was it really needed as a benefit for the industrial base?

As you can perhaps imagine, such projects as Tu 144 have military value and potential for usage as well. There were a number of serious studies by Tupolev for military use of Tu 144, and even some flight testing from one of the northern bases of Soviet Navy, I suppose to test the feasibility of use as an ELINT aircraft. But Tupolev instead decided to concentrate on Tu 22M and Tu 160, with a lot of engine and aerodynamics knowledge taken from Tu 144 program.
Pretty much in the same way as Boeing has military versions of B707, B747, B767 etc. So you really cant draw a border there, what is military and what is civilian.

At least the Concorde had a chance at commercial success (before the oil rice hike) because it gave them a product that America was not going to offer (the US program fell victim to the “green” lobby in congress, one of the first major successes of the environmental movement).

It depends on how you calculate commercial success. Its worth saying that Concorde was a state run project much like Tupolev, and British Airways also was 100% government owned when they began operating the type. Also R&D costs were written down by government to nil, so the “success” was pretty much the product of creative accounting.

The concept of a first class luxury airliner in a communist state shows how stupid and corrupt the USSR had become.

Well, the USSR was in certain way stupid and corrupt, but that has nothing to do with designing such magnificent and technically complicated aircraft. Otherwise it would be fair to say that USA were stupid and corrupt because Henry Ford built Edsel (studied since then as an example how the cars should not be built) or because North American built XB-70, which didn’t have even slim chance to do the job it was intended for.

Once again, his speech doesn’t explain why the human being should be there. Soviets stopped their manned moon program after US achieved that, as there was no prestige any more. But they fulfilled their scientific part of the moon program, having flown a number of unmanned expeditions, basically doing pretty much the same but without the complications of having life support systems.

Well I totally disagree, but we have wandered well off thread, as someone has pointed out, so it’s probably best left there.:)

Austin Allegro-body styling by an Italian.
As for what all Britsh built aircraft in use by the RAF- the only ones that come to mind are the Hawk, Nimrod and VC-10

You may be confusing this with the Austin A55 Cambridge of 1959 which did have bodywork designed by Pinninfarina and spawned the hugely successful family of A60 Cambridge, Westminster,Morris Oxford,MG Magnette,Riley, Wolseley and Vanden Plas R models. Pinninfarina also made the bodywork for the1968 BMC1800 which eventually became the Rover SD1
But the Morris Ital was NOT designed by any Italian, merely the Marina revised with Italian inspired design cues…..

We have every reason to be proud of the Hawk design and quality of manufacture…….and BA´s Concorde safety record speaks for itself.
Great old thread 🙂

I always thought that concorde was a slightly re modeled Avro 730

Its quite a coincidence to deny when you look at the profiles!

Answer is very simple. Prestige. The same logic applies for manned space program of both USSR and USA for example. Why the hell americans flew to the moon ? Absolutely no rational reason, other than to overtake USSR in the space race.

Technology for advancing the “state of the art is fine”…it’s simply hypocritical to disguise it as a commercial venture.
Besides, I doubt if the TU-144 did anything more tio advance Soviet aerospace than their many military probrams…and there seemed to be plenty of R&D funds for those, so was it really needed as a benefit for the industrial base?

At least the Concorde had a chance at commercial success (before the oil rice hike) because it gave them a product that America was not going to offer (the US program fell victim to the “green” lobby in congress, one of the first major successes of the environmental movement).

The concept of a first class luxury airliner in a communist state shows how stupid and corrupt the USSR had become.

The only was they could have filled it is by offering fast service from Havana to Miami…I can see the ads now, “Defect in 10 minutes..” 😀

We’ve well wandered from rm’s OP. Clearly Concorde is not a (solo) British design. Almost nothing is wholly “owned” by any one Nation, because design, science, knowledge ooze trans-border. That’s no reason for the point-of-release of a design to be modest about it. Conc. can go on a UK stamp, just as it can go on a stamp celebrating French designs/achievements.

rm suggested Lightning or Harrier as more “British”: tell that to M.Wibault who invented the gyre propulsion scheme (Harrier), or to the Westinghouse team whose AI radar work, ah, inspired, Lightning’s AIRPASS, or to the 1944 German teams whose IR sensor work, ah, inspired Firestreak AAM, and whose aerodynamics inspired Petter’s wing.

You missed this bit, which precedes your quote:
[/I][/B]

Once again, his speech doesn’t explain why the human being should be there. Soviets stopped their manned moon program after US achieved that, as there was no prestige any more. But they fulfilled their scientific part of the moon program, having flown a number of unmanned expeditions, basically doing pretty much the same but without the complications of having life support systems.

Yes Im too young to have heard his speech in 1962 😀 But of course I knew about it when I wrote my post. And this quote clearly illustrates my point:
“Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were “made in the United States of America” and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union” – so the goal was to overtake USSR at first place. For sure aerospace industry pushes related industries, which is also in his speech, but I was specifically referring to manned programs – there was purely prestige about that. Commercial space exploration doesn’t need man out there, communication satellites and ICBMs work fine without vulnerable human beings.

You missed this bit, which precedes your quote:

“There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.”

Was it standard practice in the USSR to prove the design as safe with qualification testing prior to certification? In the west mandatory testing is required to specifically locate just this kind of issue prior to the a/c being allowed to carry passengers. By way of an example, Concorde had a full size fuel system rig mounted on a pitch roll platform which simulated all flight conditions;- pressure’s, temp’s, vibration, Acc’s etc, etc. The number of simulated flights always had to be X times (5?) higher than the leading A/C in the fleet.

Well, this happened exactly during testing of new model Tu 144D (Dalniy = long range) before certification and for sure long before it would be allowed to carry passengers. Only crew was on board. Example with Concorde fuel system is a good one, but unpredictable design mistakes happen even in much less sophisticated aircraft. For example only after numerous crashes with a lot of fatalities due to the penetration of hydraulic lines (I think on Tristar and DC-10) were the plugs in the hydraulic system installed that prevented the loss of all fluid.

From what I’ve read the problem was in the shape of pipes, there were too many 90 degree curves for a high pressure pipe. Designers did not foresee that pressure peaks could gradually destroy the integrity of curved pipe.

Was it standard practice in the USSR to prove the design as safe with qualification testing prior to certification? In the west mandatory testing is required to specifically locate just this kind of issue prior to the a/c being allowed to carry passengers. By way of an example, Concorde had a full size fuel system rig mounted on a pitch roll platform which simulated all flight conditions;- pressure’s, temp’s, vibration, Acc’s etc, etc. The number of simulated flights always had to be X times (5?) higher than the leading A/C in the fleet.

Oh but there is a fundamental difference !
If you lose your flying controls on one side on a tailless delta,you lose control of the aircraft,because you only have roll control on the other wing…no pitch.
If you lose flying controls on one wing of a conventional a/c you retain pitch control for as long as the aircraft stays together !

This is exactly the thing ! if you have burning kerosene in the wing, your aircraft stays together for not so long.

I know the TU144 crash was caused by a fuel leak…but what caused the fuel leak (IE why did the pipe fail ?)

From what I’ve read the problem was in the shape of pipes, there were too many 90 degree curves for a high pressure pipe. Designers did not foresee that pressure peaks could gradually destroy the integrity of curved pipe.

[/I][/B]

You have clearly forgotten Kennedy’s speech or perhaps are too young to have heard it. It answers your question.

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

Yes Im too young to have heard his speech in 1962 😀 But of course I knew about it when I wrote my post. And this quote clearly illustrates my point:
“Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were “made in the United States of America” and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union” – so the goal was to overtake USSR at first place. For sure aerospace industry pushes related industries, which is also in his speech, but I was specifically referring to manned programs – there was purely prestige about that. Commercial space exploration doesn’t need man out there, communication satellites and ICBMs work fine without vulnerable human beings.

Answer is very simple. Prestige. The same logic applies for manned space program of both USSR and USA for example.[B][I] Why the hell americans flew to the moon ? Absolutely no rational reason, other than to overtake USSR in the space race.

[/I][/B]

You have clearly forgotten Kennedy’s speech or perhaps are too young to have heard it. It answers your question.

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

One of the reasons is that engines in Tu are spaced further apart so it could flew with burning wing longer..

How does that work then, particular if the fire is inboard or outboard of the engines?

Concorde (like all other FBW A/C) used duplicated and segregated control routing’s …..now I can see the sense in that.

How was tyre burst debris impact on the wing lower surface considered on the TU144?

My view on both liners is as follows – both were remarkable achievements for their time, and even for our time. And development of both was driven by politics/prestige. This is perhaps why rational americans pulled out from their project so early.

Both A/C were conceived when fuel costs were only a tiny percentage of the overall A/C operating cost both east or west of the iron curtain, in these conditions why not get everyone there a bit quicker regardless of class. About 1970 it all changed and the USA were in a position to quietly drop 2707.

BTW – NASA never even got the slightest bit close to conducted its CFD code validation on Concorde, for them it was TU144 or nothing.

Hadn’t seen this thread before it was bumped recently. In an attempt to answer the OP question, I’m surprised no one has referred to the Bristol (later BAC) Type 223 and the fact that the eventual Concorde design had elements of both T.223 and the Sud-Aviation Super Caravelle combined – see below. The T.223 was related to the earlier Bristol Type 198, which had six engines and titanium construction.

Image from Aviation Archive (www.aviationarchive.org.uk) which relates it to 1961, and it also appears in a review of the Concorde programme in the Flight Archive for 1965.

Sorry to intrude on the fun, back to the fanboy fight …

Ned

=kilgortrout;1700057] One of the reasons is that engines in Tu are spaced further apart so it could flew with burning wing longer.
.

Were you part of the design team then ??

=kilgortrout;1700057

Id say if you have a burning kerosene in the aircraft, it doesn’t matter where exactly, it it even less matters if its delta winged aircraft or normal one.

.

Oh but there is a fundamental difference !
If you lose your flying controls on one side on a tailless delta,you lose control of the aircraft,because you only have roll control on the other wing…no pitch.
If you lose flying controls on one wing of a conventional a/c you retain pitch control for as long as the aircraft stays together !

I know the TU144 crash was caused by a fuel leak…but what caused the fuel leak (IE why did the pipe fail ?)

Gross oversimplication of the concorde accident,the danger of tyre bursts on concorde was well understood – the a/c could/should have been modified earlier.
Aircraft accidents are rarely caused by one single factor,they are quite often a combination of circumstances (swiss cheese is the current fashionable yukspeak for it).

Its no more oversimplification than the statements here in topic like “In addition, both accidents are directly attributable to the aircraft itself (whatever theories exist about the Paris crash, ultimately, the cause was structural failure)” or “Tu 144 was a crap”.

One of the problems with slim delta airliners is that if you have a major fire in the wing then you will very quickly lose all pitch (elevator) control,because there are no independant elevators on a tailplane away from the fire area.

Id say if you have a burning kerosene in the aircraft, it doesn’t matter where exactly, it it even less matters if its delta winged aircraft or normal one.

It is one of the achilles heels I was referring to about concorde – but the same would apply to the TU144,in fact I believe that a TU144 was lost with a major wing fire…caused by ?????

2nd accident caused by the burst fuel line, however they were able to crash land it so the most of the crew survived. One of the reasons is that engines in Tu are spaced further apart so it could flew with burning wing longer.
My view on both liners is as follows – both were remarkable achievements for their time, and even for our time. And development of both was driven by politics/prestige. This is perhaps why rational americans pulled out from their project so early.

=kilgortrout;1699801
And the fatal accident of Concorde is real structural failure, not able to withstand a hit of rubber.

Gross oversimplication of the concorde accident,the danger of tyre bursts on concorde was well understood – the a/c could/should have been modified earlier.
Aircraft accidents are rarely caused by one single factor,they are quite often a combination of circumstances (swiss cheese is the current fashionable yukspeak for it).
British Airways maintained their concordes to very high standards – there are some stories of sloppy maintenance practices at AF.
One of the problems with slim delta airliners is that if you have a major fire in the wing then you will very quickly lose all pitch (elevator) control,because there are no independant elevators on a tailplane away from the fire area.It is one of the achilles heels I was referring to about concorde – but the same would apply to the TU144,in fact I believe that a TU144 was lost with a major wing fire…caused by ?????

As I intimated and suggested before, the untenable commercial position of the research, design and build, over shadows what the product if blessed with 737 development management skills and economics, would have been remembered for.

That is what I was hinting at with my (cough 3-11) comment,the brit government wanted to pull out of concorde,but the frogs would not let us (contractual) so therefore any money that possibly may have been available to develop a ‘bread and butter’ airliner was tied up in concord.
ISTR that launch aid (for the brits) to join the A300 programme was also denied.